The owners of a Helensburgh pub have failed in an attempt to persuade the Scottish Government to allow the bar’s beer garden to stay open for an extra hour.
But now a new application has been made for seating on the pavement outside the Clyde Bar.
The owners initially sought permission from Argyll and Bute Council’s planning, protective services and licensing committee in August to move closing time for their outdoor facility from 9pm to 10pm.
A decision was delayed until the following month, but councillors decided that 9pm was a sufficient closing time and refused the application – which attracted 12 objections from the public.
An appeal was lodged with the Scottish Government, but according to a decision notice issued by the government’s planning and environmental appeals division that appeal, too, has been dismissed.
Last week another application was lodged with Argyll and Bute Council, for change of use of a section of pavement on West Clyde Street to provide outdoor seating.
Details of that application are on the council’s website; the reference number is 20/01875/PP.
Government reporter Philip Barton said in his decision notice that he shared councillors’ concerns about the impact on nearby residents of extending the beer garden’s operating hours.
The pub, like all others in Scotland, is currently closed under the Scottish Government’s coronavirus restrictions.
In submitting the appeal, bar proprietor John Rapallini said: “Most of the concerns raised referred to the late 2am bar closure, noise and incidents at street level, and do not refer to the beer garden.
“So I believe the fact that the neighbour notification’s lack of clarity regarding the extension time applied for may have contributed to the number of objections received.
“The Clyde Bar is situated in close proximity to several licensed premises and cannot be accountable for the objectionable behaviour of the public at street level.”
He also said there had been no issues of noise or irresponsible behaviour during trading hours since the beer garden opened three years ago.
Mr Rapallini added: “The Clyde Bar operates a dispersal policy to mitigate noise and antisocial behaviour and is constantly monitoring noise levels so that the noise impact on residential amenity is kept to a feasible level.
“Adequate signage is in place in the beer garden requesting customers to adhere to social distancing, to keep noise levels to a minimum and to respect neighbouring residential properties.
“The Clyde Bar has been managed/owned by the Rapallini family since the 1950s. We are now facing the challenges of keeping our business with the same overheads viable under the current restrictions.
“Our 2am licence has not been used since before lockdown and it is my intention going forward to discontinue the 2am closure to appease the concerns of neighbouring residents.”
In his report Mr Barton said the specific commercial considerations of the business had to be weighed against the effect on living conditions.
But he ruled that the current restriction was not too onerous as it allowed the beer garden to be open for nine hours a day.
“In response to internal consultations, the environmental health officer recommended a condition requiring the submission of a noise mitigation plan,” he said.
“I consider this to be a strong indication that, although not sufficient to constitute a statutory nuisance, the amount of noise generated by the beer garden would nevertheless require some degree of control.
“In my view, this is best achieved by attaching a condition limiting its hours of operation, which the disputed condition does.”
He then said: “There are a number of people living within earshot of the beer garden – both in the flats opposite and in flats above premises in West Clyde Street.
“It is reasonable to take account of the effect of activity in the beer garden upon the living conditions of these people.
“The question here is whether restricting opening hours to 9pm is reasonable. Although most people are asleep between 11pm and 7am the next day, some of these flats may be occupied by families with children, who should go to bed earlier. People have differing work patterns too, which dictate when they might be sleeping.
“I find that the disputed condition reasonably balances the twin objectives of supporting the appellant’s business and protecting living conditions for people residing nearby.”
Leave a Reply