Agenda item

21/00745/VAR - Land Rear of Red Lyons Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Essex

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

 

Minutes:

Application Number

21/00745/VAR

Location

Land Rear Of Red Lyons Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Essex

Proposal

Variation of condition 2 on approved application 14/00418/FUL (Change of use of unit 10 from a restricted B8 use (Household Storage) to B1) Change the permitted working to 6:00 until 20:00 Monday to Saturday.

Applicant

Mr J Sinclair

Agent

Miss Catrin Davies - Warner Planning

Target Decision Date

02.11.2021 (EoT agreed: 10.12.2021)

Case Officer

Anna Tastsoglou

Parish

LATCHINGDON

Reason for Referral to the Committee / Council

Member Call In

Councillor R G Boyce has called in the application for the following policy reason: Local Development Plan (LDP) policy E4 (Agricultural and rural diversification)

 

The Chairman introduced the application and reminded Members that this had been considered and deferred at the Committee meeting held on 8 December 2021.  He advised that since then the applicant had lodged an appeal for non-determination Officers were requesting the views of this Committee, whether it was minded to approve or refuse, which would form part of the appeal paperwork for the Planning Inspectorate to make the final decision.

 

Councillor Boyce then asked for clarification regarding the basis of the previous deferral, whether it was awaiting further information from officers or the applicant.  In response the Specialist: Development Management advised during the presentation that in spite of a number of attempts to obtain additional information regarding various matters including noise and the lawful use of the site, to date, no information had been submitted and no response received from the applicant within the agreed timescales.  Subsequently, on 5 April 2022 a letter was received from the Planning Inspectorate stating non-determination, therefore, the application was to be determined by the Planning Inspectorate.  Following the Officer’s presentation an Objector, Mr Bennett, addressed the Committee.

 

The Chairman then opened the discussion and a lengthy debate ensued.  Councillor Boyce, having called in the application, said that the hours of use were unsuitable for a residential area, the conditions were unenforceable and that it was only fair to use evidence from other units in order to refuse the application.  He said he had great sympathy with the objector, but he would not be voting in case he was deemed to have a bias.  He concluded by saying that the Local Planning Authority, given it’s handling of this issue, should request a Hearing regarding this matter

 

Councillor Fluker called for additional conditions to protect the amenity of local residents, particularly the issue of noise emissions.  He referred to the Environmental Health Officer’s report on the website that stated dissatisfaction regarding the inadequate noise assessment on Unit 10 and the monitoring used in the assessment. He also had expected to be presented with more up-to-date information at this meeting and that the issues should be dealt with by an enquiry as the operating hours were unacceptable in this area.

 

At this point the Chairman reiterated what was required from the Committee to be put forward to the Planning Inspectorate and requested a third condition be added to cover no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays.  Councillor Fluker then proposed that the Committee be minded to refuse the application had it been in a position to do so, and this was seconded.

 

The Specialist: Development Management then addressed issues raised by Councillor Fluker.  She advised that an additional noise assessment was conditioned (Condition 8) in the Members’ Update from the December meeting to address the concerns in the Environmental Health Officer’s report and that the three additional conditions, should the Committee be minded to approve, could be included.

 

Councillor Helm referring to the hours of operation said that they created a precedent across the Dengie and Councillor Channer, referring to the previous minutes from the December Committee said that she still had the same concerns as raised then, the hours of operation were exceedingly long and concurred with Councillor Helm’s concerns about setting a worrying precedent.

 

The Chairman then put the proposal from Councillor Fluker, duly seconded by Councillor Stamp, to inform the Planning Inspectorate that the Council was minded to refuse the application had it been in a position to do so on the basis of unreasonable hours of operation causing loss of amenity in a semi-residential area, to the committee and this approach was agreed.

 

Councillor Boyce, referring to his earlier comments, requested that in the public interest a Hearing be held to give objectors the opportunity to put their case, and this was seconded. 

 

There were some further queries regarding the appeal process and the request for a Hearing.  The Lead Specialist: Development Management explained the process.  He advised that currently there was a backlog in this area; an appeal had been submitted by the applicant and following the usual checks found to be valid and the Inspectorate was currently awaiting the appointment of an Appeal Inspector.  Once appointed the timetable would be released and at this point the Council could engage with the process.  Both parties could put forward the type of appeal they wished to progress, ultimately the Inspectorate would determine which to pursue.

 

RESOLVED that the Committee was minded to REFUSE the application had it been in a position to do so and, in the public interest, request the appeal be heard by way of a Hearing.

Supporting documents: