Andrea Marinho, owner of Cheers Restaurant, on Angel Hill, Bury St Edmunds, hits out at West Suffolk Council over ‘unfair treatment’ from planners

A town restaurateur has hit out at a council over ‘unfair treatment’ from planners, which has cost her £10,000.

Andrea Marinho, owner of Cheers Restaurant, on Angel Hill, in Bury St Edmunds, had sought permission to change the use of a former school building behind the venue to give extra space for customers.

Cheers is regularly packed at weekends, and often has to turn customers away who do not have a booking. The new area would have allowed them to take more as well as host functions such as weddings.

Andrea withdrew the plans on May 31 as she felt planners dragged their heels and were uncommunicative.

West Suffolk Council said it was ‘entirely satisfied’ it followed procedure to assist and advise.

“I really think they didn’t follow the procedures”, she said. “It was a simple change of use. I don’t want to build anything new; I wanted to take a building that’s been sat empty for a long time and make it better.

“How we’ve been treated is totally unfair, I’m very frustrated. I had to come to a decision and it was not money I could keep spending.”

Andrea said documents took a long time to be uploaded on the planning portal and the council asked for a second noise impact assessment when she had already provided one.

With the registry office nearby, she said Cheers is often asked to host wedding parties but does not have the space to do so.

The new area would have been connected to the existing ground floor and given them a significant increase in covers.

A public objection was raised over the potential for disruption and more noise. Andrea said Cheers is a sit down restaurant, so customers do not loiter outside being loud.

Cheers has been on Angel Hill for eight years, and Andrea said they have never had any major issues.

A council spokesperson said it was committed to delivery high-quality planning services to customers and is legally required to follow local and national policies with regards to required documents for applications, such as the noise impact assessment.

In this case it was required due to the nature of the proposal and its location being close to people’s homes.

They said strong concerns were raised by the Environmental Health Team about the lack of a suitable noise survey and report.

“The applicant made the decision to withdraw their application, and we are entirely satisfied that we followed procedure to assist and advise the applicant,” they added.