Agenda item

The planning application was for the change of use of land to the east of 9 Windmill Street, Millfield from car parking lot and domestic garden to car sales.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Impact of residential amenity

·         Highway implications

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was neighboured on either side by residential dwellings.

·         At current the site was gated. This gate would be retained, however moved further into the site. The office building on the site would be retained and repositioned.

·         The front of the site would contain three visitor car parking spaces and one staff car parking space.

·         The rear of the site would be used to sell cars, with a maximum of five cars on site at a time. It was proposed that business would operate on an appointment only basis.

·         One objection had been received. A petition containing sixty signatures and eight letters had been received in support of the application.

·         Pre-application advice had been provided to the applicant that this proposal was considered by officers to be unacceptable.

·         It was believed that the proposal would represent an intensification of use that could not be reasonably controlled through the use of conditions. The support of residents did not negate the negative impact on residential amenity.

·         It was required within policy that a site of the use applied for have sufficient parking and turning space for delivery vehicles. The application site did not meet this requirement

 

Councillor Nadeem, Ward Councillor, was unable attend the Committee meeting, however his representation was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal would be a less intense use than that already existing.

·         The area was used for several varied commercial activities, which generated commercial noise.

·         Deliveries could be covered by conditions.

·         An appointment based system would be used, which would monitor the business.

·         Sound reduction measures could be conditioned. The current level of surrounding noise was much greater than that of the proposal.

·         The site would, in reality, have minimal impact on the area.

 

Mr Barry Nicholls, Architectural and Surveying Services Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The site would not be permanently manned. Only when a prior arrangement appointment was scheduled would the owner be on site.

·         No car transport was proposed for use, the owner would drive each car to the site. If one was necessary it would be a single car transporter only.

·         Noise reduction could be achieved. The application would be happy to follow the Committee’s suggestions.

·         The appointment system proposed would be applied and the application would accept conditions proposed regarding this. When the owner was not on sire the gates would be shut, with signage outlining the appointment system.

·         In reality the proposal would have a positive impact on the surrounding area.

·         If required the application would be happy for a condition to renew the boundary fencing to be included within the planning permission.

·         The parking available to individuals at present would no longer be available within the proposed scheme.

·         The Committee were shown several video clips of commercial activity in the surrounding area, highlighting the nature of noise that was already experienced on the site.

 

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Principal Engineer (Highway Control) advised that policy PP13 required commercial car sites to have sufficient room for car transporter manoeuvrability, to off load off the highway and turn on site.

 

The Committee questioned whether a condition could be put in place to ensure that a car transporter vehicle was not used on the site and that an appointment based system maintained.

 

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that any conditions added to an application needed to be necessary and enforceable. The Development Management Manager further advised that it was considered that such conditions would not be enforceable or reasonable.

 

The Committee sympathised with the applicant’s intentions, however considered that there was no a practical way to condition and regulate the proposed application, it would not be appropriate to grant planning permission. The Committee believed, however, that objections in relation to the intensification of noise were not justified to include as a reason for refusal.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, for the reason that the site could not provide for the turning of a large car transported vehicle that would need to visit the site. The motion was carried seven in favour and three abstaining to vote.

 

RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour, three abstained from voting) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reason given below.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reason:

 

R1       The site could not provide for the turning of a large car transporter vehicle that would need to visit the site.  As a consequence the manoeuvring of such vehicles would cause danger to the users of the adjoining public highway contrary to policies PP12 and PP13 of the Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD 2012.

The planning application was for the change of use of land to the east of 9 Windmill Street, Millfield from car parking lot and domestic garden to car sales.

 

The main considerations were:

·         Impact of residential amenity

·         Highway implications

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The site was neighboured on either side by residential dwellings.

·         At current the site was gated. This gate would be retained, however moved further into the site. The office building on the site would be retained and repositioned.

·         The front of the site would contain three visitor car parking spaces and one staff car parking space.

·         The rear of the site would be used to sell cars, with a maximum of five cars on site at a time. It was proposed that business would operate on an appointment only basis.

·         One objection had been received. A petition containing sixty signatures and eight letters had been received in support of the application.

·         Pre-application advice had been provided to the applicant that this proposal was considered by officers to be unacceptable.

·         It was believed that the proposal would represent an intensification of use that could not be reasonably controlled through the use of conditions. The support of residents did not negate the negative impact on residential amenity.

·         It was required within policy that a site of the use applied for have sufficient parking and turning space for delivery vehicles. The application site did not meet this requirement

 

Councillor Nadeem, Ward Councillor, was unable attend the Committee meeting, however his representation was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal would be a less intense use than that already existing.

·         The area was used for several varied commercial activities, which generated commercial noise.

·         Deliveries could be covered by conditions.

·         An appointment based system would be used, which would monitor the business.

·         Sound reduction measures could be conditioned. The current level of surrounding noise was much greater than that of the proposal.

·         The site would, in reality, have minimal impact on the area.

 

Mr Barry Nicholls, Architectural and Surveying Services Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The site would not be permanently manned. Only when a prior arrangement appointment was scheduled would the owner be on site.

·         No car transport was proposed for use, the owner would drive each car to the site. If one was necessary it would be a single car transporter only.

·         Noise reduction could be achieved. The application would be happy to follow the Committee’s suggestions.

·         The appointment system proposed would be applied and the application would accept conditions proposed regarding this. When the owner was not on sire the gates would be shut, with signage outlining the appointment system.

·         In reality the proposal would have a positive impact on the surrounding area.

·         If required the application would be happy for a condition to renew the boundary fencing to be included within the planning permission.

·         The parking available to individuals at present would no longer be available within the proposed scheme.

·         The Committee were shown several video clips of commercial activity in the surrounding area, highlighting the nature of noise that was already experienced on the site.

 

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Principal Engineer (Highway Control) advised that policy PP13 required commercial car sites to have sufficient room for car transporter manoeuvrability, to off load off the highway and turn on site.

 

The Committee questioned whether a condition could be put in place to ensure that a car transporter vehicle was not used on the site and that an appointment based system maintained.

 

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that any conditions added to an application needed to be necessary and enforceable. The Development Management Manager further advised that it was considered that such conditions would not be enforceable or reasonable.

 

The Committee sympathised with the applicant’s intentions, however considered that there was no a practical way to condition and regulate the proposed application, it would not be appropriate to grant planning permission. The Committee believed, however, that objections in relation to the intensification of noise were not justified to include as a reason for refusal.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, for the reason that the site could not provide for the turning of a large car transported vehicle that would need to visit the site. The motion was carried seven in favour and three abstaining to vote.

 

RESOLVED: (seven voted in favour, three abstained from voting) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reason given below.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reason:

 

R1       The site could not provide for the turning of a large car transporter vehicle that would need to visit the site.  As a consequence the manoeuvring of such vehicles would cause danger to the users of the adjoining public highway contrary to policies PP12 and PP13 of the Adopted Peterborough Planning Policies DPD 2012.