Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 3no. general industrial units (Use Class B2) and associated changes to the existing parking spaces.

Applicant: Thomas Lawrence & Sons

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 35 to 60.

It was noted that four Members had attended a site visit.

Julia Willoughby, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She lived at 89 Blagrove Drive.  She commented that a report by Bowyer, a planning consultant, stated that properties impacted by the development were numbers 87, 91 and 93 Blagrove Drive.  Julia Willoughby was of the view that 89 rather than 87 would be impacted.  She disagreed that the proposal was unlikely to impact the stability of existing trees and shrubs and expressed concern regarding the possible impact on the stability two large conifers bordering the fence with her property.  Julia Willoughby went on to state that her extension was approximately 25ft from the boundary.  The proposal would be overbearing and minimise natural light to her property.  She had invited officers to visit her property, but this offer had not yet been taken up.

Jane Hutchings, resident, spoke in objection to the applicant.  She lived at 93 Blagrove Drive, and stated that whilst she appreciated the 1 metre boundary with her fence, and the reduction in the height of the wall nearest her house, issues remained outstanding.  The wall would be overbearing, dominant and claustrophobic.  The separation distance was less than 12 metres made up of 10.82 metres of the garden of 93 Blagrove Drive, and 1 metre of the boundary fence.  Jane Hutchings stated that there had been a welcome divide between the residential and industrial areas for a number of years, in keeping with the area and density of the buildings.  She was of the view that should the proposal be approved, it would open the floodgates for similar applications along the boundary, changing the character of the area.  Jane Hutchings went on to state that there was no indication of what the Class B units would be used for, so the potential noise and smell impact was unknown.  The houses along the boundary would experience a loss of light and a reduction in morning sun.  A ray of light survey had been conducted without residents’ knowledge or input.  Finally, she expressed concern at a lack of consultation with residents.

David Hall, agent’s representative, spoke in support of the application.  The applicant had sought to strike a balance between providing further, smaller, commercial units on a site identified as being within a core employment area, whilst recognising and addressing the concerns of adjourning residents.  David Hall stated that the plans had been amended to reduce the height of the proposed units and the applicant had accepted conditions relating to landscaping and noise, to further mitigate residents’ concerns.  With regards to daylight, a report prepared on the applicant’s behalf, had concluded that the proposed development would not have any material impact on the adjourning residential properties, and would not result in any material loss of light.  David Hall emphasised that acceptable separation distances would be maintained, and that there would not be unacceptable overbearing on neighbouring properties.  Additionally, the proposed units would have dual pitched roofs which would slope away from the shared boundaries with the residential properties.  He went on to highlight that no technical objections had been received to the application.

Sarah Kerr, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application.   She felt that there were material planning considerations which meant that the application could be refused. In the Council’s Core Strategy, CP1 Sustainable Development, stated ‘maintain the high quality of the environment.’  CP3 General Principles of Development stated that development should be ‘of an appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character of the area, together with the high quality of design without detriment to the amenities of adjourning land users, including open space, or occupiers and their quality of life.’   Sarah Kerr was of the view that the application did not meet this.  The area was classed as a core employment area abutting a residential area.  She commented that business growth within a core employment area on a brownfield site made the principle of development acceptable, however she felt that the particular proposal was unacceptable.  Sarah Kerr commented that there had been a lack of consultation with the residents.  She felt that it would have a negative impact on residents and that the 1metre separation from the boundary was very little, and there would be some overbearing.  The loss of light survey had not been carried out from the impacted properties.  Finally, she highlighted that she had been asked to withdraw her listing of the application in light of the amendment made to the proposal, and the fact that fewer residents had commented on this amendment.  She was of the view that the alteration had not fully addressed outstanding issues.

In response to a Member question regarding distances between the proposed development and the existing residential properties, Senjuti Manna, case officer, indicated that the distance from number 93 to the boundary was 16 metres, from number 91 it was 12.9 metres, and from number 89 it was 13.1 metres.  David Cornish asked about a building to the north of number 93 and was informed that it was garages.  Senjuti Manna confirmed that the measurement was taken from the houses and not the garages.  Sarah Kerr commented that the extension of one of the properties was not shown on the mapping system and in reality, was closer than the distances given. 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey asked the distance from the bigger building already present, to the residential properties, and was informed that it was 18 metres.  She went on to ask about standard separation distances.  Senjuti Manna commented that for one or two storey buildings, it was 12 metres.

Andrew Mickleburgh questioned whether the Borough Design Guide listed different separation distances for residential and commercial properties.  Senjuti Manna indicated that it was a minimum of 12 metres for one or two storey buildings and buildings taller than two storey had a different separation distance.  Andrew Mickleburgh stated that the eaves were equivalent in height to 1.5 storey.  Senjuti Manna clarified that one storey was the height of a typical bungalow and 1.5 storey, the height of a chalet bungalow.  The properties in Blagrove Drive were two storey.  With regards to residents’ concerns about possible loss of light, Andrew Mickleburgh asked how the light survey had been carried out if the homes potentially effected had not been visited.  Senjuti Manna stated that the light survey report submitted with the application was based more on if there was a loss of light, the level of compensation required, which was different to other material concerns in planning.  The report had not been independently assessed.  Officers had looked at the submitted plans and the orientation of the proposal in relation to the existing properties.  It was anticipated that there would only be slight overshadowing in the early summer mornings of the bottom of the gardens, as opposed to the habitable rooms.  A reduction of height and a 1 metre boundary had been negotiated with the applicant.

Stephen Conway indicated that he had been unable to attend the site visit. He commented that it was difficult to envisage the impact of a new construction on neighbouring properties.  Whilst it was a core employment area, it was located next to residential properties.  Stephen Conway questioned whether the buffer between the proposed site and the residential area, was sufficient.  He was of the view that there may be negative, unacceptable impact on the nearby residential properties. The Borough Design Guide also highlighted the need to take bulk, mass and proximity into account.  Stephen Conway questioned whether the plans took the extension in one of the neighbouring properties, into account, and whether a perspective should be sought from the residential properties, particularly number 93.

Rebecca Margetts commented that the proposed building would be very close to the boundary, and that the end of residents’ gardens would be impacted.   She expressed concern that the light survey had not been carried out from the residential properties.

Alistair Neal queried whether there were conditions regarding separation on the original planning application.  Senjuti Manna indicated that she would need to check the planning history.  She confirmed that the distance from the boundary to the extension of number 93 was currently 11.9 metres and would be 13.5 metres should a 1 metre boundary be added if the proposal was constructed. 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey questioned if the extension in number 93 was habitable rooms, and if it was reasonable to expect potential changes if living by an industrial area.  Senjuti Manna commented that as there was no conflict with the separation distances, it had not been checked whether the extension was habitable, but it was likely that it was. 

Wayne Smith stated that the existing buildings were 7.5 metres, and that the height of the proposed buildings would be 6.2 metres.  He questioned how the loss of light had been calculated, and was informed that because of the orientation, much of the time the shadows would fall from the residential properties onto the industrial buildings.  Only in early summer would there be some shadowing of the bottom of the gardens, which was not considered sufficiently detrimental to warrant refusal. 

Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, explained that with regards to the distances within the Borough Design Guide, the prescriptive guidance around rear to side elevations was primarily concerned with maintaining privacy.  There was not a privacy issue for this application.  There were not windows in the side of the industrial buildings.  Therefore, less weight should be given to the prescriptive distances.  Other factors such as the level of overshadowing were considered to be acceptable.

Stephen Conway proposed that application 222513 be refused on the grounds of overbearing and being detrimental to residents in amenity, and in particular number 93 Blagrove Drive.  This was seconded by Rebecca Margetts.

RESOLVED:  That application 222513 be refused on the grounds of overbearing and being detrimental to residents in amenity, and in particular number 93 Blagrove Drive.