To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of office building and part demolition of HGV workshop, erect two storey office building, alterations to the façade and openings on the HGV workshop, new ramped link to the applicants neighbouring property and landscaping works
The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of an office building and part demolition of HGV workshop, erection of two storey office building, alterations to the façade and openings on the HGV workshop, new ramped link to the applicant’s neighbouring property and landscaping works.
Members attended the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.
Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:
· The site was situated behind residential properties off Bradford Road.
· The site was previously used for manufacturing and was in the ownership of the operator of the adjacent site who wished to extend operations across both sites.
· It was proposed to install an access ramp between the sites.
· Siting of the proposed office block.
· Details of landscaping including the provision of acoustic fencing.
· It was recommended that parts of the office building would have angled/obscured glazing to prevent overlooking of residential properties.
· Objections to the application included noise, light and air pollution. There were also concerns regarding the use of a proposed courtyard area.
· The applicant was recommended for approval.
A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application. These included the following:
· There should be restrictions on the hours of operation and the types of vehicle using the site.
· Concern regarding pollution from vehicles using the site and impacts on health.
· Noise and vibration from vehicle using the site with up to 40 HGV vehicles using the site on a daily basis.
· Concern that the proposals would mean the operator surrounded the objector’s property effectively making it a compound.
· The area was now mainly residential.
· The proposals prevented the objector from developing the rear of their property for outdoor use.
The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel. The following was discussed:
· The site had extant planning permission and the operator had been present at the adjacent site for over 100 years.
· The proposals would not mean an increase in staff members at the site.
· The existing buildings were no longer fit for purpose.
· The ramp would enable movement within the site and prevent vehicles using the highway in front of the neighbouring residential property.
· The proposed office building was of modern design and would replace a dilapidated building.
· Use of the courtyard would be strictly controlled by the operator.
· Due to the nature of the business at certain times of year, a 24 hour operation would be necessary.
· Outdoor smoking areas would be at the rear of the office block away from residential properties.
· The proposed office block was further away from the objector’s property than the current building. It would not be feasible to move it any further back as it would affect movement of vehicles within the site.
In response to comments and questions, the following was discussed:
· It was suggested that there should be conditions to the use o fthe courtyard area.
· There was a 20 metre gap from the rear of the residential property to the proposed office block which was considered to be acceptable.
· There would be difficulties in making conditions that restricted the movements of HGV vehicles to and from the site.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per the officer recommendation with an additional condition to restrict the use of the external breakout area to daylight hours