Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01270/CONDIT
Location:	Unit 3, Maida Vale Business Centre, Maida Vale Road
Proposal:	Variation of condition 2 (hours of business) and condition 3 (hours of loading/unloading) on planning permission ref. 02/00813/CONDIT granted 25th July 2002 to allow the premises to be used between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and 7.00am and 3.00pm on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		10	Update Report:		Officer comments; additional representation

 

MP introduced this application to vary two conditions on this business unit which has been used as a commercial laundry for a number of years.  The applicant is seeking to increase the hours of operation.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury, who is concerned about loss of amenity.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to revised conditions.

 

Public Speaking:

 

Ms Wiseman, neighbour, in objection

With every fibre of her body, urges Members to refuse this application.  This is a mixed residential and business area.  Nothing has changed since the site was developed in 2000 in terms of residents requiring less amenity, or since 2002 when this unit’s working hours were increased by 11%.  If anything, amenity should be more valued now than it was 14 years ago, with the pace of life as it is.  Neighbours simply want to keep things as they are – no increase in noise due to increased hours; peace and quiet on summers’ evenings, Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays.  Is not a complainer without good reason.  Members on Planning View did not experience the full noise from the unit on their site visit, as it would not be in the unit’s best interest to show that.  From time to time, all the unit occupiers are on their premises outside their contractual hours  - this is challenged by residents but maybe overlooked if there is no noise – but with CLC, it is not about giving an inch and taking a mile – they just take, take, take.  They worked on Easter weekend and the 26^th May Bank Holiday, as well as regular Easters, Christmases and New Years – even the Queen’s Jubilee.  Has video evidence to prove it which was offered to CBC but not accepted.  Other people look forward to Bank Holidays, but she braces herself, knowing that CLC will steal her peace and relaxation – it is very stressful and frustrating.  Has exhausted every avenue to reason with CLC and get the council to enforce the current terms.  Nothing happens to resolve this, only an application for more working hours.  It is exhausting to have to repeatedly confront this Groundhog Day situation. There are eight objections, five of which refer to lack of enforcement; has submitted complaints about this recently.  The 2002 conditions have not been respected by CLC or enforced by the council when residents have raised concerns over the last 12 years.  If the scenario is that the two parties do not stick to the agreement and residents’ concerns are repeatedly ignored, what is the purpose of all this?  It makes mockery of the whole planning process.  The area should not have to become 24/7 because one business wants to double its turnover and profit; it needs to maintain a balance – residents’ amenity is not elastic and has reached breaking point.  CLC could have made improvements long before now, but have only done so now at the 11^th hour in an attempt to win this application – no doubt the silencers will be on eBay soon.  Asks Members to imagine this was their home in the balance.

 

 

Mr Korant, applicant, in support

Has been the owner of Cotswold Linen Care since October 2004, and understands the main objection to the application is to do with noise disturbance.  As a company, CLC respects neighbours’ concerns regarding noise, and has liaised with and acted upon recommendations from the council’s enforcement officers to minimise the impact from operations.  Members have now visited the site and council officers have monitored and recorded noise levels; therefore respectfully asks that a fair and reasonable decision be made purely on the facts and findings relevant to this application.  CLC’s intention has never been to extend operational hours on a permanent basis, but to have flexibility to cover exceptionally busy periods which have resulted for changes in trading practices over the years.  As with all seasonal businesses, they have quiet periods when working days are shortened, staff members finish early, and there are no washing machines or dryers operating.  If this application is permitted, there would be a maximum of three members of staff on site on Sundays or Bank Holidays, with entry to the unit via the office door at the front – there would be no use of the roller shutter door.  For the record, has never worked on Christmas Day, Boxing Day or Good Fridays. 

 

 

Councillor Sudbury, in objection

Has not prepared a speech, so will speak from the heart.  Is amazed at the last comment from the previous speaker, when she lived there in 2001 remembers how much the business got on her nerves – recalls a Christmas dinner when the family could feel the rumble and heat coming out of the machines.  This happened most Christmases – she is not lying.  Ms Wiseman spoke from the heart, and it is difficult to explain the impact of this noise 11 hours a day – it cannot be ignored.  It’s true that when she moved in, she knew there was a laundry nearby.  The introduction of new machinery in 2002 made it quieter, but it is still a loud noise to put up with several hours every day, and a great relief when the machinery is turned off. It is difficult to explain to Members the impact this has, but the complaints speak for themselves. 

 

When she lived at No 6, she was very busy – too busy to fight the case – and this is also the case with Ms Wiseman, but it is just so annoying to have to live with this noise.  It varies a lot – sometimes it can be quite peaceful, sometimes it affects every room in the house.  If this application is permitted, it is like saying to the residents they are not entitled to Bank Holidays, not entitled to use their gardens for barbecues etc.  Now lives in Brizen Lane, which isn’t exactly quiet – there is background noise and noise from the road – but it is an altogether different type of noise from the vibrating noise emanating from the laundrette.  Got the impression the owners didn’t give a monkey’s about local residents. 

 

This isn’t the right site to further expand a business of this kind.  The report refers to the refused application in 2002, which sought to increase working hours but was felt by Planning Committee to give rise to intensification of activity which would have a harmful effect on the amenities enjoyed by local residents.  The laundrette is even busier now, and the noise greater than it would have been back then.  Asks Members to be consistent and refuse the application tonight.

 

Councillor Sudbury left the Chamber for the rest of the meeting.

 

Member debate:

GB:  checked that all Members had read the blue update. 

 

AC:  is very confused.  Could not object to the noise that Members heard on Planning View, which wouldn’t cause any problems, but is hearing at the meeting that what they heard was not the truth.  Someone isn’t telling the truth.  Would move that the decision should be deferred, allowing spot checks to be carried out to establish the true situation before making a decision.

 

BF:  the laundry has been operating for a number of years, and residents have been complaining for a number of years and yet there is no record of what has happened as a result, what enforcement officers have done, what measures have been put in place.  The neighbours say the laundry operates on Christmas Day.  There should be a track record, but it is the age-old story – we talk about enforcement a lot but don’t actually do it.

 

PT:  on Planning View, asked officers to provide details about the complaints that have been made, when etc.  It is easier to comprehend if this is in written form, and not very good that this has not been provided.  Will go along with deferral if she has to - someone is not telling the truth. 

 

CN:  similar to AC, BF and PT, believes there is a problem of honesty here.  Attaches great weight to what KS has said – she lived in the house for six years and has spoken very eloquently about the issue, and has submitted very comprehensive and detailed letters.  Has a strong impression that the noise heard by Members on Planning View is not the same as that experienced by Mrs Wiseman.  Is minded to refuse.  Residents aren’t saying they want the business to close down, and it’s true to say that they knew when they moved in that a laundrette business operated on the site – it is the extra hours which are the issue.  The applicant had originally wanted 11 extra hours per week; this has been reduced to nine, spread out over evenings and Saturdays.  It is a huge affront to extend the working hours and run the risk of additional noise – not the noise as heard by Members on planning view but the noise experienced by residents over the years.  The noise Members heard on Tuesday wasn’t bad but suspects that at various times of work, the volume of noise is significantly greater.  Members should refuse the scheme.

 

AM:  agrees with AC.  At the very least, there is a significant divergence in interpretation of the facts.  Listened to the speakers and appreciates that there is a long-standing problem with noise nuisance here.  The applicant says these comments are not true and that he is respectful of his neighbours.  The environmental health officer sits on the fence – says maybe there is a bit of an issue with noise here.  Other Members are right in saying there is a dispute of fact and that information should be available to them – such as a log of complaints to environmental health about the noise nuisance from this and other activities on site.  If it is true that the applicant minimised the noise for Planning View, a few spot checks would clarify the situation and could be reported back at the next meeting.  The nub of the issue is the extent to which neighbours are disturbed, and Members have not been provided with enough information to make a judgement.  Supports AC’s deferment for more information.

 

FC:  is confused.  Page 122 of the officer report states that an application was approved in 2002 which set out hours of operation and loading, to include no Sundays or Bank Holidays, to ensure the amenity of neighbours.  The blue update relates to enforcement of those conditions, stating at 1.2 that there was no mechanism in place for enforcing when the laundry should not be operative.  It states that the conditions were not enforceable which led to inaction – this is not acceptable.  Residents have endured unacceptable noise at times when children are in bed, on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and not been able to enjoy peace and quiet in their homes, in line with local policy CP4.  We need to look at this in depth, not just in relation to this planning application.  Conditions attached to the premises should have been enforced but this was not done, and if the current application does not receive a plain refusal today, it’s quite possible that these conditions won’t be enforced either. What conditions currently pertain to the premises?  Are they enforceable? If not, how can we make them enforceable?

 

PB:  would move refusal on this, the laundrette is a growing and successful local business, but it shouldn’t increase its hours and profits at the expense of local people – it should move elsewhere.  The neighbour’s speech to Committee was impassioned and genuine.  What is being asked for by the applicants amounts to an extra day.  It is unacceptable and should be refused.

 

CN:  AM’s suggestion of a deferral sounds reasonable in view of the conflict of evidence – had thought about suggesting this himself - but what period of time would be put on this – one month, two months, three months? There is evidence of the existing hours of work agreed in 2002 not being followed, with Councillor Sudbury and Ms Wiseman giving examples of the business working outside those hours.  If the applicant has not been following the rules and the decision is deferred for a few months for spot checks etc, what is to stop the applicant from sticking to the specified hours for those few months?  It is not only Councillor Sudbury and Ms Wiseman who have spoken tonight – other local businesses are also against the proposal, and other neighbours to the back of the building have also objected.  The weight of evidence is very strong.  The application should be refused.

 

MP, in response:

-          would first point out that the Christmas Day working referred by a speaker to dates back to 2001; applicant himself set out that he did not take over t the business until 2004, and his comment about not working on Christmas Day could be true as could the other speakers – referring to different times;

-          the nature of complaints has been sporadic, the first being in 2001, and all complaints have come from one neighbour.  There have been no complaints from other properties.  There are no dates available to check;

-          Councillor Clucas has referred to the nature of the condition, as set out in the blue update.  Officers consider this to be ambiguous, as it refers to use of the premises as a whole and precludes the applicant from other activities such as paperwork etc – this would be very difficult to enforce, and is the reason for any previous inaction;

-          the application being considered tonight has come about as a result of an enforcement requirement to regularise what has been occurring on the site;

-          regarding the noise levels on site, this is not as bad as the objections state.  Environmental Health officers have made regular checks when all the machinery is working at full capacity, and Members on Planning View walked through the laundry when every machine was on;

-          the noise level has been further reduced in the last few days – on the advice on the EH officer, the applicant has extended duct work and fitted silencers to the dryers.  These can be conditioned if Members suspect the applicant could remove them in the future.

 

AM:  in response to CN’s point, does not think refusing at this stage is the right thing to do – it would be empty posturing.  The complaints are a result of the current work of the applicants, and show that existing controls are ineffective.  If this application is refused, the existing position – which is unacceptable to neighbours - will continue.  Regarding the length of time of the deferral, hopefully the application can be brought back sooner rather than later.  Sees two options here:  on the one hand, we can leave things as they are, which we know is clearly unacceptable to neighbours; on the other, we can approve the application, with evidence under serious challenge.  Neither of these options is comfortable for Planning Committee.  There is also the possibility of CBC being challenged for non-determination, but if we turn the application down and do nothing to improve matters, the current position will not have changed.

 

PT:  is disappointed – had asked officers on Planning View for a list of complaints and when they were made, and this has not been produced.  Not satisfied with the officer’s explanation.

 

FC:  regarding the current conditions – if these are being breached, as both KS and the objector say they have been – they should be enforced.  The current permitted hours of work are 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday, and no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.  This has got to be enforceable – is flummoxed to know why these conditions have not been enforced, and would like a proper written answer as to why this is the case; otherwise residents’ lives are being put through hell.  Now the applicant is seeking to increase the working hours and if Members are minded to refuse, they should have this evidence to justify their refusal.  It doesn’t matter if it’s one household or 50 being affected.  The business has been operating on Bank Holidays and outside the stated hours – why has no action been taken?

 

MS:  has a lot of sympathy with what has been said, and agrees whole-heartedly with AM – to refuse the application would be dangerous at this time.  It would be helpful if a temporary approval could be granted, for six months.  Members have been hearing from local residents what is going on, but enforcement officers have not been involved.   The residents could keep a log, we could see what action enforcement officers would take, and see what happens over six months.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the enforcement issue is an important point.  The original condition was not worded in the most helpful way - the word ‘premises’ was used to safeguard the amenity of residents, but if the building was being used outside the stated hours for paperwork, office activity etc more related to B1 use, this would be OK in a residential area; it would not be expedient to enforce the condition if the machines are switched off but someone is working in the office at 6.00am;

-          this is why the condition has been amended to refer to machinery, and if the amenity of the neighbours is compromised by noise of machinery outside the stated hours, this would not be acceptable;

-          MS’s suggestion is a sensible one to test if the additional hours of work, and more suitable than a deferral;

-          it is important to remind Members of the EH officer’s comments on the orange update – he recommended extending ductwork and fitting attenuators to the ducts, and the applicant undertook this work immediately.  On further inspection, the EH officer considers the impact of the noise is not unacceptable – this is the clear comment of CBC’s professional adviser on these matters.

 

GB:  notes that five Members have indicated to speak.  Requests they do not repeat comments which have already been made, and that they keep their comments brief.

 

CN:  notes that Members are being told they should follow the advice of the EH officer on this application whereas they were told todismiss professional advice for the previous one - it seems to be decided according to the mood of the moment.   As AM has said, a refusal of this application would lead us right back to where we were, which wouldn’t be right.  There are a lot of complaints about the applicant breaching hours, and Members are here to see if this should be legitimised.  If the application is refused, at least that refusal will deliver justice.

 

BF:  regarding MS’s suggestion for a six-month temporary permission, there is only one Bank Holiday between now and Christmas, and based on the previous track record, it’s possible that the conditions will be broken.  FC has referred to the conditions, and the officer has stated that the applicant may be doing paperwork after the machines have stopped, but the current conditions states that business should shut down at 6.00pm and not start again until 8.00am.  The applicant understands this, and it doesn’t matter what the reason for being in the building is – he should stick to the planning permission – the law is the law.  Officers have said that some conditions are unenforceable, but Members should remember that all conditions are appealable.  From comments and letters, it’s clear that people in the area have had their peace and quiet disturbed and are in turmoil.  His daughter had trouble when living in Hove, with neighbours in the flat above playing loud music at 3.00am in the morning – it was only when she found the landlord’s home phone number and rang him at 3.00am to complain that something was done.  CBC doesn’t give out environmental health officers’ numbers so any incident is likely to be reported some days later – this is no good.  There is no track record; enforcement is abysmal.  The owners of the Banksy house will get away with a caution; the vast majority of enforcement work is not done because we do not have the personnel to do it.   These conditions should have been enforced and business carried out within the conditions of the planning permission.  Why can’t people work to the planning permission as given?

 

PB:  enforcement is a side issue.  The current planning application is asking that local residents accept the business opening from 7.00am to 8.00pm on weekdays, 7.00am to 3.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays, with all the vibration and noise it brings.  This is not reasonable or acceptable, and we should not be supporting it.  End of story.

 

JF:  if the application is approved with suggested conditions, couldn’t something be included to make them stronger – so the applicant and the residents know exactly when the laundry won’t be working?  It’s not feasible that the laundry should be working those hours.

 

FC:  the officer’s explanation about enforcement was unacceptable.  Would like to suggest that Condition 2, as set out at para 1.3 of the blue update, be amended, with stated hours of operation as 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday, and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.  The unenforceable conditions are precisely those currently set out in Condition 2, and by changing the hours, we can achieve all we want to achieve and protect the residents by setting finite hours for laundry to work, which enforcement officers can enforce. 

 

GB:  does AC still want to move to defer?

 

AC:  has listened to the debate and is no longer certain that deferral is the right thing to do.  Had been working on the evidence of his own experience on Planning View, where the noise and disturbance could not be considered unreasonable, even on a Sunday.  After being told that what Members heard is actually not what goes on, suggested spot checks to find the truth.  Is beginning to think we will never get the truth, and is increasingly minded to refuse, even though from the evidence of his ears, the noise seemed reasonable.  Will withdraw move to defer.

 

AM:  moves to defer.

 

MJC, in response:

-          to FC, would advise against amending the condition as suggested – this approach would be unreasonable.  The application is to vary the condition on the applicant’s terms; after discussion with the EH team, the suggested opening hours were reduced.  FC is suggesting the hours remain the same.  The committee cannot unilaterally decide how the applicant uses his premises.  It would be better to refuse;

-          regarding deferral, after listening to the debate, this is a better option.  AC is quite right – the noise Members heard on Planning View seemed acceptable – and suggested deferral to allow spot checks to take place.  The applicant is present tonight, and has heard the strength of opinion from Members regarding this;

-          a deferral would be an opportunity to give a better planning application for residents and the applicant, and a better scenario than if permission is refused and goes to appeal;

-          if the decision is deferred, we can monitor the situation, speak with the applicant, objectors and EH officers, and come back with a better body of evidence in two months;

-          if the application is refused tonight and goes to appeal, the Planning Inspector will make a decision and CBC will lose a degree of influence.

 

AC:  can we be assured that, if deferred, the spot checks would happen and the applicant would not be warned in advance, in order to provide sufficient evidence to make a decision?  Has his doubts, but could be slightly more comfortable if this can be assured.

 

MJC, in response:

-          is inclined to suggest that, if the application is deferred, officers meet with Chair and Vice-Chair to decide on a plan of action, with EH officers and enforcement colleagues;

-          one month would not be long enough to get the necessary information up together; two or three months would be better to give officers a chance to formulate a plan of action, discuss issues with the applicant and objectors, and provide a better body of evidence.

 

GB:  feels we are going round in ever-decreasing circles here, with several Members still wishing to speak.

 

HM:  MJC’s suggestion is sensible, but if we defer, would like to hear from an EH officer what are the long-term effects on people’s health of living in the vicinity of constant noise and vibration.

 

MS:  to CL, if the application is deferred, can the applicant claim non-determination if the application isn’t decided in the set time-scale?

 

CL, in response:

-          the determination date is 9^th September, so yes, the option for a non-determination appeal would be there – this would be in the hands of the applicant.

 

GB:  can Members give clarification about deferment?

 

AC:  likes the idea of three months, but is now being told that there would be a non-determination appeal so withdraws move to defer.

 

CL, in response:

-          a non-determination appeal is not automatic – it is up to the applicant to decide whether or not to follow this course of action.

 

FC:  has a proposal.  Does not feel we are doing the residents justice.  Repeated her proposed amendment to Condition 2 as given earlier, to ensure no machinery is used outside those hours, in keeping with Policy CP4, but understanding office work should not be precluded – so that residents can live in peace and harmony. 

 

AM:  will move to defer.  We are on the verge of maladministration.

 

GB:  is concerned about how the debate is going.  Asks MJC to comment.

 

MJC, in response:

-          officer advice remains that deferral is the sensible option;

-          is struggling with FC’s suggestion, for the reason that we agree to vary the condition, we will be giving the application two options:  to implement the new permission or continue working in keeping with the still-valid extant permission;

-          deferral is a much tidier option, with new evidence produced for Members to consider.  If they are still unhappy with the recommendation, they can refuse.  This is a much clearer way to proceed – to defer and monitor the situation for three months.

 

FC:  is using Officers’ words for the suggested new Condition 2 – not making anything up or giving any additional planning consent.  The condition will allow 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday, restricted working on Saturdays, and none of Sundays and Bank Holidays.  This doesn’t limit the applicant – can still use the premises for office work.  Has taken the wording the officers have given and applying a sensible way forward to residents suffering from the noise and vibration.

 

GB:  can CL comment on the best way to proceed.

 

CL, in response:

-          the officer recommendation is to permit;

-          PB has said he would move to refuse; there has also been a move to defer , a suggestion to amend Condition 2 , and a suggestion of voting on a temporary six-month permission ;

-          due to the protocol, a the move to defer whould need to be taken first to be an option, but AC has now withdrawn it;  AM has said he will move to defer instead; but PB has already previously said he would move to refuse

-          ; under the protocol if a move to refuse is lost, the application will be permitted as on the papers

-          FC has moved to make an amendment to the substantive recommendation on papers; if Members want this to be put forward, there would need to be an opportunity for this this to be voted on as an amendment before then any vote on the substantive recommendation were taken

-          similar considerations would apply as regards any move for permitting only a six month permission

-          the Committee needs to bear all this in mind

 

CC:  one Member has moved to defer, another has moved to refuse.  These should be taken in order – we do not want a bloodbath about who should go first.  If AC has withdrawn his move to defer, we should take the other moves in order – so PB’s move to refuse should be next.

 

GB:  this seems sensible.  Is PB still of a mind to move to refuse?

 

PB:  yes, on the grounds of loss of amenity.

 

AC:  if Members vote against the refusal, is the application automatically approved?

 

CL, in response:

-          yes.  Has been trying to explain the various scenarios in relation to CBC protocol;

-          if a move to refuse is lost, permission is automatically granted as on the papers;

-          if Members are not happy for that to happen, they may for example want to be able to vote on the amendment to Condition 2 first;

-          it is up to PB and others who spoke before the amendment proposals as to whether they want to enable any change to the conditions to be put foward; but it maybe they are secure in their minds that it isn’t necessary;

-          if protocol was different, it would be a case of asking for a new proposal when a move is lost, but instead we have to work within CBC protocol as it stands.

 

FC:  on a point of order:  if we vote on a refusal and the vote is carried, the current unenforceable planning conditions remain as they are, with no mechanism to enforce.

 

CC:  doesn’t understand why the current conditions are not enforceable.  Doesn’t see any risk in voting on the move to refuse.  The condition on the paper is well-drafted and enforceable.  Is this the correct position?

 

CL, in response:

-          looking at the wording of the condition on Page 123 as it originally stands, with the hours as stated. MJC has said that it would not be expedient to enforce this if the premises are being used for paperwork etc outside the hours stated.  If machinery is being used outside those hours, we would need to look to see why this is not enforceable.

 

CC:  what is the risk in refusing, if the condition should be enforced to protect residents?  If the condition achieves what we want it to achieve, there is no danger in refusing.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the existing condition lacks precision.  However, Planning Committee has sent a clear message regarding enforcement to officers, who will pass this on to their enforcement colleagues.

 

GB:  would like to start the voting now.  Does PB still want to move to refuse?

 

PB:  yes.

 

Vote on PB’s move to refuse on CP4 – loss of amenity

12 in support

1 abstention

REFUSE

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 9.05pm.