Agenda item

To determine the applications.

Tracy Ranger presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rakesh Ganger, an objector to the application. Mr Ganger stated that he is a direct neighbour, and expressed the opinion  that the five dwellings at the rear of the building, which were originally the dancefloor, are overdevelopment with poor internal amenity space for future residents, assuming that there will be families with children in cramped living conditions with no private communal outdoor space. He added that the developer has not provided measurements which could be assessed against technical housing standards and national prescribed space standard to see if they meet the minimum requirement for internal living space and no detail of the roof height for the three two–bedroomed dwellings and he questioned how the development improves the economic and social development and the well-being of Wisbech and the residents.

Mr Ganger questioned the idea of toilets being approved to work as a buffer for noise which has been suggested in the proposal for new residents as, in his opinion, the toilets in a nightclub can often have cases of screaming, shouting, singing, crying and vomiting. He referred to the 1973 document which shows the change of use for the restaurant, club and offices but has no mention of a nightclub and he explained that when he received notification of the application, he was advised that there was no subsequent supporting evidence with the application in 1973. He was advised that neighbours have direct contact with the Planning Officer and there has been no mention of the other paperwork being available.

Mr Ganger stated that Mendi’s has previously been a member only club due to its location within a Conservation Area and the previous owners have stated that the premises was not a nightclub and was a dance floor with bar and restaurant which they had owned since 1976. He added that the officer’s report fails to mention the address on the 1973 document is incorrect as it shows part of his address which he feels raises questions over General Data Protection Regulations and he questioned its validity.

Mr Ganger explained that there are two addresses on the report, one of which is his address with the other address belonging to the proposed applicant and he made the point that it is important for the Council to be aware of how the buildings are situated in order to understand the severity of the nightclub next door. He added that having spoken to some elected members, they seem to be under the impression that because he has lived next to Mendis for the last 21 years, the planning application would have little impact on him and his family.

Mr Ganger stated that the dance area is currently situated at the back of the building in Exchange Square which is detached from his home with a private car park in between and, therefore, music noise has never been a problem for him, although the entrance is from the front of the Old Market and the doors were closed at 10.30pm which he added does not resemble the actions of a nightclub. He expressed the view that the new proposal converts the old dance floor into dwellings that rest on the building solely as a nightclub and bar area immediately adjacent to his living area and the nightclub will be situated on the other side of his bedroom wall.

Mr Ganger explained that the Environmental Health Team have advised him that no amount of sound proofing will reduce the vibrations that will be felt throughout his home and that although an insulated party wall has been proposed, there has been no details provided with regards to what materials will be used, and whether its going to be a stud wall, breeze block or brick wall and there is no sound proofing included within the plan. He stated that there will still be significant vibrations felt throughout his home on top of little or no effort to soundproof the party wall and there has been no provision made for the flat roof that his bedroom joins for noise reduction.

Mr Ganger stated that the data from the Crime Prevention Design Team concerning the application was inaccurate in the representation over the last two years which was during lockdown. He referred to LP16 of the Local Plan which states does not adversely impact on amenity of neighbours use such as noise, light pollution and privacy and he explained that noise is his biggest concern followed by anti-social behaviour as three of the windows are present and will overlook his private garden space.

Mr Ganger stated that the report does not make reference to noise from any clubbers entering and exiting the premises which he has already encountered when the ownership of the premises changed last year and there were logs made and passed to Environmental Health. He stated that he lives in a Conservation Area with large single panel windows and noise echoes through the Old Market Square upwards in a chamber, with there being a young family who reside on the other side of Mendis who are also concerned on the impact of the proposal. 

Mr Ganger stated that there have been recent sightings of bats and at 11.1 of the officer’s report it is stated that the proposal will not cause significant adverse harm to the street scene or the character of the Conservation Area, however, in his opinion, when the premises was open for three months last year his experience was somewhat different, with broken bottles found at the front of his property, windowsills left covered in vomit and rubbish left and he questioned how it can be considered to be in character within a Conservation Area just around the corner from North Brink. He explained that he also had to ensure the slamming of doors until 2am in the morning which caused vibration through his home and, in his view, that demonstrates how close they are to him in his home.

Mr Ganger expressed the opinion that Mendi’s has been a great asset to many locals of Wisbech making many memories from evenings out, but the proposal will not be the same Mendis in his view. He added that the supporting comments are from people who remember Mendis for what it was and from their experience, although it has the same name and location it will be very different and without the restaurant it will lose the family appeal that it has always attracted, with people of all ages having been there.

Mr Ganger questioned whether the proposal is actually providing a sustainable mode when it is only proposed to be open for one night a week on a Saturday. He stated that the impact of noise will have a huge impact on his health and mental well-being, and he asked the committee to consider whether the proposal is acceptable in having a nightclub a brick away from his bedroom when he has resided there for 20 years, and it will mean that the business that he has operated for 21 years will be lost.

Members asked Mr Ganger the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that in 1973 the application site had planning permission for a nightclub, restaurant and bar and he asked Mr Ganger whether he was aware of the business that was operating at the site when he moved to his address? Mr Ganger confirmed that he was.

·         Councillor Hicks asked Mr Ganger whether he would be happy if a noise limiter was installed to assist with the noise levels omitting from the dance floor? Mr Ganger responded that he would be happy but only if it does not disturb his peace but if he can hear it in his bedroom while they are sleeping then no. Councillor Hicks stated that the way a noise limiter works is when there is an unacceptable level of decibels then the music cuts out and resets but it would work permanently so that as soon as a certain level of noise is reached then it would automatically cut out. Councillor Hicks explained that Environmental Health will assess what is an acceptable level of noise within the nightclub. Mr Ganger stated that what is to say that what they consider to be acceptable may not be considered as acceptable to him and his family. Councillor Hicks explained that the Environmental Health Team will work with both parties to reach a satisfactory resolution. Mr Ganger reiterated that his concern is that it is right near his bedroom, and it will disturb his peace.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the Environmental Health Team will come to his home to discuss noise levels.

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Ganger to clarify that he has lived there for 21 years, and he asked how many days a week was the previous Mendis open for as a nightclub? Mr Ganger stated that it was open for 6 days a week and closed on a Monday. Councillor Marks asked Mr Ganger to clarify what his concern is, and Mr Ganger stated that it is the level of noise and also the customers creating anti-social behaviour when they exit the club as that will mean engines running and cars hooting at 2.00am in the morning. He added that he had to endure that for the three months that the current owner operated the premises a short while ago.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Chris Walford, the agent. Mr Walford stated that Mendis has been a landmark in Wisbech for many years and it has planning consent and a license granted, held and maintained since the 1970’s for a range of activities on both floors including recorded and live music, dancing and the sale of alcohol. He expressed the view that Mendis closure after the Covid lockdown was a significant loss to the town of Wisbech and the applicant purchased it with the aim to refurbish and reopen it, but due to the running costs and the amount of footfall, it will no longer be viable to open every day of the week and, therefore, it will be operating on a reduced schedule.

Mr Walford added that although permission is in place to do more it was felt that it was good gesture to reduce those hours to the more key hours and ultimately not every night of the week. He stated that in order to sustain the business the venue has been condensed down to a more realistic and appropriate size which has allowed for four townhouses and a flat to be added at the back within the redesign, which will assist the business with an additional income stream and assist with sustaining the business.

Mr Walford explained that within the officer’s report it explains that in terms of the club and the venue it is not a change of use as they have permission to run it and the change of use is aimed at the residential part towards the rear. He stated that the rest of the operation is all lawful and there is a dance floor upstairs at the front, along with a DJ booth and a bar all on the same party walls and the main change will be the dance floor on the ground floor which will be brought forward.

Mr Walford explained that the internal alterations will include a reconfigured staircase, a larger core which adds an acoustic barrier to one of the party walls, and following guidance from the Environmental Health Officer an additional internal acoustic party wall upgrade detail which has been included on both sides of the entire length of both side walls and on both floors to aid the neighbouring properties. He made the point that he is happy for a condition to be added for the detail of that to be agreed with a specialist such as an acoustic specialist.

Mr Walford added that with regards to the noise limiter as long as it was within a level decided by a specialist then he would be in agreement for that to be put it in place. He explained that he has worked closely with officers, including Conservation, Housing and Environmental Health, as well as Crime Prevention and the Environment Agency who are all in support of the proposal.

Members asked Mr Walford the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Walford to clarify that he is willing to fund an accepted condition for sound proofing and acoustic barriers? Mr Walford confirmed that is correct and made the point that currently there is a free-standing wall with a 100ml clear cavity against the current wall and then a free-standing wall. He added that because it is on both floors and due to the length, it probably would be a timber detail and whilst it could be masonry, it adds another level of structural support issue. Mr Walford stated that he has used timber party walls and separating walls to Building Regulation standards before and if the committee agree there is the space, and it can be done on both sides.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Walford to confirm hat he would be happy to work with Mr Ganger if the committee approve the proposal? Mr Walford stated that he would be happy for Mr Ganger to attend the meetings with the acoustic specialists to agree the levels of noise. Councillor Connor stated that should the proposal be approved all parties need to be happy and he asked whether there will be doorman on duty for the nightclub? Mr Walford made the point that it is a club and has been for many years and the entrance has not and will not be moving and, therefore, people will congregate at the front. He explained that there was also a rear entrance which was the smoking area and was on the road in Exchange Square and, in his opinion, the fact that was moving away meant that the anti-social behaviour which used to take place at the back of the property would cease as it is a residential area, and the road is quiet. He added that he has noticed that noise levels reduce significantly since the closure of the club as his office is nearby and, in his opinion, the proposal of the houses will bring the area back up as a level of surveillance and it removes the smoking area and the congregation that used to take place. Mr Walford stated that with regards to the front of the property it has always been and will be the entrance of the club and he made the point that a management plan could be put in place and then there could be doorman who could control that door. He added that the noise from car doors cannot be stopped as it is a public road but as much mitigation will be included within the remit of door staff.  Councillor Connor added that he would like to see a management plan included and appropriate signage erected to advise those attending the club to respect the neighbours.

·         Councillor Marks asked where the new smoking area will be? Mr Walford stated that that will now be at the front of the club which is similar to the Kings Head Public House which is opposite the club. He made the point that there is still a rear entrance and if the decision was made then a rear entrance is still in place, which is a fire escape exit, and an area could be put in place for smokers. Mr Walford explained that the nature and characteristics of the application mean that certain aspects, such as a bin collection point, has to be located within what is already on the site as it is bookended and shoehorned in, and it is a very old building.  He expressed the opinion that the logical place would be out the front of the premises, which is under the surveillance of the doorman, whereas previously it was an unmanned area.

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether provision for ashtrays has been considered at the front of the premises? Mr Walford stated that there is not provision now for ashtrays but there could be as there is a wall where one could be situated.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the side arched door as shown on the presentation belongs to the application site or another premises? Mr Walford explained that it belongs to the flat next door.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the objector has made reference to the antisocial behaviour which takes place outside of the premises and he asked Mr Walford makes attempts to clear up any mess which is left within the curtilage of the premises. Mr Walford explained that he is the agent, but he added that it would be fair to say that anything within the realms of the applicant’s frontage would be something that the applicant would want to keep tidy, however, it is a town centre location.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that the noise is obviously a concern, and the applicant has stated that they will make acoustic changes to make it better and he asked whether that can be conditioned? Nick Harding confirmed that a condition is detailed within the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that if the condition can be imposed, she will fully support the proposal. She added that she would hope that the acoustic noise barriers will assist the noise so that the residents do not suffer.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he will be happy to support the proposal as long as there is a condition to state that there are 2 reasonable sized ashtrays placed outside the frontage along with the acoustic changes and a noise limiter. Nick Harding stated that with regard to the ashtrays it would not be appropriate to bring that under planning control. He added that with regards to the noise limiter, consideration does needs to be given to the fact that the nightclub is an existing business and the reason for looking at noise mitigation is because a new development is being introduced into the same physical building that contains the nightclub, which is going to be of benefit to a third-party occupiers and owners. Nick Harding explained that the proposed condition requires details of noise mitigation to be provided and he expressed the opinion that he would not wish to be specific with regards to a noise limiter being utilised due to the fact that it may not actually be necessary in order for the appropriate noise and vibration levels to be achieved. He explained that when the details are submitted, they will be assessed by the Environmental Health Team, and they will assess the balance between the acoustic mitigation against the amount of noise that is likely to be generated which may well require the noise to be controlled from the disco or the live music, which is a matter to be addressed through the discharge of condition process.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he is pleased that the agent and applicant have stated that they will liaise with Mr Ganger to reach a satisfactory resolution.

·         Councillor Marks asked Nick Harding to clarify whether the noise mitigation has to be undertaken for the new premises and not for existing tenants? Nick Harding stated that as a consequence of the noise mitigation being put in that will not only be to the benefit of the occupiers of the proposed units but also the third parties as well.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney stated that there is an established building in place, and he made the point that planning is about land use, with a great deal of what has been discussed being to do with licensing and the management of the premises and the Licensing Manager at the Council will deal with any issues. He expressed the view that with regards to the structure in terms of putting the soundproofing in, is not something for the committee to consider. Councillor Benney made the point that whether or not the proposal will add to the anti-social behaviour falls to speculation, because until the premises is operating it is not known what issues will arise and that should the proposal be approved, any issues will be dealt with by the appropriate teams such as Licensing or Environmental Health. He expressed the view that the proposal is policy compliant, and the officer’s recommendation is to approve and providing the sound proofing is introduced and the agent fulfils his promise to work with the objector to reach a satisfactory resolution, in his opinion, the application cannot be refused. He made the point that no restriction should be placed on the business owner and any consequences on what he does or does not do will be picked up by the relevant teams.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillor Benney, and added that more housing in Wisbech is also being gained, with this being, in his view, a good application. He added that those purchasing the houses will know that there is a nightclub in the vicinity, and it is their choice whether they choose to buy there or not. Councillor Marks stated that it is a good application and whilst a lot has been said about anti-social behaviour that does not fall under the remit of the Planning Committee and he will fully support the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a shortage of flats, this proposal will include a flat in the town centre and she will support it.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he thinks it is a very good planning application which opens up space for housing and whilst there is a question over amenity space those purchasers will know that when they choose to live there. He stated that Wisbech Town Council have made a comment over parking spaces, however, that is not material consideration in a town centre location, and he will support the proposal.

F/YR23/0415/F

Proposed by Councillor French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

F/YR23/0413/A

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Imafidon left the Council Chamber for the entirety of this item due to having a previous vested interest in the premises)