Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Johnson, the applicant. Mr Johnson stated that the original fence design was based on fences previously built and designed by English Brothers for Highways England without any specific data to work from to ensure it was suitable for his site and it became clear that the pre-made panels would be too big and heavy to easily be handled and erected on site. He made the point that they were asked not to include an acoustic fence in his first submission for conservation reasons but it was requested by the committee.

Mr Johnson stated that realising that he might need some data to go along with an acoustic fence he contacted a firm specialising in designing and installing acoustic fences and they had a computer programme that required him giving them data for parameters but it was a rough and ready tool at best and ended up with a 2.4 metre fence submission. He made the point that post Covid the price of timber has increased and if they are investing a vast sum of money in a fence it needed to be fit for purpose not unnecessarily costly or over engineered and he felt he had no route other than to commission a bonafide acoustic engineer to model the site and carry out a full noise investigation.

Mr Johnson stated that the results confirmed what he expected but to a much greater degree, with the levels monitored from all receptors recorded in the lowest possible table category of none or not significant and were very comfortably inside the upper limit of this category. He asked the engineer if the difference was virtually undetectable to the human ear and he confirmed exactly that and he requested that the engineer include this sentence in the report as he felt it would be more relatable to those who were not used to the technical language but he confirmed that the regulatory body with whom they were affiliated did not permit such a sentence because there is always a chance that someone can produce a person with the hearing of a bat.

Mr Johnson expressed the view that whilst there does not appear to be a document to make it absolute fact it is a long-standing well-known understanding within the planning system that the minimum 1.8 fence to a garden is an agreeable height in order to protect neighbour’s private amenity in terms of overlooking. He added that Peter Humphrey Associates confirmed he had never asked for anything over 1.8 metres between gardens and has never been asked to make a fence 2 metres for that reason, with it being documented in permitted development guides relating to heights of windows that if a window is over 1.7 metres above the internal floor level it is not considered an overlooking issue and also most people are under 1.8 metres tall, which is relevant as add to this the distance between ones eyes and the top of their head is about 6 inches, especially for a tall person, only people over 7 foot tall would have a chance of seeing over a 2 metre fence.

Mr Johnson stated that he is not in a financial position to waste money, some months he makes a profit and some months he does not, and a 2.4 metre fence would require 44 x 3.3 metre gate posts to support the fence, with a 2 metre fence requiring more standard heavy duty posts but at half the cost. He added that there would also be less wastage in materials as standard lengths work much better for 2 metre fences than 2.4 metre fences, with a 2.4 metre fence requiring working platforms and a 2 metre fence can be constructed with feet on the ground.

Mr Johnson referred to trading since Covid, with people’s social habits being very much different and they now close an hour earlier each day and often sooner than their advertised hours and his busy periods are no longer late in the evening, with people coming out earlier and leaving earlier.

Members asked questions of Mr Johnson as follows:

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows the site and he owns multiple pubs as well so he knows the challenges the industry is facing. He asked how will granting this application now impact the business? Mr Johnson responded that there is a need to extend the car parking and reducing the height of the fence could potentially reduce the cost of construction by nearly half, therefore, the benefits of the extra 40cm are small but the cost to the business are high as he does not know when they would be able to spend possibly £40,000 and even £20,000 for a 2 metre fence is going to take some time to find the money. He made the point that no other car parks or pubs in Fenland are forced to suffer an acoustic fence.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked further about the benefits to the business as well? Mr Johnson responded that the business is drawing from a wider demographic not just local people walking to the pub, people using the pub are coming more for food and from further distances so are using cars and sometimes there will be 4 cars out the front and it is impacting the local community for parking and it is making people drive past thinking the pub is busy when it is not. Councillor Imafidon agreed with this as when he went to view the proposal he did struggle to park even though the pub was not open at this time.

·         Councillor Marks asked if there had been any noise complaints at the pub within the last 3 years? Mr Johnson responded that there has not been an upheld complaint but there are neighbours attached that were not suited to buying a house attached to a 200 year old pub and they did raise complaints, with Environmental Health monitoring the sound and said there was not a complaint to be made. Councillor Marks asked if this was one neighbour and not anyone else? Mr Johnson replied that it was a difficult neighbour who influenced other neighbours but not recently and they have not fallen foul of anything.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the acoustic fence is for the car park so it is really for transient car noise as opposed to music which you would expect to find in a pub? Mr Johnson confirmed that the acoustic fence is purely for the predominantly now electric hybrid arriving on the near silent tarmacked planings that have been put down as a base so it is ready to go and support his business.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the proposal is approved when is it likely to be installed? She added that she knows the site as it sits in her County Council Division and many years ago, approximately 15 years ago, there were serious noise complaints but when Licensing undertook a site inspection it was actually the priest hole within the private property which was butting onto the wall and she believes this priest hole had to be filled in so she is not concerned about that type of noise it is just the car park. Mr Johnson responded that he does not think it was a priest hole but a void which became the porch for the adjoining property and was central to a single building but they did not pay their fire insurance and the right hand side was burnt to the ground, which was later half built back as a forge so the priest hole was a void and people have wonderful stories about what it was. He stated that once they know what they are dealing with he will get some quotes, with the last quote he got pre-Covid was for £27,000 plus VAT and timber prices did triple, and what the next steps will be as it is a big investment. Councillor Connor stated that what Councillor Mrs French is saying when is it envisioned starting once he has undertaken investigation. Mr Johnson responded that he would like to commence this year, within 6 months. Councillor Mrs French stated this is good as members have considered this proposal previously but made the point that if approved there should be 2 years to undertake the work anyway.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if when the pub is closed is the car park locked and when it is open it is open and closed half an hour before opening and closure of the pub? Mr Johnson confirmed this to be correct and he would like his staff to park at the furthest part of the car park from the pub, which is the area that is less convenient for customers and the chef and kitchen staff will arrive earlier so the gates will be opened when the staff arrive and be closed when the staff leave and it is not in his interest to leave his land open to problems.

·         Councillor Hicks asked if this land had been used in the Summer months for beer festivals and outside events as it could, in his view, be repurposed. Mr Johnson responded that the reality is that they would not require it to be a car park to do this as they could apply for a TENs licence, however, he has no interest in doing this and they only want to park cars on it and it cannot be serviced from the pub as a beer garden as you have to walk 100 metres down the road, then across the front and into the pub to get a drink or go to the toilet so it would not be practicable.

Councillor Connor reminded members that they are not debating the established use of the car park and only if a 2 metre acoustic fence is appropriate and made the point that the Environmental Health Officer has no issues.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation, with the update to Condition 1.