Erection of new workshop building and expansion of service/storage yard.

Erection of new workshop building and expansion of service/storage yard.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of the comments of the Head of Economic Development (no objections).  It was recommended that an additional condition be added to any planning permission granted about details to be submitted in respect of the proposed racking.  It was noted that a further application would be required to vary a Section 106 Agreement in due course.

 

Councillor R.I. Matthews, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to the fact that some properties were not shown on plans provided.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. McHarg spoke on behalf of the Parish Council, Mr. Marshall spoke against the application and Mr. Crump spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Matthews felt that the Section 106 Agreement, which limited the extent of development on the site, was founded on strong principles and should not be amended.  Councillor Matthews drew attention to the detailed representation from Stretton Sugwas Parish Council and concurred with their view that the business had outgrown its surroundings and should be relocated to more appropriate premises in a manufacturing area.  The concerns of the Parish Council and local residents were also noted in respect of the potential deleterious effect of the proposal on the landscape and, in particular, the setting of the church of St. Mary Magdalene.  Councillor Matthews felt that relocation would help the long-term viability of the business and that every effort should be made to help the applicant to find a suitable alternative location.  Therefore, he proposed that the application should be refused given the principles behind the Section 106 Agreement, the detrimental impact on the nearby Listed Building and the detrimental impact on the amenities of residential dwellings.

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards expressed concerns about the landscape buffer, particularly given the gaps in the existing hedgerow.  He felt that measures to protect the tree lined hedge could result in a shift in the development which would bring activity even closer to the residential dwellings, including the movements of articulated lorries and forklift trucks.

 

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson agreed with the Local Ward Member that the business had outgrown the location and noted a suggestion that the site could be re-developed for residential purposes which could off-set the costs of relocation.

 

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell commented that the economic benefits of the proposal outweighed other concerns, particularly given the difficulties being experienced in the rural economy.  He noted that many churches were located near to intensive farming and other activities and felt that this proposal would have minimal impact.  He also noted concerns about previous breaches of conditions but felt that this should not be a reason to prevent a valuable business enterprise from expanding.

 

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon sympathised with the needs of growing rural businesses but felt that there could be additional noise disturbance and suggested that a condition be added to limit noise to an appropriate level.  Councillor Ms. Toon expressed concern about the lack of information about some matters, particularly relating to breaches of conditions.

 

Councillor Matthews noted the economic development arguments but maintained his view that this was the wrong location for this growing enterprise.

 

In response to comments about noise levels, the Principal Planning Officer reported that the Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards was satisfied with the noise assessment that accompanied the application and the operational matters raised by local residents would be monitored.  He added that the new building would be used for the assembly of timber-framed buildings and the only machinery proposed was an overhead crane and power hand tools.

 

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas supported the application given the related economic and employment benefits.  He noted the Parish Council’s thorough assessment of the situation and felt that some of the suggestions should be incorporated into any planning permission granted; specifically, those relating to operating times, landscaping, noise levels and limiting consent to the applicant for the purpose of the application.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox commented that some of the advice provided in respect of noise levels was contradictory but noted that Officers felt that the impact could be controlled through conditions.  He noted the need to support rural businesses but also acknowledged the reasons for the Section 106 Agreement and the alleged breaches of conditions on previous permissions.  He felt that the proposal would be out of character with the neighbourhood and should be refused.

 

In response to suggestions that the business should consider relocation, Councillor Thomas noted that it was likely that such businesses would relocate to areas outside the county if they were unable to expand and noted that jobs could be lost as a consequence.

 

Councillor Matthews reiterated the reasons behind the Section 106 Agreement and stressed that he wanted to see the business succeed but felt that this site was inappropriate

 

A motion to refuse the application failed and the recommendation detailed in the report was then approved subject to additional conditions.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that Members’ comments would be taken into account in the drafting of the decision notice.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions deemed reasonable and necessary:

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.        Notwithstanding the submitted plans the new workshop shall be sited to ensure that there is five metres from the eastern boundary.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the tree lined hedge.

 

3.      The only machinery to be used in the new workshop are hand held tools and an overhead crane.  No other fixed machinery shall be installed.

 

         Reason: In order to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

4.      B02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

 

         Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building.

 

5.      Before any fixed extractions, ventilation, or other noise penetrating plant is used on the premises, the applicant shall submit for the prior approval of the local planning authority a scheme of noise attenuating measures.  The approved scheme shall be implemented before the first use of the development to which it relates commences and shall be retained for the duration of use.

 

         Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

 

6.      No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times: 8.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

 

         Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

 

7.      The large metal clad doors on the north and south elevation of the building should remain closed at all times, except during deliveries or movement of stock.  All other doors and openings shall remain closed whilst work operations are taking place except for access to and exit from the building.

 

         Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

 

8.      Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed plan, showing the levels of the existing site, the proposed slab levels of the building approved and a datum point outside of the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority to match the slab of the existing workshop.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

         Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

 

9.      G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

10.    G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

11.    G07 (Details of earth works).

 

         Reason: (Special Reason)

 

12.    G09 (Retention of trees/hedgerows).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

 

13.    G28 (Monitoring of landscaping).

 

Informative:

 

1.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission.