The owners of a seafront pub in Burnham-On-Sea have lost their bid to keep a controversial raised decking area outside their premises.
Sedgemoor planners claimed last year that Chaplins on The Esplanade had breached planning regulations by installing new patio doors and a raised decking area, complete with timber balustrading and screen panels, in front of its property.
But the pub’s owner, Colin Spence, pictured below, appealed against an enforcement notice issued by Sedgemoor District Council and he applied to The Planning Inspectorate in an attempt to get the judgement overturned.
However, the bid has failed and the Inspectorate has upheld the decision by asking the pub to remove the decking, but saying it can keep its patio doors providing its makes several minor changes.
In making the decion, The Planning Inspectorate’s Keith Turner considered both the effect of the development on neighbours with regards to noise and overlooking; and he questioned whether the development preserves or enhances the character of its surroundings.
Mr Turner said in his report: “In my view, the screening is not of sufficient mass or extent to materially reduce noise levels. It seems likely to me that increased use of the area may be attributable to other factors such as the recent ban on smoking in such premises rather than from the alterations carried out. Consequently, I do not find the development has directly given rise to additional or undue noise and disturbance.”
He added: “Whilst customers may have used the area previously, the elevated
decking does provide a better vantage point for views into the adjacent ground
floor bay window. The Appellant’s suggestion that this could be overcome by
the use of obscured or translucent panels may be correct and could be secured
by imposing a planning condition on any permission granted. Accordingly this
issue does not provide grounds for refusing permission.”
With regards to the effect on its surroundings, Mr Turner concluded: “The appeal premises are within the Burnham-On-Sea Conservation Area and are also situated on The Esplanade and facing the seafront. This is a prominent and key location in this seaside resort.”
“The Council suggest that the seafront premises have historically been rendered and enclosed by low-rendered walls. From my inspection this appears to be correct and I agree that this is an important component in the character of the area. The appeal building is rendered and painted white. It also has a rendered boundary wall and pier on the northern side of the front terrace area. By contrast, the new front boundary comprises deck planking set vertically to cover the 600mm void beneath the raised decking. Above this there are painted plywood panels surmounted by the clear plastic panels set between unpainted steel posts. These materials are incongruous both individually and collectively.”
The inspector concluded: “I find the decking and associated features to be harmful to the character and appearance of the surroundings.”
“The Appellant correctly points out that the great majority of windows and doors along the seafront in the vicinity of the appeal premises are not timber but fabricated from uPVC. To this extent I accept that the new sliding doors are not out of character. I do however find their appearance incongruous because they are different in colour from the brown painted fanlights immediately above them. However, if the colour scheme were harmonised, which could be achieved through the use of a planning condition, then I consider that the sliding doors would be rendered more in harmony with the surroundings. Since that element of the development can be separately retained, I shall allow the appeal in relation only to the sliding doors.”
