Change of use from agricultural to B2 general industrial – reuse of existing building with extension to form workshop for kit car assembly.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Burridge, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Coppock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RI Matthews, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The views of the parish council should be taken seriously.

·         The nearest residents live just 30 metres away from the site.

·         Conditions had been recommended to address noise, therefore there was clearly a concern in respect of noise emanating from the site.

·         The cars manufactured by Raw Striker used a motorcycle engine, this would be noisy during testing.

·         Air tools used in the manufacturing process would also be noisy.

·         Need to look at paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and protect an area of tranquility.

·         Need to refuse the application in accordance with paragraph 7 of the NPPF based on appropriate land uses.

·         There were also concerns in respect of the narrow highway to the site.

·         There was also a well-used bridlepath 30 metres away from the site.

·         The applicant had a site currently which he did not need to leave.

·         29 local residents objected to the application.

Members opened the debate by voicing their concern in respect of the application. They had reservations regarding the proposed usage on an area of land close to dwellings and an equine centre. It was considered that the proposed usage was an industrial use which would be better suited to one of the many industrial estates within the County. It was noted that the kit cars would need to be tested which would result in noise outside of the manufacturing unit.

Some Members however had a differing opinion and felt that the application should be approved. They felt that small businesses in the County should be encouraged and noted that the usage did not constitute a car factory and was solely a unit for assembling already prepared parts. The requirement of a complete noise attenuation scheme was discussed with consideration being given to deferring the determination of the application until a scheme had been fully considered and agreed with officers.

The Committee noted that the application was finely balanced. They continued to discuss their concerns regarding odour, noise, and an inappropriate use of the land. They also noted that the applicant intended relocating his existing workforce and did not intend to recruit additional employees from the local community.

Councillor Matthews was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The neighbouring site had been used for equine use for approximately 20 years.

·         There were a number of valid reasons to refuse the application, primarily impact on the amenity of the neighbours and highways.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation was lost. A motion to defer the determination of the application, pending the receipt of a full noise attenuation scheme, was also lost.

Members continued to discuss the application and, at the request of the Head of Neighbourhood Planning, they confirmed the reasons why it should be refused. They noted that the application was finely balanced but, in their opinion, the application was contrary to HBA12, due to its close proximity to residential dwellings and an established equine usage; E10, as the site was not appropriate for a semi industrial usage; DR2, as the land use and activity was not suitable due to the location; and DR13, as the showroom access would be using the same narrow highway which could result in noise issues for nearby residents. They also expressed their concerns in respect of noise, with particular reference given to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 123, and odour.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised Members that the policies referred to could be defendable. He added that Members may also wish to consider policies E8  and E10 of the UDP as well as paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The mover and the seconder of the motion to refuse the application accepted the proposed amendment.

RESOLVED

THAT the application be refused as it is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies HBA12, E8, E10, DR2, DR13 as well as paragraphs 7 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework.