Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00572/FUL in respect of Installation of extract fan system to rear elevation, 1 Bartholomew Street, Newbury, RG14 5LL.

2.      Ms Harriet Allen (Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Giorgio Marcello, objector, Mr Mehmet Erturk, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.      Mr Marcello addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

5.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       When asked if Mr. Marcello currently experienced noise or smells from the premises and if he had ever recorded them with the Council, Mr. Marcello confirmed he sometimes did, but he had not officially reported them.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Erturk addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Mr. Erturk confirmed he would have the system maintained regularly, as it was essential for his business. He stated that the system would be serviced every three to six months and he could provide invoices to prove this. He believed it would be an overall improvement for his staff and customers.

·       The café was currently open from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and closed on Wednesdays. The hours may extend to 8:00 pm in the summer but there were no plans for late-night opening.

·       The purpose of the new system was to move the smoke and smells from inside the café to the outside, as the internal system was not working effectively.

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

9.      Regarding a question on whether the flue was high enough to prevent odours from wafting back down and effecting neighbours. Officers confirmed that the impact at the proposed height had been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer and deemed acceptable with the proposed high-grade filtration system. Officers noted there were no specific height regulations for such flues as there were for wood burners

10.   Officers explained that while a long-term monitoring condition would be unreasonable, if a resident experienced unacceptable levels of noise or odour, they could report it to the Environmental Health team. If the equipment was found to be faulty or in breach of a condition, it would become an enforcement matter.

11.   Regarding a question on if the Council had received many complaints about noise or smells from residents living above other town-centre establishments. Officers stated that without the Environmental Health Officer present, they did not have that data, however, officers were aware that some complaints had been made.

12.   The application was for permanent approval, and no application would be required to remove it.

13.   Officers confirmed that the application had a post-installation survey condition, not a long-term monitoring condition.

14.   The Environmental Health Officer had assessed the proposal at the specified height and concluded it would not cause unacceptable harm. The Committee had to assess the application as submitted and rely on the Environmental Health Officer’s expert advice in the absence of contrary technical evidence.

15.   Officers suggested a condition could be added for a management and monitoring programme. Following clarification from Councillor Adrian Abbs that he sought a one-off test rather than regular monitoring, officers agreed that Condition 6 could be expanded to require a verification report, including the results of initial commissioning tests, with the final wording delegated to officers.

Debate

16.   Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate, stating that it was important to get such applications right for the future of the town centre, which would likely see more mixed-use developments. He felt the discussion had led to an acceptable conclusion with the proposed additional conditions. While acknowledging the objector's life might not be improved, he questioned if it was reasonable to refuse the application for what might be a slight increase in discomfort.

17.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj was struck by the fact the applicant was seeking to improve the current conditions for the health and safety of staff and customers, as well as for his business. He sympathised with the objector's concerns but felt that, on balance, the proposal was acceptable, noting that noise and odours are often part of living in a town centre.

18.   Councillor Adrian Abbs believed it was positive for Newbury and noted the balance between supporting a local business and protecting residents. He advised the objector that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided a powerful tool (statutory nuisance) should the system prove to be a problem. He urged the applicant to ensure the measures were as effective as possible. While he disliked the flue's proximity to the window and its potential visual impact, he was pleased that conditions would be added for testing and was likely to support the application.

19.   In response to a point raised in the debate, officers confirmed that the application specified the flue would have a black finish.

20.   Councillor Paul Dick stated his concerns had been for the local residents and felt that the amended wording for the conditions, as suggested by officers, would make the proposal more acceptable.

21.   Councillor Adrian Abbs proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj

22.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Adrian Abbs, seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

·       An amendment to Condition 2 to include the existing site plan drawing 1500 EX01 received 12 March 2025.

·        An amendment to Condition 6 to require that the post-installation survey report includes the results of commissioning tests to verify the system is working correctly, with the final wording to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Environmental Health Officer.

·        An additional condition restricting the hours of operation of the extraction system to between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm daily.