[paulears]

I'm trying to find out if local council conditions are common practice. Change of use planning permission is the context.

Quote

5. The theatrical use shall only take place between the hours of 09.00 and 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays. Production cleanup operations shall vacate the premises by 12 midnight.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area by minimising disturbance by noise

6. No sound amplifying equipment which is audible at the frontage of the nearest dwelling shall be used before 09.00 in the morning or after 22.00 hours without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby premises.
7. The movement of theatrical and other equipment shall not take place by the main doors or the stage door facing west at any time after 22.00 in the evening.
Reason: To safeguard residential amenity.

So, music off at 10pm, and no equipment out via the public doors or the stage door near the houses (there is another one around the back) after this time. Get-outs must be complete by midnight.

These features probably mean a perfectly workable venue cannot be brought back into use because these restrictions would be very difficult to meet.

My question is are they typical restrictions for venues in areas where people live? Does anyone work in a venue with such tight conditions, and if you do - how do they work in practice.

[Solstace]

Looks about right compared with other planning conditions I've seen recently, admittedly more for pubs/commercial premises than theatres.

Out of interest: Are those quoted existing conditions that are looking to be changed, or has the venue already applied for change of use and received those as the conditions they must meet?

[WiLL]

it's very similar to the one I saw, we monitored noise levels at the neighbours front doors and were pleasantly surprised at how low they were. So the 10pm isn't really a time cut as it is a decibel cut by that time.

[rossmck]

I've seen very similar including "No Vehicle Movements after 2300" which you would expect would apply JUST to large trucks etc...

No, someone complained I drove my car out of the car park one night at 23.40 (!)

Quote

These features probably mean a perfectly workable venue cannot be brought back into use because these restrictions would be very difficult to meet.

A very unfortunate reality - particularly when that's what it always USED to be (I can almost accept restrictions like this if it's a NEW build and the residents didn't know there was a theatre nearby, but if you've moved in opposite a 'closed' theatre it's not unreasonable to assume it may reopen)

[Brian]

As anyone who's worked at the Grosvenor on Park Lane will tell you...

1) Yes, load-out curfews are around and
2) They are a PITA.

[kerry davies]

Very common, though since the Fireworks Act laid down "anti-social hours" as 11 pm to 7 am then you may be able to argue along those lines for extending the hours. For instance if the LA promotes a noisy firework display or even allows the neghbours to create that amount of noise during allowed hours then restricting the theatre could be seen to be discriminatory. Acoustic dampening measures can alter the licensing restrictions so think on those lines as well.

Give Phillip Day a call about licensing as he is the Daddy on entertainments licensing and a nice guy to boot. See the NOEA website for contacts.

The noise limitations are Environmental Health parameters and local conditions are insanely variable. At one gig they moaned about our almost inaudible noise levels while the nearby speedway track was literally rattling the windows. It is worth consulting a solicitor like Phillip if this is a long-term project, get it right now and forever be at ease.

[paulears]

The trouble is the kind of shows envisaged need to be out and somewhere else the next day! Used to be theatre, then cinema then bingo now poss back to theatre but planning have indicated noise as an issue at planning as many affordable housing new builds have appeared in the past few years.

The local authority actually turned this venue down as a civic theatre and threw their lot in with refurb of a different and in my opinion, less suitable venue.

[kerry davies]

Then you have a political problem not a bureaucratic one. Since they have invested in an alternative venue any movement on the one they turned down would look bad and has that additional hurdle to overcome. Sod's law state that LA's will always choose the worst possible option and the relative suitability doesn't matter, neither do budgetary constraints.

They would rather pay a fortune on a broken down nag than admit they were wrong not to keep the free thoroughbred.

[paulears]

Yes - that does rather sum it up. The problem appeared in the informal discussions (very strange term for something not to ally informal at all) when we were asking about changing parking permit bays to a loading bay. Since the building was built, nearly 100 years ago, the front has been pedestrianised, and the back areas are where everyone needs to park cars. Some Councillors have expressed support - but only in private! My view is it's probably not a runner really, but at the moment the venue is in really good condition and could be brought into use with only very simple works required - essentially stalls seating, and some stage machinery replacement.

[ImagineerTom]

As kerry has pointed out you're fighting the will of the council and as you counter each obstical they throw at you they'll only find another to annoy you with (planning, licensing, food hygene, noise, antisocial behaviour, licensing, child performers, parking, road access/barriers, sinage, all things they have influence over which can scupper your plans) and in my experience the only way to beat them is through something that affects votes. If the local councilor will go on record as supporting the idea suddenly your problems will vanish but to get this sort of support you need a massive media campaign that makes them think that blocking this project will cost them votes and thus their seat.

[paulears]

I'm not really certain how much I really want to support the project, because the venue I spend a lot of time in works on a shoe-string and is always under the threat of closure. So in a way, much as I think the plan has legs, I could be shooting myself in the foot! My involvement is historic really - I know too many people who have the funds and no experience from previous projects, so I want to help them again with this one - but I didn't realise such tight restrictions were that common. As has been said, their powers of technical obstruction are many. There is indeed a local councillor who supports it - however, he's now an ex-councillor as of this week, and his involvement might be a problem or a benefit.

I will report back and see what happens - thanks for the advice folks!
Paul

[kerry davies]

There are two primary means of moving things forward I can see right away. Firstly the protection of the environment through maintenance of the building itself, for example listing. This has pluses and minuses in that grant aid can become available but it brings it's own hassles. The threat of the dereliction of the building might open access to grants and licensing.

The other way is to persuade the district level council that the theatre society would be providing non-statutory facilities thus relieving the LA of the burden. Nye Bevan changed the local government laws after the war and made it legal for LA's to provide entertainment (anyone working in council owned venues owes him their votes) but the Tories made it non-statutory. There is therefore a means but not a duty for LA's to provide "Arts, Music, Culture" as part of their remit.

I am in the same position in a way in that we have planning permissions and National Park backing but the landlords, the Baptist Congregation, will not give us a long lease. This means we have a £3000 grant waiting to repair the roof while the rain pi55e5 down on the congregation of three old ladies and a dog. Soon as we have the lease we can access umpteen religious, listed building, historic, tourist and arts/community grants but the place is falling down in the interim. (Groan) Solicitors are involved. (Groan)

This post has been edited by kerry davies: 05 May 2012 - 10:54 AM