Parasol rejected amid planning "farce"

1:22pm Thursday 24th May 2007

Comments (10)   Have your say »

A RESTAURANT owner's planning application for a parasol outside his premises was rejected this week at a meeting described by one observer as "a farce".

Pete Browne and his wife Lynne took over Pepper and Oz, Abbey Road, earlier this year, and erected a parasol over their courtyard, with wooden planters above. They also took down an awning on the front of the building, formerly a butchers' and grocers' shop.

I hope we can sit round a table with them and talk about this. I just think the whole thing has got out of proportion.

Pepper and Oz owner Peter Browne

Told they needed permission, they applied to Malvern Hills District Council for retrospective consent, and their applications came up at Wednesday night's meeting of the Southern Area Development Control Committee, the first since the election earlier this month.

Committee chairman coun Paul Tuthill had to relinquish the chair because of a prejudicial interest and coun Serena Croad took his place.

After a short discussion on the application to remove the old awning, the committee voted 7-8 to approve it against the advice of officers.

But just after members went on to discuss the application to allow the parasol and planters, the committee's legal adviser Ann Brain told coun Croad there had been a mis-count and the previous vote had to be re-run. This time it came out 7-8 in favour of refusing it.

A member of the public left the meeting, shouting: "This is a total farce". The parasol-and-planters application subsequently failed, as well, on a 9-5 vote.

Yesterday, Mr Browne said he was "extremely disappointed" by the events of the meeting and said he could not see why the initial vote had to be re-run.

"We've always wanted to have a good relationship with the council, and I hope we can sit round a table with them and talk about this. I just think the whole thing has got out of proportion," he said.

Yesterday, MHDC's senior lawyer Nigel Snape told the Gazette he had investigated what went on at the previous night's meeting.

He said: "There was confusion on the top table at the meeting about what the voting had been. The officers thought it had been one thing, the chairman another. Quite properly, the chairman decided to take the vote again."