The committee then went on to receive a verbal report from an officer about items 5&6 (which were taken together). A previous refused application had gone to the Planning Inspector who had overturned the decision. The application was for improving the circulation of people within the restaurant, increasing its capacity and to simplify the design. The second application was for varying the hours, which would affect the extension too. This would lead to an hour later opening until midnight and on New Years Eve until 2am. Reference was made to the lawful development certificate.
A petitioner addressed the committee who was against the application. They introduced themselves as Steve Fitzsimmons, the Chair of the local Residents Association who lived behind the restaurant. He referred them to the written report specifically the section on Appearance and Ameneties. He disputed the fact stated there that the footprint of the building wouldn’t be extended. He mentioned the Greenbelt and that thirty two out of the forty local households had signed the petition.
He mentioned the road (Banks Road) and how traffic was causing problems for dog walkers and birdwatchers and also mentioned a blind spot and near accidents. He then went onto mention parking and the local public car park and the effect on residents on nights of private parties. He also mentioned illegal parking and disturbance. He said nearly two hundred people leaving tend to disturb residents.
He carried on talking about noise disturbance. He went into the history of applications and how the new design wouldn’t fit in with the existing properties. Overlooking and privacy issues were also mentioned including blocking of light. He then went onto talk about the Equality Act/Disability Discrimination aspects of the application and said it shouldn’t be used as a special circumstance. He said the existing toilet could be improved and was inappropriate in the Green Belt/Coastal Area. He referred to the Planning Inspector’s decision.
