Agenda item

Proposal:	S73a: Removal of conditions 7 roller shutter door shut, 11 paint spraying, 18 additional acoustic mitigation, and 19 acoustic boundary from previously approved application 16/01016/FUL: Proposed change of use from B1 (light industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) use to mixed use to allow for vehicles sales and leasing (sui generis) and vehicle preparation and washing (B1) and MOT and servicing (B2) for Anchor Vans Ltd.
Location:	Sabre House, Bath Road, Midgham, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 5UU
Applicant:	Anchor Pension Plan
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions

 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 16/03528/FUL in respect of removal of conditions 7, 18 and 19, and the variation of condition 11 from previously approved application 16/01016 FUL.

Councillor Graham Bridgman disputed the advice from Officers, provided in the update report, that planning material could not be considered because it had been submitted to the Council less than 5 working days prior to the meeting. He suggested that it was a matter for the Chairman to exercise his discretion, if he so wished, to allow the material to be presented at the meeting. Councillor Graham Pask acknowledged that he could exercise discretion but had chosen to abide by the constitution in the spirit of consistency and fairness.

Bob Dray confirmed that the material was an independent transcript of the previous meeting and not a direct extract from the minutes produced by Officers.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Anthony Fenn, Parish Council representative, Howie Silver and Phil Magurn, objectors, Luke French, supporter and Graham Joyce applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Anthony Fenn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Midgham Parish Council objected to the removal of the conditions on the basis that significant emphasis had been placed on the need to minimise the impact to the public.

·         The Parish Council was disappointed to hear that the previous application had been approved. However, the conditions reassured many that their concerns would be managed.

·         The applicant accepted the proposed conditions at the meeting on 26^th October 2016 (considering application 16/01016 FUL) so they were surprised to learn that only a few weeks later a new application had been submitted in an attempt to remove them.

·         It was not clear what activity the sound survey had measured on site which raised questions around the validity of the report - reinforced by the comments of Environmental Health Officers which led to them recommending that a further assessment was carried out.

·         Condition 18 was introduced to minimise the impact of repetitive, annoying and impulsive noises and was still necessary due to the type of work carried out onsite.

·         The sound report suggested that the noise level from the site was less than surrounding background noise but on a recent visit to a neighbouring property it was evident that the noise level was intrusive and that the roller shutter door had been left open.

·         The Parish Council believed that an acoustic fence was essential and that conditions 7, 18 and 19 should remain.

In response to questions asked, Mr Fenn confirmed that he was not opposed to the proposed changes to condition 11.

Phil Magnurn in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He lived next to Sabre House and had not been present at the meeting on 26^th October 2016 when the previous application was considered. He was disappointed with the decision made by the Committee but took comfort in the conditions which the applicant was, apparently, willing to comply with.

·         The validity of the sound study was questionable and he did not agree with the suggestion that site noise had registered below background noise.

·         The shutter door had remained open since March 2017 resulting in an increased level of noise. Noting that when the door was closed it was difficult to hear any activity from the site. Therefore, it was important that condition 18 remained so that the impact was minimised.

Howie Silver in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Point 6.3.12 noted that ‘the types of activities are such that noises were likely to be tonal, annoying, repetitive, intermittent; not constant, but frequent and impulsive’. He had recorded the noises heard from inside his home which clearly illustrated the impact. However, the material could not be considered by Members because it had not been submitted to Planning Officers 5 clear working days prior to this meeting.

·         He quoted from his transcript, of the meeting in October 2016, that Councillor Bridgman was keen to see that the impact of the reclassification (from B1 to B2) was effectively minimised through reasonable conditioning.

·         He stated that a Councillor was recorded saying (at the meeting of 26 October 2016) that the acoustic screen barrier along the A4 was very effective in minimising the impacts of passing traffic.

·         The roller shutter doors had been opened – regardless of the conditions. For this reason it was essential that the acoustic screen remained part of the application’s conditions to ensure noise levels were managed effectively.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Silver and Mr Magnurn confirmed that they lived at The Barn and Old Acre.

Councillor Bridgman asked what their thoughts were in respect of condition 11. Mr Silver stated that he did not believe the matter had been discussed in full as the applicant had previously stated that he had no intention of using the workshop for painting.

Luke French in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He worked for Advanced Motor Supplies, Tadley, and knew the applicant well. Anchor Pension Plans was an honest and well established, family run, business that employed 65 local people.

·         There were no records of Anchor Pension Plans being prosecuted or brought into disrepute for wrong doing.

·         They had another site operational in Tadley which conducted the same activities and yet there had been no record of any complaints from neighbouring residents in the past 21 years. How could 24 homes be wrong?

·         The company employed 65 people who relied on their job to support their families and put food on the table.

·         There were examples of malicious statements being published on social media sites by the neighbours - lambasting the applicant and his company.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr French confirmed that there was a residential property immediately adjacent to the border of the site in Tadley. Mr Franks was unable to confirm what noise mitigation measures were in place at that site but he offered to check with the applicant.

Members asked what effect the proposed changes would have on the before-mentioned employees of Anchor Pension Plan. Mr Frank was unable to comment.  

Graham Joyce in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Sabre House was a well established business which had been in existence for 40 years and the houses nearby had been purchased knowing that they were adjacent to a commercial site.

·         He was aware that the Parish Council objected to the proposals but he was disappointed that Anchor Vans had not been invited to a Parish Council meeting to discuss these issues together.

·         Planning should be a system that worked for the many and not just the privileged few.

·         Anchor Vans proposed to permanently close the eastern entrance and a new entrance would be created further away from the neighbouring residential properties. This would therefore, minimise the impact on neighbours, enabling Anchor Vans to continue trading from the site and ultimately protecting the jobs of its 65 employees.

Councillor Pamela Bale highlighted the fact that the previous conditions were accepted by the applicant. Mr Joyce advised that there had been a breakdown in communication between the agent and applicant therefore conditions had been accepted without his knowledge/consent.

Councillor Emma Webster suggested that the conditions associated with the previous application had been published in advance of the meeting and available for the public (or applicant/agent) to view in advance. Mr Joyce stated that he was exercising his democratic right to object to the conditions in place.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Joyce advised that he accepted the condition to keep the roller shutter door shut but there had been a recent issue with the motor which meant that it was extremely difficult to move the heavy door. He insisted that Bob Dray had been kept abreast of the issue and that he was also aware of the proposed plans to move the eastern entrance.

Councillor Marigold Jaques asked whether it was necessary to keep the door closed for reasons aside from minimising the noise level. Mr Joyce stated that the real issue was that the neighbours disliked having a van dealership adjacent to their homes and he had evidence that the neighbours would try their hardest to ensure Anchor Vans was not able to trade from the site.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked why the trees had been cut back along the border of the site, because the foliage would act as a further noise reduction measure, and why Mr Joyce objected to the need to provide an acoustic sound barrier. Mr Joyce stated that the greenery had since grown back and that his objection was based on the fact that the screen was unnecessary and costly. He accepted that another noise assessment survey was required – although he was not happy with the costs associated with this work either. Mr Joyce proposed that he would introduce a schedule of monitoring to assess levels, provide opportunities to consider mitigation measures (if necessary) and then reassess to ensure the measures removed/reduced the issue. However, monitoring would take place from the nearby homes to ensure the readings were a true reflection of the effect on neighbouring properties.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Joyce stated that he accepted the proposed maximum noise level of 5 Decibels and that he would not support the placement of any noise mitigation measures until the survey was completed.

Councillor Emma Webster referred to comments from Environmental Health, detailed in the previous committee report, and asked what had led to Officers issuing a new set of recommendations. Bob Dray advised that in light of this application specifically contesting the conditions, Officers had carefully considered the challenged conditions against the policy tests in the Planning Practice Guidance. Upon further assessment it was considered that the condition for further noise assessment and mitigation was fully justified, and would suffice, but that the other noise mitigation conditions did not meet the policy tests.

In response to questions asked by Members, Suzanne McLaughlin advised that the recent survey measured noise levels with the roller shutter door closed at the site based in Tadley.

Councillor Alan Macro highlighted, within condition 18, that certain activity would not take place until the sound survey was conducted therefore, would a follow up sound survey check the levels when activity commenced. Bob Dray stated that the survey would be required before the activities commenced on site, but that the new survey would need to be truly representative of the activities proposed to take place. A scheme of monitoring after commencement of activities on site was also a requirement of the condition. Suzanne McLaughlin advised that it was normal practice for the sound survey to state the mitigation measures necessary to minimise the effects.

Councillor Metcalfe disputed the validity of future sound reports where the tests were preannounced. He suggested that it would be possible to tailor the activity onsite at that time and therefore, it was possible that the report would provide false readings. Suzanne McLaughlin advised that the Council could check the reliability of a report through unannounced checks but that this was done by exception only.

Councillor Bridgman stated that he had no issue with the proposed change to condition 11, although he recalled that the original plans did not include painting activity onsite. He was concerned to hear that the applicant had failed to comply with conditioning of the roller shutter door position and this resulted in him questioning whether the applicant would follow future conditions. He sympathised with Councillor Metcalfe’s concerns regarding validity of future noise surveys.

David Pearson encouraged Members not to focus on past adherence to conditions as this was not a material planning matter. Members were encouraged to consider the proposed changes and whether they met relevant planning tests, including enforceability.  Officers were satisfied that the Council could identify and remedy a breach of the conditions.

Councillor Keith Chopping acknowledged that some planning applications could be more difficult than others but Members must not refrain from voting on the matter. He noted that the proposed application related to the site in Midgham and not Tadley so there was limited value in the information provided by Mr French. Therefore, there should be no reason why the conditions should be changed.

Councillor Quentin Webb advised that he would support the proposal based on the relocation of the entrance door. He requested that the closure of the door (permanently) was conditioned as part of the application. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Macro.

Bob Dray advised Members that they must consider the application as presented in the report and avoid considering future changes which go beyond the scope of the current application.

Councillor Webster advised that she would offer an alternative proposal if the first proposal failed – to accept Officers recommendation for approval but to reintroduce condition 7 as well. Councillor Bridgman advised that he would support the proposal if it was presented to the Committee.

Councillor Quentin Webb was invited to clarify the initial proposal before Members were invited to vote. He stated that he proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation with the inclusion of a condition to ensure that the eastern entrance door was permanently closed (welded etc). Suzanne McLaughlin advised that the safety at work aspect of the condition would be a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

In considering the application, Members voted against the recommendation.

Councillor Pask invited Councillor Webster to present her proposal to the Committee. Councillor Webster reiterated that her proposal was to accept Officers recommendation for approval but to reinstate condition 7. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Bridgman.

In considering the above application Members’ votes did not produce a majority outcome.  Therefore, Councillor Graham Pask, as Chairman of the Committee, cast his vote in favour of the proposal.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1.    Approved plans

 

The change of use hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with drawing number 14/061/01 Revision A received 16 May 2016, the site location plan and drawing numbers 15/032/02 and 15/032/05 registered 22 April 2016.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

 2.        Use of building

 

The use of the building on site shall be limited to vehicle washing, vehicle MOT and servicing, and ancillary office accommodation. Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any subsequent version thereof, the building shall not be used for any other purpose unless permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

 

Reason: In order to prevent a change of use of the building that might result in disruption to the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

 3.        Use of hard-standing

 

The hard-standing on the site shall be used only for purposes of parking and turning, sui generis vehicle sales and B8 storage and distribution ancillary to the use of the site for vehicle sales. Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any subsequent version thereof, the hard-standing shall not be used for any other purpose unless permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

 

Reason: In order to prevent a change of use of the hard-standing that might result in disruption to the amenity of neighbouring occupants or a detrimental impact on highway safety in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

 4.        No recovery trucks

 

The site shall not be used for purposes of vehicle recovery, and no recovery truck shall be kept on the site.

 

Reason: In order to prevent a use of the site that may have an undue and detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity, and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

 5.        Parking and turning (prior approval)

 

Within two months of the date of this planning permission being granted details of the vehicle parking and turning areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority under a formal discharge of conditions application.  Such details shall show how the parking spaces are to be surfaced and marked out.  Thereafter the vehicle parking and turning shall be provided in accordance with the approved details within two months of the date of those details being approved.  The parking and turning spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking and turning of private motor cars and light goods vehicles in accordance with the approved details at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

 6.        HGV transporter access (prior approval)

 

Within two months of the date of this planning permission being granted details of the HGV van transporter entry path, unloading / reloading area, turning area and exit path shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority under a formal discharge of conditions application.  Such details shall show how the entry path, unloading / reloading, turning and exit path is to be surfaced and marked out.  Within two months of the details being approved the entry path, unloading / reloading area, turning area and exit path areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved details.  The transporter entry path, unloading / reloading area, turning area and exit path parking and turning areas shall thereafter be kept available for the access, parking, turning and egress of the transporter in accordance with the approved details at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate delivery facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of deliveries taking place on the roadside which would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

 7.        Operating hours restriction - servicing etc.

 

The use of the site for vehicle servicing, MOT, repairs and washing shall be restricted to the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, and 08.30 to 13.00 hours Saturday.  No operations shall not be undertaken at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of people living nearby in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

 8.        Operating hours restriction - sales etc.

 

The use of the site for purposes of sales and the use of the ancillary office accommodation shall be restricted to the hours of 08.00 to 20.00 hours Monday to Saturday, and 08.00 to 16.00 hours on Sunday and bank holidays.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of people living nearby in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

 9.        Floodlighting / external lighting restriction

 

No floodlighting or other form of external lighting scheme shall be installed on the site except for in accordance with the lighting report registered 22 April 2016. All lighting shall be turned off outside of the approved hours of operation of the site.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

10.       Solvent-based products restriction (varied)

 

No use or storage of solvent-based products shall be carried out on the site.

 

Reason: To ensure that neighbouring properties are not unreasonably affected by odours in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

11.       Amplified sound restriction

 

No sound reproduction or amplification equipment (including public address systems, tannoys, loudspeakers, etc) which is audible outside the site boundary shall be installed or operated within the site. 

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

12.       North-western vehicle wash bay restriction

 

The use of the vehicle wash bay to the north-west of the site shall be limited to use for hand vehicle washing and shall not be used for purposes of washing using automated equipment such as pressure washers, spray guns, etc.

           

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

13.       Ancillary servicing of vehicles only

 

The use of the building on the site for the carrying out of vehicle servicing, repair and washing and valeting shall be restricted to use for the carrying out of servicing, repairs and washing and valeting to vehicles in the ownership of the business operating from the site. The site shall not be used for purposes of carrying out vehicle servicing, repairs, wahing and valeting on any other vehicles.

 

Reason: In order to prevent an intensification of these uses that would result in a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity and highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Core Strategy (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

14.       Obscure glazed windows

 

Within 2 months of the date of this decision the windows along the southern elevation of the building on the site shall be obscure glazed. The windows shall remain obscure glazed at all times thereafter.

 

Reason: In order to prevent an increase in the overlooking of neighbouring properties associated with the intensification of the use of the building for the uses hereby approved. This condition is imposed in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

15.       No change of use under permitted development

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development Order) (England) 2015 or any subsequent version thereof the site shall not be used for any purpose other than those hereby granted planning permission under this application without permission first being granted in respect of a planning application made for this purpose.

 

Reason: In order to prevent a change of use that would result in a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential occupants, highway safety or harm to visual amenity in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF, Policies CS13, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

 

16.       Delivering management plan (prior approval)

 

Within two months of the date of this decision a Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application.  The approved Delivery Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times following its approval. The Plan shall:

 

a)         Specify the type, number and frequency of HGV vehicles that will serve the site,

b)         Specify the haul route to and from the site;

c)         Specify the delivery vehicle acceptance arrangements and state NO delivery vehicles will wait on the public highway adjacent the site, AT ANY TIME, before entering or after leaving the site;

d)         State ALL unloading and reloading of delivery vehicles will take place within the site;

e)         State all delivery vehicles will enter and exit the site in a forward gear.

 

Reason: To provide safe and suitable access for all and reduce the potential impact on the public highway in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

17.       Noise surveys (prior approval)

 

No vehicle servicing, repair and MOT activity shall take place on the site until the following details have been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application:

 

a)         Confirmation of offsite noise sensitive properties / locations.

b)         Confirmation of noise monitoring locations.

c)         The findings of a noise survey (undertaken in accordance with BS4142 or such other standard acceptable to the Local Planning Authority) to confirm noise levels of each activity in the vicinity of the proposed development.

d)         Written details and sample calculations showing the likely impact of noise from the development.

e)         A proposal, detailing the frequency, timing and presentation of further noise monitoring surveys to determine the noise levels at the development once it becomes operational.

f)          A scheme of works or other such steps as may be necessary to minimise the effects of noise from the development.

g)         Noise resulting from the use of plant, machinery or equipment shall not exceed  a level of 5dB(A) below the prevailing background level when measured 1 metre from the facade at the noise sensitive locations identified in (a) and carried out in (e) or as requested by the Local Planning Authority.

 

No MOT, repair and servicing activities shall take place on the site until any approved measures specified at (f) have been implemented on the site. The approved measures specified at (f) shall remain in place on the site at all times thereafter.

 

Reason: The noise survey details accompanying this application do not take sufficient account of the impacts of servicing and repair activities in making recommendations for the level of noise mitigation required.  Further details are required in the interests of protecting the local residents from unreasonable noise levels which would be detrimental to the residential character of the area in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

 

18.       Front boundary fence (prior approval)

 

Within two months of the date of this decision details of a two metre high fence to be erected along the northern boundary of the site between the access to the north east and the boundary with Orchard Cottage to the north-west shall be submitted under a formal discharge of conditions application. Within two months of the date of approval of the details of the two metre high fence the approved fence shall be erected and shall be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in order to ensure that views across the hardstanding used for vehicle sales, parking and ancillary B8 storage of vehicles do not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

 

19.       Activities restricted to inside the building

 

All MOT testing, vehicle servicing, repair, refurbishment and valeting on the site shall only be undertaken inside the building on the site when all openings to the building including the roller doors and windows are shut.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of people living nearby in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.