Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MP described the application as above, which was deferred last month for further discussion with the agent regarding a reduction in size of the proposal and work on the tree.  As a result, the ridge height has been reduced from 5.8m to 5m, and the eaves height from 4.3m to 4m. A revised tree method statement has been submitted, which proposes no reduction in the height of the tree but the crown adjacent to the new building to be lifted.  Officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Asked that Members take into consideration all previous neighbours’ objections and comments on this application, which has been going on for over a year.  Neighbours welcome the small reduction in overall height to 5m and gutter height to 4m, but the proposal will still be larger in volume than the previous building; its impact will be intrusive and neighbours will look out on a wall of metal cladding.  If brick construction to the front could be conditioned, this would improve the appearance and sound insulation.  Neighbours are concerned that the two 4m access doors increase the possibility that large vehicles could be driven into the building and operate from a site that is clearly not suitable; if these doors are left open during the working day, the noise could be intolerable.  Neighbours welcome the restrictions on working hours as proposed, having suffered from noise disturbance in the past due to late working hours and weekend working.  Hopes that similar restrictions will apply to any further development on the site, which is quite likely to take place.  Noted at the previous meeting that Members were concerned about the ash tree, and suggested it should be replaced with a mature tree of equal stature should it be damaged during the construction process.  Neighbours welcome this approach. 

Member debate:

PT:  following on from the speaker’s comments, do the hours of operation as set in Condition 7 still stand i.e. 0800–1800 Monday to Friday, 0800-1300 Saturday, and not at all on Sunday and Bank Holidays?

KS:  have Highways officers made any further representations?  There were concerns at the last committee meeting regarding the height of the roller doors, clearly designed to accommodate larger vehicles on the site.  Will these be soundproofed?  Even with the doors closed, noise from the building will travel.

DS:  following on from what the speaker has said, do we know if an extractor system will be in operation when the weather is hot so the doors don’t have to be left open?

JF:  regarding roller doors, when we’ve had this situation before on industrial units, we have added a condition to say they must be shut when not in use, even in summer, so no noise is emitted.  Can we add that condition, to ensure the doors are shut at all times except for deliveries?

HM:  soundproofing of doors was discussed in relation to 86 Cirencester Road for the same reason.  Is it included in Condition 8?

CH:  foresees a lot of problems with having to close doors unless they are being used.  The business could be the kind which has multiple deliveries, and frequent openings and closings could be more intrusive.  We don’t know who will be using these units, and the suggested condition could cause more problems than it solves.  Are there any other ways round it?

Regarding restricted hours on deliveries, large vehicles won’t be able to get up and down the road so there is no need to be concerned about them.  However, B1 use could mean a business dealing with food, and if the delivery van arrives before 8.00am, it might park outside with its engine running to keep its refrigeration unit going.  How can this be addressed? B1 use could be anything, and some uses will be more problematic than others.  Is comfortable with issue of insulation, though metal clad there will be insulation on the inside, as must be built to modern standards for heat and sound.  We need to be wary about some of the suggested conditions.

MS:  supports the concerns about potential noise – noted that back door of the building was open on Planning View, with music blaring out.  We should take this issue extremely seriously, and if there are any conditions we can add to minimise the impact, we should be doing so.  Suggests that the front elevation would look a lot better if it was brick-clad all along the side to fit in better with the surrounding houses.  Is there any condition for that?

MP, in response:

-       to PT, confirms that the hours of operation are as set out in Condition 7;

-       to KS, there have been no further comments from Highways; they made their previous comments in the knowledge that the roller shutter doors were there are were happy with this;

-       the agent has confirmed that cavity masonry will be used for added insulation, plus double-skin cladding for better sound insulation.  The loading doors are also double-skin.  Further details of insulation can be added by condition if Members think it necessary;

-       to DS, there are no extractors at the moment, but this could be requested in future to limit the impact on amenity;

-       to JF, what she suggests has been considered in the past but could have a knock-on effect later on as CH has pointed out;

-       to CH’s comments on conditions relating to deliveries and other activities, if the set hours don’t work for the end users, they would apply for a variation of condition to allow earlier deliveries before commencement of work;

-       to MS, re external appearance, the proposed building will look similar to the building at the entrance of the industrial estate.  It is utilitarian, a standard design for an industrial unit.

PT:  wants to reassure people:  she lives close to local supermarkets and gets up early; today there was a huge wagon outside with its refrigeration unit going but she could barely hear it.  Modern equipment is a lot better than it used to be.

CH:  some vehicles need to keep their engines running to power the refrigeration units, especially smaller vehicles.  Drivers would not technically be breaking a condition if they parked outside on the road and waited until 8.00 to make a delivery.  Has seen this elsewhere and it can be a problem.  Can it be conditioned against?

HM:  returning to JF’s comments, agrees with a condition to ensure that the doors are kept shut unless there is a delivery, even though we don’t know who the occupiers of the units will be.  If this condition is included but unworkable for future occupiers, they can always apply to have it removed.

KS:  agrees with HM – this is a sensible way forward.  Concerning the potential for adding a mezzanine floor, questions whether the overall height of the building is enough to accommodate this?  If it is, can we add a condition that the users would have to apply for permission for this –or would it come under permitted development rights?

MP, in response:

-       the condition relating to hours of delivery doesn’t restrict vehicles from parking and leaving their engines running, and is not sure how we can do this.  However, if this was to happen regularly, it would be in breach of the condition, as it is part of a delivery and outside the hours set;

-       to HM, yes, future occupiers can apply to vary any condition at a later date;

-       to KS regarding a possible mezzanine floor, permitted development rights for this could be removed to ensure an application is made.

JF: can we also add a condition that the roller doors are shut at all times except when deliveries are expected?

KS:  would be happier if MP’s suggestion for removal of PD rights was added – a mezzanine floor could double the floorspace, and thus the activity and the noise.

Would like to draw Members’ attention to the minutes of the last meeting.  There have been no substantial changes to the application since then, and is therefore shocked at the comments and questions tonight.   Regarding the impact of the building, the height has been reduced by a fraction which is welcome but not enough.  The proposal is directly next to people’s houses and could be very intrusive, much more so than what has been on the site previously.  Is disappointed that only minor changes have been made yet Members seem OK with the proposal now.  This development in this location, close to people’s homes, will cause noise, disruption and associated problems.  It is a much bigger prospect than what was on site previously – two units in place of one, and this could be doubled in future. 

There are conditions, but in order for these to be enforced, residents will have to go through hell and high water, and then probably fail to have them enforced. Has no confidence in this proposal, and is disappointed by questions asked so far tonight.

CH:  has checked what was said last time.  Was personally uncomfortable with the mass of the building, but notes that the height has now been reduced quite considerably, and the ridge height now proposed is a fraction lower.  We don’t have sufficient modern units across the town, and as this was an industrial unit before, feels quite comfortable with this proposal going ahead.  The applicant has made changes to allay Members’ fears and responded to their concerns, and preserving industrial estates is important for our town and economy. 

GB:  as ward councillor for the area, has sympathy with residents of any properties close to industrial units, and getting the two communities to work together can require the wisdom of Solomon.  The residents were originally open to the idea of a new development, in context.  The first proposal was much bigger than anticipated, and has been reduced in size during consultation.  Understands the residents’ views and concerns, but finds himself is a difficult position.  The applicant has tried to provide a better building, and the residents are happy with some form of industrial unit on the site – it is just a question of what.

AC:  had concerns about the tree last month, and is particularly pleased that these have now been covered.  On Planning View, questioned how much of the lower part of the tree will need to be removed, and was reassured that this will be minor, thus removing his principle objection to the scheme.  The height of the building has also been reduced and it is set back from the houses.  Shares GB’s sympathy with the residents, but we shouldn’t forget that this has been an industrial site for a long time.  Is not sure why KS is so opposed to a mezzanine floor – if full-size lorries are going to need access, there will be no room for a mezzanine floor, other than round the edge of the unit for storage.  Does not consider CH’s concerns about engines running for refrigerated vans will necessarily be a problem, particularly as it isn’t know who will be using the units yet.  Is satisfied by what has been done since the last meeting.  Wants to know if the additional conditions referred to will be included or need to be voted upon.

CL, in response:

-       confirmed that officers have confirmed to her that they are happy to amend their recommendation and that it now includes the additional conditions in respect of both the keeping of the roller doors shut when not in use and the removal of permitted development rights in respect of mezzanine floors.

KS:  asked for the condition to remove PD rights as expanding the property to two times its volume will significantly intensify industrial activity.  Can speak from experience, knowing that a mezzanine floor can result in additional noise from extractor fans,  and that an increase in space and hours of operation, maybe not now but quite possibly later, may well be wanted, depending on who the end user is.  It is therefore sensible to include that condition.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with additional conditions to remove permitted development rights in respect of mezzanine floors and the keeping of the roller doors shut when not in use

9 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT