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.
