Variation of condition 1 of planning permission DCCW2007/1229/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission DCCW2007/1229/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

The Principal Planning Officer said that a condition should be added to any approval to ensure that the applicants dealt with the ongoing maintenance and repair of the acoustic wall between the application site and the adjoining dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor PJ Edwards, one of the Local Ward Members, said that he had been in discussion with the applicants for a considerable length of time regarding the maintenance of the leylandii tree screening and the acoustic fence.  He felt that there were no grounds to refuse the application but that adequate conditions needed to be included about the following:

§         maintenance of the fence, trees and hedges;

§         a parking restriction on Abbotsmead road;

§         the engines of delivery vehicles should not be left running on site; and

§         the installation of an exhaust extraction system on site. 

Councillor GA Powell, another Local Ward Member, felt that the situation regarding noise, disturbance and fumes suffered by local residents was intolerable and that the application should be refused on the grounds of the adverse impact it had on residential amenity.

Councillor ACR Chappell was of the view that the company had previously been granted temporary permission for the use and that because they had failed to comply with its terms and conditions regarding hours of use and noise attenuation during this period, the application should be refused. Councillors MD Lloyd-Hayes and AT Oliver shared this view and was particularly concerned at the impact of the business on adjoining residents.  Councillor MAF Hubbard felt that the noise attenuation barrier needed to be improved and that the permission could be extended for a further trial period but with stronger conditions controlling the impact on local residents.  The situation could then be assessed to determine if the applicants had complied.  Councillor DB Wilcox suggested that the objectors needed to keep a diary of any disturbances and fume pollution which arose and notify their local ward members.  The Environment Protection Manager could then monitor and deal with such complaints.  Councillor GFM Dawe was of the view that the noise, disturbance and problems arising from exhaust fumes was intolerable for adjoining residents and that permission should be refused.  Councillor PJ Edwards was also concerned that despite having asked for some eighteen months for the appropriate maintenance of the screening to be undertaken, it was only now that the company had informed the Principal Planning Officer that it would be prepared to consider doing something about it.  Councillor H Davies, one of the Local Ward Members, was of the view that the business would be better operated from the town centre Tesco Store because of the deliberate lack of maintenance at the Belmont site. 

The Principal Planning Officer said that he had received no complaints about the business until the current application had been submitted.  He was satisfied that all the issues and concerns which had been raised could be dealt with by the appropriate conditions.  The application had to be viewed in the context that it was in respect of Sundays only and he stressed that there were no reasonable planning grounds for it to be refused.

Notwithstanding the views of the Officers the Sub-Committee had a number of reservations about the application because of noise and nuisance issues that were facing local residents. Various options were considered including whether the application should be refused, or deferred so that the Sub-Committee could be satisfied that the applications would comply with conditions regarding the acoustic fence, screening and engine fumes.  The Sub-Committee decided that, because of the ongoing disturbance created for local residents, refusal was the preferred option.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Central Team Leader does not refer the application to the Head of Planning and Transportation

The adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents

(ii)     If the Central Team Leader does not refer the application to the Head of Planning and Transportation, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Central Team Leader said that he would refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation because of the planning policy issues involved.]