Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above.  Members will remember a planning application for a similar scheme following demolition of Unit 3, in April 2015.  The proposed units will have a utilitarian appearance, similar to Unit 3, and the application is at committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, on account of neighbour concern about traffic and amenity.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Malvern, on behalf of neighbours

This has been an on-going and long-running planning issue for three years now.  Is not opposed to redevelopment of this tatty site, but for the fourth or fifth time of asking, neighbour responses to the various proposals reveal numerous objections and varied strong opposition.  This application added to the previous one is out of scale in comparison to the original buildings’ scale and height; it will be overpowering and oppressive in relation to the homes on Asquith Road, as Members will have noted on their site visit.  Neighbours will have no control over who will use the units; some tenants’ operations will clearly disturb the neighbours.  If the application is permitted, working time restrictions should be clearly in place in line with Environmental Health recommendations.  There was a special additional condition in the previous application to ensure that the large doors are open for deliveries only and at no other times.  Prospective tenants should be informed of this by the landowner before they sign the lease – this should be attached to the condition in the planning permission.  If approved, can the maximum height and footprint be recorded and published so that small-scale drawings cannot be misinterpreted? It would be appreciated if the planning department can write to neighbours setting out these final details and conditions for this and the previous application, to avoid any disagreement in the future about what has been permitted. 

Member debate:

PB:  KS would speak very passionately about this proposal if she was at Committee tonight, but it is difficult to see any reasons to refuse.  There was much debate about scale and opening hours with the last scheme, but we do need modern industrial units and this scheme tidies up an untidy site. The best thing we can do for residents is ensure there are sufficient conditions regarding the hours of use and add as many protections as possible.  It is important that residents make sure these are complied with  and keep in touch with the enforcement team, who will also do their best to ensure compliance.  If this can be guaranteed, will support the application.

GB:  there is an advisory note about the owner/type of business the site should be used for – can this be made into a condition?

PJ:  this is a tough one – the balance between residential and industrial/employment land use.  It would be good if the two can exist in harmony, although there are usually complications – but we do need employment sites.  Do the conditions on today’s blue update mirror the other conditions on the site?

MP,  in response:

-       regarding the advisory from Environment Health, this is as suggested last time as a result of the debate;

-       regarding type of tenant, the report sets out that B1 use is one capable of being carried out in a residential area without detriment to neighbours’ amenity.  It is not necessary to know who the end user will be.  This will be covered in an informative;

-       to PJ, all the conditions which were attached to the previous application will be attached to this one. 

CC:  the speaker suggested that, given the contentious issues and possible problems surrounding the site, the Council could let residents know the precise details of the permission.  Would the Council do this – inform neighbours of the outcome, what to do if there are problems etc?  It would be beneficial. 

GB:  as ward councillors, he and KS will be involved in notifying the neighbours.

PT:  agrees with CC in one way but disagrees in another – it could lead to additional work for the planning department which is already stretched.  Local councillors can print the details and let local residents know – this won’t be too onerous.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT