6
The Committee received report ES/0858 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/20/4179/VOC.
The application sought to vary Condition 2 of DC/19/1967/COU (change of use of Alston Barns from agriculture to B1(c) use). Changes included the alteration to previously approved drawings - including variation in positioning of fenestrations, a raised platform addition, installation of air-conditioning units, repositioning of bin storage area and installation of screening.
This application was partially retrospective; all of the works proposed had been implemented with the exception of the proposed raised platform along the north-west elevation.
The application was considered by the Planning Referral Panel at its meeting of 3 August 2021 at the request of the Chairman of the Committee, due to the ongoing concerns raised by the neighbour (a former East Suffolk Councillor) and the short time that there had been from the Member leaving the Council. The application was referred to the Committee for determination due to the history of the site and concerns raised by the neighbour.
The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for the application.
The context of the site and its location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was outlined; the Committee was also shown an aerial view of the site which detailed the application site's relationship with Alston Hall and its annexe building. The site location plan was displayed to the Committee.
The Committee was shown both the approved and proposed elevations; the Planner highlighted the proposed changes to what had been approved. The Committee was also shown the proposed floorplan.
The Committee was shown the following photographs of the site:
- The window along the south-east elevation and willow fencing along the boundary, and trees along the boundary.
- The north-east elevation; air conditioning units screened by willow fencing.
- The south-west elevation; changes to the fenestration.
- The south-west elevations; changes to the fenestration, willow fencing and with Alston Hall to the rear.
- The raised access along the north-west elevation (it was noted that the fencing in this photograph had since been reduced to single height).
- The willow fencing along the north-west elevation, from Grimston Lane.
- The relationship between the application site and Alston Hall.
- Photographs taken by a neighbour from the corner of their garden, showing the delivery area and the bin store.
The material planning considerations were summarised as the impact on residential amenity, landscape impacts, the design aesthetics and visual amenity.
The recommendation to approve the application, subject to conditions, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chairman invited questions to the officers.
In response to concerns raised in respect of the retrospective nature of the application, the Planning Manager advised that the application needed to be considered on merit, regardless of works already having been undertaken and that the Committee was required to consider if the changes from the approved planning permission were materially different to the impact of the development.
The Planner considered that the fenestration on the south-east elevation would not cause overlooking or a loss of privacy, given the screening from trees and fencing on the opposite boundary. The Committee was advised that the objectors had expressed concern about the overlooking from the raised access for deliveries but that the impact of this was, in officers' opinion, minimal due to the operational restrictions imposed on the site.
The Planner confirmed that an environmental noise assessment had been undertaken and reviewed by the Council's Environmental Health team, who had considered the impact on neighbouring dwellings to be low. The assessment had concluded that the air conditioning units were not audible from the adjacent property.
The Chairman invited Mr Terence Purnell, who objected to the application, to address the Committee. Mr Purnell was accompanied by Mrs Melissa Purnell, who was present to answer any questions from the Committee.
Mr Purnell noted that he and Mrs Purnell had lived in the area for 17 years; he was very concerned about the raised access and highlighted that since planning permission was granted on the site, the applicant had undertaken several alterations without consent. Mr Purnell considered that the situation was causing his family stress and upset, and was impacting on their daily lives.
It was Mr Purnell's view that the number of vehicle movements on the site was considerably higher than what had been consented and that heavy goods vehicles had been accessing the site. Mr Purnell said that the removal of fencing by the applicant had exposed the bin store and considered that the remaining fencing would deteriorate further. Mr Purnell said it was not unusual for him to be woken up by bin lorries accessing the site in the early hours of a Friday morning.
Mr Purnell was of the view that the willow fencing and trees did not screen his home from the new raised access and that this access was now level with his garden, and when this was levelled down to the same level as his summerhouse, there would be overlooking from the raised access. Mr Purnell considered that additional screening at the access would prevent overlooking and loss of privacy.
Mr Purnell queried why the application had been recommended for approval and noted that it was not very different from a previous application that had been refused in February 2020. Mr Purnell urged the Committee to make the right decision and asked that should the application be approved additional screening be placed at the raised access.
The Chairman invited questions to Mr and Mrs Purnell.
It was confirmed that bin lorries accessed the site on Friday mornings.
The Chairman invited Ms Louise Newton, agent for the applicant, to address the Committee. Ms Newton was accompanied by Ms Laura Dix, the applicant, who was present to answer any questions from the Committee.
Ms Newton considered that the application proposed only minor alterations to the approved planning permission and would not have a negative impact on the site's neighbours or the general public. Ms Newton said that the changes would improve working conditions for employees and provide a boost to the site's economic outlook. Ms Newton noted that the site employed local people and was restricted in its hours of operation.
It was highlighted by Ms Newton that the changes to the fenestration resulted in fewer openings facing Alston Hall and was of the view that the objectors' chief concern was the raised access, used for receiving deliveries. Ms Newton considered that the application was in accordance with planning policies and that the raised access was important for receiving deliveries in a safe way.
Ms Newton stated that should the application be refused, this would have a negative economic impact to the applicant's business. Alternatives to the raised access had been explored and it had been concluded that the proposed access was the best option.
Ms Newton highlighted that the air conditioning units had been screened from view and that the completed noise assessment had concluded that they had no impact on the neighbours' residential amenity. Ms Newton added that the bin store would be being moved as part of a separate change of use application that had been approved.
Ms Newton confirmed that a log of vehicle movements on the site had been kept, which did not reflect the number of movements on the site alleged by the objectors. Ms Newton sought the Committee's support for the application.
The Chairman invited questions to Ms Newton and Ms Dix.
Ms Dix was able to confirm that she employed seven people; one person worked from home and the other six worked on site, one part time and the other five full time.
Ms Newton noted that the approved planning permission had included a condition requiring a log of vehicle movements on the site be kept. This record noted staff movements on and off the site along with deliveries received.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it.
Councillor Hedgley said he was not convinced that overlooking was a significant issue and considered that the early bin collections were a fact of life; he indicated that he was in support of the application.
Councillor Blundell suggested that the applicant could be asked to provide additional screening to prevent overlooking to Alston Hall. The Chairman sought advice if such a condition could be added; the Planner highlighted that this issue had been discussed with the applicant and had been refused as they considered it would have a negative impact on the landscape. It was noted that an additional condition could be included to specify a more substantial form of fencing.
Councillor Deacon considered that the application had been sensitive to the site's neighbours and highlighted that this business had relocated to the site from his Ward; he stated that when it was located in his Ward the business had been a responsible company that took care of the area it was in. Councillor Deacon said it was regrettable that alterations had been made without consent but highlighted the seven jobs the site provided.
Councillor Cooper highlighted the informatives around fire safety; the Planning Manager advised the Committee that informatives could not be discharged as planning conditions and that the relevant authority would be responsible for enforcing fire safety on the site.
Councillor Bird supported adding a condition regarding fencing and landscaping, and suggested adding another condition that the access on the north-west elevation be used only for deliveries.
There being no further debate the Chairman moved to the recommendation to approve the application, as set out in the report and including the two additional conditions proposed during the debate.
On the proposition of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Deacon it was by a unanimous vote
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of the original permission DC/19/1967/COU (9 August 2019).
Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) (as amended).
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following drawings:
- Site location plan (drawing number 4580-0101 Rev. P04);
- Block plan (plan number TQRQM19065151430088);
- Proposed floorplan (refer to elevations for fenestration materials);
- Proposed elevations; and
- Fencing plan (drawing number A.50.935a).
Reason: For avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity.
4. The external lighting scheme (including position and height of mounting features, height and angle of lights including aiming points, light fixing type, size and appearance, and the luminance levels) shall implemented as per the approved details under DC/19/3855/DRC. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented and no additional external lighting shall be installed.
Reason: In the interests of amenity, and protection of the local rural environment, including the ecological environment.
5. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (by Denny Ecology - dated 27 June 2019), previously approved by DC/19/1967/COU and shall be implemented in their entirety.
Reason: To safeguard biodiversity and protected species in accordance with Policy SP14 and Policy DM27 of the Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan - Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
6. The building shall remain soundproofed in accordance with the approved scheme under DC/19/3855/DRC.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment
7. No activities (including operation of external plant and deliveries) shall be carried out on the site other than between the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority:
- Monday to Friday (07h00 - 17h00);
- Saturday (08h00 - 17h00); and
- Sunday/Bank Holiday (no use).
Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.
8. Arrangements for the storage and collection of refuse shall fully accord with the scheme approved under DC/20/4177/DRC.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.
9. The approved construction statement under DC/19/3855/DRC shall be adhered to throughout the construction of the development.
Reason: To reduce the potential impacts of noise pollution and additional vehicular movements during the construction phase of the development.
10. Additional condition regarding landscaping and fencing (final wording to be drafted).
11. Additional condition regarding use of access on the north-west elevation (final wording to be drafted).
Informatives:
1. The local planning authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.
2. Access to buildings for fire appliances and firefighters must meet with the requirements specified in Building Regulations Approved Document B, (Fire Safety), 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments Volume 1 - Part B5, Section 11 dwelling houses, and, similarly, Volume 2, Part B5, Sections 16 and 17 in the case of buildings other than dwelling houses. These requirements may be satisfied with other equivalent standards relating to access for fire fighting, in which case those standards should be quoted in correspondence. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service also requires a minimum carrying capacity for hard standing for pumping/high reach appliances of 15/26 tonnes, not 12.5 tonnes as detailed in the Building Regulations 2000 Approved Document B, 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments.
3. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that fire hydrants be installed within this development on a suitable route for laying hose (i.e. avoiding obstructions). However, it is not possible, at this time, to determine the number of fire hydrants required for fire fighting purposes. The requirement will be determined at the water planning stage when site plans have been submitted by the water companies.
4. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that proper consideration be given to the potential life safety, economic, environmental and social benefits derived from the provision of an automatic fire sprinkler system. (Please see sprinkler information enclosed with this letter). Consultation should be made with the Water Authorities to determine flow rates in all cases. Should you need any further advice or information on access and fire fighting facilities, you are advised to contact your local Building Control in the first instance. For further advice and information regarding water supplies, please contact the Water Officer at Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 2BX.
5. The applicant is advised that the proposed development will require approval under Building Regulations (2010). Any amendments to the hereby permitted scheme that may be necessary to comply with Building Regulations (2010) must also be approved in writing by the local planning authority in order that any planning implications arising from those amendments may be properly considered.