Agenda item
The application is referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Giancarlo Guglielmi on grounds of the negative impact on the street scene and the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area with the incongruous gas cooler sited inappropriately imparting a constant noise by its humming which not only is impacting on neighbours’ amenity, but also on their quality of life.
The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the CO2 gas cooler and as part of the application a timber enclosure is proposed.
Minutes:
The Committee was informed that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Giancarlo Guglielmi on grounds of “the negative impact on the street scene and the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area with the incongruous gas cooler sited inappropriately imparting a constant noise by its humming which not only impacted on neighbours’ amenity, but also on their quality of life.”
It was reported that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the CO2 gas cooler and as part of the application a timber enclosure was proposed.
Officers stated that it was regrettable that the CO2 gas cooler had already been installed prior to a grant of planning permission, however the application presented a development that was deemed to be acceptable in terms of design, visual impact and heritage considerations and so was recommended by Officers for approval subject to the necessary conditions set out in the Officer’s report.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (SC-E) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting to advise that the applicant’s (Tesco) Project Team had confirmed that they had reviewed all the available locations and based on the proximity to all resident properties, they had advised the current location would have been most suitable as to cause minimum impact from the noise and visual aspect. Post which, noise assessment had been carried out to validate the suitability of this location and required mitigation had been proposed.
Mrs Mandy Rose, a local resident, spoke against the application.
Councillor G Guglielmi, a local Ward Member who had “called–in” the application, spoke against the application.
Councillor Coley, a local Ward Member, also spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
It was raised by a member of the Committee that an application was previously refused. Was there alternative solutions available to the applicant? Was the impact on the surrounding areas highlighted? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that two previous applications were submitted and refused based on the impact on neighbours and the lack of details around the necessity. Members were reminded that no objections had been raised for this application. |
|
Was there still an impact on the neighbours? |
The Planning Officer advised that a noise assessment, according to the British Standard had been carried out. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the assessment took readings from the closest residential dwellings. |
|
At what point was the assessment carried out? |
The Planning Solicitor confirmed that the assessment had been carried out between the hours of 7:30pm and 12:00am. |
|
A member of the Committee referred to the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area. |
The Planning Officer informed the Committee that no objections had been raised with regards to the conservation perspective of the application. |
|
What difference would a fence make to the acoustics?
|
The Planning Officer confirmed that the fence was to hide the visuals of the proposals. Conditions could be put forward whereby an acoustic fence could be recommended. |
|
A Member referred to article 1, would it be relevant to this application? |
The Planning Solicitor referred Members to paragraphs 1.8 and 1.10 of the officer’s report whereby it stated ‘human rights are always assessed’, in particular articles 8, 1 and 10. |
|
In terms of the environmental impact and CO2 hydrocarbons, was it more environmentally-friendly? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that the impact was more environmentally-friendly. |
|
Could the noise have been enclosed where there was necessary air flow? |
The Planning Officer advised that a condition could be recommended for an alternative acoustic fence. |
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-
Contrary to Policy EN17 of Adopted Local Plan and Policies SP7 and SPl3 of Emerging Local Plan with respect to local amenity issues/disturbance by reason of unacceptable noise impacts & Policy PPl8 of emerging Local Plans in terms of impact on conservation area.
At this point in the proceedings, the Chairman requested approval from Members of the Committee to continue the meeting past the allowed period of 3 hours as required by Council Procedure Rule 35.1. It was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Placey and RESOLVED that the Committee continue its deliberations.
Supporting documents:
PDF 414 KB