Agenda item

Part retrospective application for the change of use of land as storage facility (Class B8) in association with scaffolding business, associated structures, fencing and hard surfacing.

The committee considered a report of the Planning Officer which was a part retrospective application for the change of use of land as storage facility (Class B8) in association with scaffolding business, associated structures, fencing and hard surfacing on land North of Unit 13, Coundon Industrial Estate, Coundon, DL14 8NR (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included the site location, the topography of the site, site photographs, the block plan for the existing site and the proposals for the expansion, the fence and racking details.  A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting to enable Members to assess the impact of the proposed development and the relationship with their surroundings.  The site was to the north of Coundon Industrial Estate which was designated as a protected employment site. The business was already operating from the site and proposed to extend the racking and hard surfaced area for storage and parking. Planning permission had been granted in 2007 for an equestrian paddock and stable. The site was then divided into two parts and sold.   There were no objections from Highways or Spatial Policy.

 

The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection raised concerns that the proposal was likely to cause a statutory nuisance due to the proximity to residential housing and the lack of a buffer zone.  There was one letter of objection from the Durham Aged Miners group who owned the nearby properties.  It was officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

 

Councillor C Kay, local member addressed the committee in support of the application. He was a Coundon lad and knew the site very well.  His dad had worked on the site when it was a hive of activity.  The area fell into disuse but over the years had turned a corner attracting businesses to the area.  This site had been protected for commercial use only.  Although Durham Aged Miners had submitted an objection there had been no objections highlighted by residents.  The business employed 18 members of staff which was good for the local economy.  The vans were loaded and unloaded in a 20 minute window in the afternoon to reduce any impact on residents.  The expansion of the business would increase the reputation of the area and grow a business where it was supposed to be grown.  He stated that businesses should be supported.

 

Mr M Lee, Agent addressed the committee in support of the application on behalf of the applicants who were two local brothers, born and raised in Coundon.  The brothers had been made redundant and needed to act to provide for their young families so built a scaffolding business which provided employment for eighteen people in the local area. They required a secure and protected storage yard for their scaffolding equipment and vehicles.  They regretted submitting a retrospective application as they were not aware of the planning policies but had worked with planning officers once they were aware.  They had tried to reduce the impact of any noise and disturbance for residents and had agreed to re-arrange their site and investigate the installation of acoustic fencing/wraps.

 

 

The applicants had asked if a noise assessment would be required but were informed that their business would be lost in the existing background noise from the industrial estate therefore this was not prepared. The applicants were happy to work within conditioned working hours/management plan to prevent any potential Anti-Social noise from the yard. 

 

The application site was located at Coundon Industrial Estate which was a protected employment site and had been declared as a buffer between residential dwellings and the Industrial Estate.  In 2007 the Wear Valley Local Plan identified the land for employment which recognised this as a long term allocation. The land had been used as a paddock but was now needed for the Scaffolding Business which created a clear use of land which aligned with the NPPF. He hoped that members of the Planning Committee could provide support to the application.  He also felt that Policy 10 was not relevant to the application as the development was not in the country.

 

The Principal Planning Officer agreed that reference to Policy 10 within the refusal reason would be omitted in the event of a refusal as it did not apply as the site was not in the countryside. He confirmed that the land was a protected employment site and there had previously been one single owner who had received permission to use the land as a paddock.  The north of the site was sold off and in doing so removed the buffer between the employment site and residential dwellings which were within 10 metres of the site.  Previously planning permission had been granted for a vehicular repair business on the wider site with the buildings themselves shown in the southern area and a car parking area to the northern area, which formed the current application site, which acted as a buffer.  He added that had the applicants bought the southern part of land when it had been divided into two parts the recommendation may have been judged differently. Although the applicant had stated that they would load and unload their vans at specific times there were no mechanisms in place to control that.  The application was to extend the hard standing area which could be used for alternative purposes within the B8 use class which could create a greater impact.

 

The Principal Environment Protection Officer had inherited the case from a colleague who had concerns in relation to the B8 use of the site and the noise which would impact residents who were within 10 metres of the site affecting their bedroom or living space.  The scaffolding was up against a non-acoustic fence which would not reduce any noise generated from loading and unloading the vans with long steel pipes.  There was a requirement for a buffer to separate the two zones.

 

Councillor L Brown stated that the Durham Aged Miners bungalows had been built in 1937 and the land had only been protected for Employment land twenty years ago.  She found it difficult to determine why they would protect land so close to already established bungalows.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a planning application had been refused for dwellings on this site as it had been allocated as employment land.  The issue was in the way the land had been sold. 

The application site was a smaller part of what was previously a larger plot and had the southern part of the site been purchased the applicant could have had carried out their activity away from the residential properties.

 

Councillor E Adam raised a query regarding the land being registered for B8 use and asked what the land could be used for.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded that the land was a B8 class used for storage and in the use as a distribution centre.   As the business loaded and unloaded metal scaffolding there was the issue of noise.

 

Councillor E Adam asked that if the land was for the use of storage or a distribution centre could this be used for the storage and packing of boxes.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the land could be used for the storage and packing of boxes or storage of several items which could be noisy.  The planning authority would be unaware unless they were informed.

 

Councillor E Adam asked if the operation of the business could be curtailed to certain times of the day and if the applicant had been given the opportunity to purchase the southern part of the land.

 

The applicant verified that they had wanted to buy all the land but the southern piece had already been sold when they were offered the northern piece to buy.  He added that scaffolding was taken from site to site and was only unloaded and loaded on an afternoon never on a morning.  The business operated between the hours of 7.30am and 4pm and their employees were allowed 30 minutes to load and offload the vans.

 

Councillor E Adam asked if the business operated from Monday to Friday.

 

The applicant confirmed they operated Monday to Friday and sometimes on Saturdays.  He reassured the committee that if work was carried out on a Saturday vans were loaded the night before then unloaded at lunch time.

 

Councillor J Atkinson reiterated that the land was allocated for employment use therefore anyone operating in this area would no doubt make some form of noise.  He did not like retrospective planning applications and asked what other uses the land was allocated for.

 

 

The Principal Planning Officer replied that the land could be used for B1, B2 and B8 use which could include office space.  The wider issue was that in the use of the northern portion the buffer had been removed between the residential and employment land. 

 

If the whole parcel of land had been purchased there would be an expectation that there would be a buffer between the two land uses as employment land should not go directly up to the boundary of residential land. 

 

Councillor M Stead referred to google maps and had found a gate very close to the properties with a notice ‘Twin Scaffolding’ indicating the land had been used for scaffolding and would not make much difference to the residents.  He pointed out that there was also a builder’s merchant and auto cars within the industrial estate which would generate noise.

 

Councillor J Quinn pointed out that the application was retrospective and the ‘twin scaffolding’ was indeed the applicants business.

 

The applicant commented that if they lost the land there was nowhere suitable within Coundon they could store their scaffolding equipment.  There would also be the loss of 18 jobs if the business had to close. 

 

Councillor E Adam noticed on the site visit that the storage area was made of steel therefore steel on steel would have a significant noise impact. The request was to approve the extension of the storage area which although short lived could inhibit the resident’s enjoying their homes.  He was mindful that the applicant had agreed to install a sound barrier and asked if the storage area could be moved further away from the properties. 

 

Councillor G Richardson had attended the site visit and had expected employment to be on employment land.  He accepted that the cottages were close to the site but none of the residents had complained only a blanket objection received from Durham Aged Miners.  He moved to go against the officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

 

Councillor L Brown seconded the application for approval.

 

Councillor E Adam supported Councillor G Richardson but requested an additional condition for the applicants to change the position of the storage so equipment was away from the fence.

 

Councillor A Savory noted that the biggest factor was that the business employed 18 people.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) having taken advice from the Planning Officer replied to Councillor E Adam that it had been determined that it would make no difference regarding noise if equipment was moved to a different area, given the narrow width of the application site.  The Legal Officer explained that the application had been recommended for refusal and therefore conditions had not been added but the main ones proposed if the application was approved were conditions to grant permission on a personal basis, for the installation of an acoustic fence, and the hours of operation which would be included in a management plan.  She asked that if there were any further conditions that these be delegated to officers and asked if the mover and seconder of the approval motion would be happy to accept these additions.

 

Councillors G Richardson and L Brown were happy with the conditions.

 

Mr Lee stated that the applicants agreed to the working hours and the installation of the acoustic fencing conditions.

 

Councillor L Brown asked for a condition to be added for the business to operate from 8am and not 7.30am.

 

The applicant did not agree to the later start as it would affect the finishing time when it got darker in winter. Although vans went out at 7.30am this tied in with noise generated by lorries on the busy main road.

 

Councillor L Brown retracted her request for the additional condition relating to the 8am start.

 

Councillor J Quinn also did not like retrospective planning applications but sometimes certain circumstances could not be avoided.  He commended the applicants for working diligently with the council jumping through hoops to ensure things were done properly.

 

Councillor E Adam was not accepting of the argument regarding the changing of the layout but was mindful it was up to officers within the delegated powers to instil any additional conditions as required.

 

Upon a vote it was unanimous:

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to any conditions to be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

 

 

Councillor J Quinn and Councillor M Stead left the meeting at 12.27pm

 

Councillor A Savory, Vice Chair (in the Chair)