To determine the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (Minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.
Graham Smith presented the application to Members and explained it had been brought before Members to determine due to the fact that there had been more than 6 letters of objection received. Mr Smith highlighted to members the linear strip of land which is land attached to the garden area of 160 Elm Road. Graham Smith highlighted to members the proximity of the residential properties to the eastern edge of the site. The proposed additional planting was pointed out and highlighted the elevations of the building. The original application had been submitted and was only 28 metres from the proposed end elevation to the site boundary and a request was submitted to the applicant and an amended scheme was submitted and there is now a separation distance of between 60 and 68 metres to the rear windows of the residential properties. The lighting plan was pointed out to members and the proposed lighting at the rear of the premises which will be at a height of 2 metres and they will be down lighters. This lighting is considered to have little impact on nearby neighbours. In terms of loss of light, the Council does not have its own design standards in terms of separation distances so the BRE guidance which suggests that facing buildings can go up to an angle of 25 degrees which is considered to be acceptable. This proposal demonstrates would be approximately 10 degrees and would be compliant with BRE standards.
Graham Smith highlighted to Members the indicative junction improvement which shows the junction of Marwick Road and Elm Road and the proposed widening of the highway, and as it is only indicative currently it has planning conditions attached requiring the provision of this and the details to be submitted. The Environmental Health Officer has considered the applicants noise assessment and has requested an acoustic barrier to be provided on the northern boundary and this has been included in the planning conditions. The applicants have also offered to provide a contribution towards the existing TRO in terms of prohibiting parking near the junction with Elm Road and Marwick Road and this is proposed to be part of a Section 106 contribution and the highways improvements to the junction are considered to alleviate the exiting difficulties of large vehicles coming out of the junction.
Members made comments and asked questions as follows:
· Councillor Mrs Laws commented that when Members attended the site visit it was noted that the area where the HGV come in is very dusty and asked whether there will be a water bowser or whether the applicant will be considering tarmacking the area.
· Councillor Connor stated that he was happy with what he observed on the site visit and what he has heard today and industry is needed in March.
· Councillor Murphy stated he was also concerned with the amount of dust and asked which area is going to be tarmacked. Graham Smith clarified that it is his understanding that it will be the HGV dock that will be hard surfaced. Mr Harding clarified that in the yard area on the site plan there is a horizontal area which will be hard surfaced.
· Councillor Murphy commented that in his opinion he thinks the application conforms with LP3, LP6, LP14, LP15 and LP16 and he can see no planning reason for this application to be refused.
· Councillor Connor commented whether a consideration of a dust separation unit could be installed.
· David Rowen commented that in condition 3 it refers to hard and soft landscaping which could include the hard surfacing area around the site.
· Councillor Mrs Newell asked for clarification that there is a condition included with regard to archaeology and Graham Smith confirmed that yes that is condition 9.
· Councillor Mrs Hay stated that we need to be encouraging businesses in Fenland to keep and retain in Fenland and to make them grow and the applicant in this case has listened to the Planning department and although some of the neighbours comments have been with regard to the noise, the proposal will be an improvement as the building will shield the noise and the electricity points that are being installed will now mean that the lorries with refrigeration units will not need to keep their engines on overnight.
· Councillor Mrs Laws stated we have to encourage businesses and they have worked very hard with our Planning Officers and the site visit demonstrated that they are responsible owners.
· Councillor Sutton commented that this is a good established company who want to expand.
· Councillor Miscandlon stated that with regard to the dust comments. On the site visit, the site foreman explained that it is one of the first priorities to reduce the dust level of vehicles entering and exiting the site, not only for the surrounding area but also for their employees.
Proposed by Councillor Murphy and seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws and decided that the application be:
APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.