Officer Recommendation:
Grant variation of condition 2 (parking spaces) attached to planning permission 92/P0654 (01/09/1992) to allow outside customer seating for a temporary period of one year, subject to conditions.

1. Proposed Development – The application related to a proposal to allow the rear back yard/garden area to be used as an additional dining area for seated customers of the existing restaurant and bar.

2. Proposed restrictions/conditions – Officers drew attention to various conditions recommended in the officer report which would restrict the proposed use including
(a) a maximum number of 32 chairs for customers;
(b) limiting the hours of the use to 10am to 8pm (all days of the week);
(c) forbidding cooking, the playing of music and the provision of bar facilities in this outdoor area;
(d) provision of an acoustic treatment/barrier between the boundary with 1 Kings Road and the proposed seating area; and
(e) any permission being for a temporary period of one year only.

2.1 Officers explained that due to the past history of unauthorised uses of the rear garden (when owned by persons different to the current owners) and consequent enforcement action, it was proposed that any permission initially be only for a temporary period of one year.

3. Acoustic Barrier – Officers confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Health Section had no objections to the proposed use provided that the proposed conditions/restrictions were imposed.  Officers confirmed that their request for the provision of a suitable acoustic barrier, showed that Environmental Health Section considered that it was feasible for such a barrier to reduce noise emanating from the site to the level required.

4. Discussion – There was considerable discussion regarding the proposal.  It was noted that the current owners couldn’t be held responsible for previous unauthorised uses of the site resulting in complaints from local residents and enforcement action.

4.1 However, some Members considered that previous unauthorised uses of the site helped demonstrate that it was unsuitable for the proposed use, particularly due to its small size and proximity to surrounding premises, including residential dwellings, which surrounded the site, and the difficulty therefore of preventing undue noise and disturbance, even if customers were seated and their number restricted to a maximum of 32.

5. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below, subject to the detailed grounds of refusal being agreed by officers.   The motion was carried unanimously.  Subsequently the Committee also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 6 - ref. 13/P2298 (“Hot Pink” Restaurant, 86 The Broadway, Wimbledon, SW19 1RH)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the development would be contrary to the following policies in the Merton Unitary Development Plan (2003) -

(i) Policy BE.15 – para.(iv) (by failing to ensure that the living conditions of existing and future nearby residents are not diminished by increased noise and disturbance);

(ii) Policy PE.2 (by failing to ensure that the proposed development  would not have a significantly adverse effect on nearby occupiers by reason of noise generation and disturbance); and

(iii) Policy S.8 (by failing to meet the criteria set out in the policy for proposed food and drink (A3) uses)

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee considered that the officer report had given insufficient weight to the unsuitability of the site and its size for the use proposed.