Planning conditions and six part test

2022-05-25T07:58:36Z

In 2017 a local premises was planning permission to open as a coffee bar. A restriction was attached to the premises so it couldn't open past 22:00. There was also a restriction stating a scheme of sound insulation should be installed before opening the bar. There wasn't restriction preventing live or amplified music.

The bar opens, doesn't comply with the opening time restriction, dosn't install the sound proofing and plays live music. Planning enforcement receives complaints about the bar failing to comply with the opening time restriction.

The bar then puts an application together to extend opening times. This is refused as they havn't installed the sound proofing and they havn't stated how they will reduce the noise pollution, mainly from live music.

They then put a second application together proposing a scheme of sound insulation and promise to stop playing live music in order to meet the requirements of the local plan. Many local people object as they are concerned about live music which they continue to play. The planning officer is advised by the Environmental Health Officer to attach a planning condition preventing live or amplified music being played. The sound insulation condition is then discharged. The sound insulation isn't installed. A condition isn't attached preventing live music because the planning officer says it was unreasonable to do so. The applicant then continues playing live music.

My question is, would it be unreasonable to attach a condition preventing the playing of live or amplified music? Does it satisfy the 6 part test from Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework that states a condition must be:

necessary;
relevant to planning;
relevant to the development to be permitted;
enforceable;
precise; and
reasonable in all other respects.

Thank you in advance.