Agenda item

Erection and use of a temporary warehouse building (70m x 30m) until December 2024 and three permanent welfare units.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the erection and use of a temporary warehouse building (70m x 30m) until December 2024 and three permanent welfare units (for copy see file of minutes).

S Henderson, Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photographs, photographs of the site and proposed layout and elevations and confirmed that the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed in the report. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the application was retrospect in respect of the warehouse building and 2 of the proposed 3 welfare units.

Councillor Sterling, Local Member for the Delves Lane division addressed the Committee. She stated that Erwin Hymer was valued as a major employer not just in her ward but in the wider Consett area and she understood their business needs given the challenges of the last few years. Residents were not unreasonable and accepted that they lived beside an industrial unit and did not expect it to be silent.

The main issue was that the structure was built without permission and without going through the checks and balances of the planning department. The development was unfair and illegal and had caused particular problems for residents. If it had gone through planning, officers would have had the opportunity to look at the plans in detail and discovered that the position of the structure was extremely close to the homes of residents which were all bungalows and towered over them. Other structures on the site were built at a suitable distance away from the bungalows and had it gone through planning this would have been reviewed by officers.

The temporary nature of the building had led to a lot of noise pollution. In section 33 of the report the applicant tried to explain the source of the noise, but residents had complained to her that noise could be heard during the night, well past the 10.00pm deadline stated in the report. Residents had reported the issue to the environmental health department and to the local MP but as the sound was not constant it was difficult to capture on the equipment supplied by environmental health. There was also noise from vehicles driving to and from the structure, extremely closely to the bungalows. Light pollution was also a major issue. The exterior lights were bright and shone into the bungalows. Councillor Sterling quoted para 34 of the report and questioned if tilting the lights down would help when all the homes were bungalows. Councillor Sterling also stated that staff members were parking their vehicles off site.

Councillor Sterling explained that residents trust had been broken and if planning was to be granted, how could residents know that these issues would not continue and who, in case of a problem, could they contact at Erwin Hymer and at Durham County Council who would act immediately. Further to this, how could residents trust that the structure would be removed in 2024. Her concern was that there would be a repeat for extensions until the temporary structure became a permanent due to time. Councillor Sterling asked if Erwin Hymer were to apply for a permanent structure, would the positioning be properly looked at or because it already existed would the application fly through based on what was already there.

Councillor Sterling expressed concern that this would set a dangerous precedent and stated it was easier for developers to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

Councillor read out a statement from a local resident.

“Over recent years when Elddis Caravans were owned by Explorer Group and presently, Erwin Hymer Group they have gradually expanded their operation in Delves Lane at the detriment of local residents. Although the company has different owners the management seem to have the same disregard for local residents as noise, light and litter pollution continues to blight the area. They continue to ride roughshod over the residents by erecting buildings without planning permission hence making a mockery of planning laws and a total disregard for Durham County Council Planning Department. Surely it is time for DCC to stand up and show solidarity with local residents in an attempt to improve the rapidly declining living conditions of the residents of Sunningdale and the surrounding area. Let's not forget, planning laws have been blatantly disregarded and anything other than a refusal for planning application DM/22/03273/FPA would give Erwin Hymer Group carte blanche for any other plans they have for future expansion”.

Councillor Sterling added that another resident had asked her to inform the Committee that he suffered from electromagnetic hypersensitivity and the close proximity of the building was really affecting his health. He bought his home just before the structure was erected and because it didn’t have permission, it didn’t show up on his land searches. He wouldn’t have bought the house if he had known, and he is now desperate to move.

J Jackson Brown, local resident, addressed the Committee. She stated that she was told in 2020 that the temporary structure was only to be there until a permanent warehouse was built.  She advised that noise had been bearable when the working hours were 8.00am to 5.00pm but as the structure was now directly adjacent to her property there was an excess of traffic and light from the hours of 6.00am to 11.00pm. She explained that fork lift trucks were in operation on the route outside of the building from early morning in addition to large vehicles and lorries who were coming and going throughout the day and contributed to the level of noise experienced. Recently, she explained that noise levels had subsided but felt this would increase again if approval for the application was given. Ms Jackson Brown understood that Erwin Hymer needed to carry out work but stressed that this had impacted on their sleep and family life and it was important for residents to know when it would end. 

Mr B Sayers, local resident, addressed the Committee. He explained that the building had no legal authorisation, and it was the residents that had informed the planning team. Residents had tried to get answers from the planning team but had felt disregarded. Residents were informed that the temporary building would come down in February 2022, this was then extended to July 2022 and now the proposal is for 2024 and pointed out that the new building had been built for a year already. He questioned how the building had been allowed and believed it contradicted several policies of the CDP. Mr Sayers urged members to protect the rights of a peaceful residency and to instruct removal of the structure.

Councillor Jopling left the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst the concerns of residents regarding noise should not be diminished, members needed to focus on the application before them which was for the installation of the storage building. In terms of light pollution, he clarified that there were 4 main lights, 2 of which were existing. With regards to the location of a replacement permanent building, he advised that a new planning application would need to be submitted.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the applicant had not breached planning law and that there could only be a criminal offence if the applicant was instructed to apply for planning and failed to do so.

The Chair believed that Erwin Hymer would have been aware that planning authorisation was required.

Councillor Sterling highlighted that with regards to light, the light coming from within the building was also an issue for residents.

Councillor Brown asked what was on the site prior to the warehouse being built and what the current working hours were. She also stated that the report did not include a condition for B2. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the land had previously been grassland with car parking spaces and as a significant amount of car parking spaces existed, displacement of vehicles should not be an issue and advised that the applicant did encouraged staff to park on site. He agreed that hours of work may need to be investigated and could be conditioned if necessary. He clarified that the site was B8 and could be conditioned for storage only.

In response to a question from Councillor Peeke, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that an additional warehouse had been built but he was not sure what it was used for.

Councillor Earley asked if enforcement officers existed and stated that a designated officer would be beneficial to oversee the development and be a point of contact for residents. He believed that whilst the applicant was a good employer for the area, they needed to be good neighbours and address the long term problems faced by residents in relation to noise and light.

Councillor Watson explained that misleading statements from previous planning officers had not helped the situation. He agreed that light pollution was a concern for residents and should have been addressed.

As it was lawful development, Councillor Watson asked if members could refuse the application. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application could be refused if members felt it was detrimental. Councillor Watson questioned if it could be stipulated that a planning application be submitted by the end of 2023. The Principal Planning Officer advised that they could not condition an application to be submitted by a certain date.

Councillor Marshall understood officers comments with regards to planning policy but stressed that the applicant had done the bare minimum and to protect residents, members should either refuse the application or defer it.

The Chair explained that a motion to refuse the application had been moved by Councillor Marshall and this was seconded by Councillor Brown.

Councillor Watson felt that a deferral of the application would be preferable, and the applicant attend a future meeting. Upon reflection, Councillor Marshall agreed that a deferral was the better option and seconded Councillor Watsons proposal to defer. Councillor Marshall confirmed with the Principal Planning Officer that further information was required by the applicant with regards to light and noise mitigation.

The chair confirmed that Councillor Watson had moved the application to be deferred and this had been seconded by Councillor Marshall.

Councillor Brown asked when the application was likely to be referred to. The Chair confirmed that the Committee meeting scheduled for June 2023 should allow sufficient time.

Resolved

That the application be deferred.