Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Lockhart, the developer, was also present to answer any questions from the committee.

Mr Edwards explained that the application for a maximum of 3 dwellings which was recently approved at committee and the dwellings have been constructed on site, however, the application is to remove the acoustic fence proposed to plot six only following recent approvals in the area for additional dwellings and also replacement buildings on the adjacent site.  He added that the original outline approval was for six dwellings and it was developed in two separate phases of three and in the outline application there were no acoustic measures required.

Mr Edwards explained there have been a further four dwellings approved to the south of 182 Wype Road which is the commercial property in question and there was no acoustic provision required for those and officers had stated on one of those applications that ‘if there was no demonstration of noise impact it would be an unreasonable condition to add as it can not be shown that it is necessary’. He stated that it also mentioned that ‘it is possible that this impact could be mitigated, however, in the absence of any demonstration or evidence of the likely observation effect of noise resulting from the agricultural operation it is not possible to determine that mitigation might be effective or how appropriate this may be particularly given the rural character of the area for example a large acoustic fence may cause additional visual harm to the rural character of the area and may therefore not be appropriate from an aesthetic point’.

Mr Edwards stated that the agricultural enterprise at 182 Wype Road has recently had 2 approvals for 2 new workshops under planning references F/YR20/0238/F and F/YR21/0872/F and on both these applications the Environmental Health Team note and accept the submitted information and have no objections to the proposed development as it is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on local air quality and noise climate. He added that both of the buildings did not require any acoustic mitigation measures.

Mr Edwards stated that as far as he is aware there have been no instances of noise complaints against the business at 182 Wype Road and as they have not had to provide mitigation, in his view, it seems unfair that his client should have to and if there was an issue there should have been an allowance for insulation in the walls and the roof of the proposed new buildings.  He referred to the presentation screen and advised members that the applicant has retained the existing hedging and installed a 2 metre high close boarded fence along the boundary of number 182 which provides adequate screening as the adjacent buildings cannot be seen from the rear garden of plot 6 or the ground floor of the house.

Mr Edwards asked the committee to support the application without the need for the acoustic measures highlighted.

Members asked Mr Edwards and Mr Lockhart the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis questioned Mr Edwards and Mr Lockhart and asked them to clarify why they went ahead and built plot 6 without adhering to the conditions and did not come back to the committee before it was built? Mr Lockhart stated that the officers stated that they would not support the application without the installation of the acoustic measures which included triple glazing, an acoustic fence and a balcony. He added that he agreed with these additions but questioned the balcony as it was not his idea to add a balcony which, in his view, contradicts the other required measures and he added that this has not been built because it is not required. Councillor Mrs Davis addressed Mr Lockhart and stated that what he is saying that he agreed to the conditions, but he had no intention of complying with them. Mr Lockhart added that the other applications that Mr Edwards has referred to have been approved and they have not been required to have any noise mitigation measures put in place. He added that he does not want to have anything special, he just wants to be treated the same as the other dwellings and to be treated the same as the adjacent business which has no mitigation measures and there are no mitigation measures in place for the bungalows on the other side, which has the access and egress road going into their business. Mr Lockhart explained that the 2 new workshops have received planning permission meaning that the side of his building is the back of those buildings and not the side where the doors are. He stated that he has a 2.1 metre fence, at least a 3-metre-high laurel hedge and the back of the new buildings which have been approved and, in his opinion, he does not think it is fair to insist that he installs noise mitigation measures and he would like the Council to be consistent and to treat his application the same as the other applications that have been passed.

·         Councillor Topgood asked Mr Lockhart to confirm that he agreed to the conditions when they were applied to the application, and he confirmed that he had. Councillor Topgood stated that Mr Lockhart has taken it upon himself not to comply with the conditions and he asked him to explain the reasoning behind that decision making, without any consultation with officers. He added that the photographs demonstrate that the fence has been erected but the balcony has not been included. Mr Edwards stated that a fence was erected as a precautionary measure on the boundary to stop any issues and if the acoustic fence is still required then that fence can come down and an acoustic one put in its place. He added that if there is the requirement to go back to the original approval then that will be the case and then mitigation measures will have to be brought back in.  Mr Edwards explained that the reason for the application before the committee is due to the additional development that has taken place adjacent to the site and it was felt to be unfair, but if the measures have to be put back in as part of the original approval then that will have to be done.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the business was there before the development started and Mr Lockhart stated that it was. Councillor Marks asked what type of business is it? Mr Lockhart explained that it is his understanding that it is a business that looks after spraying equipment for the farming industry.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked officers to explain the inconsistencies with regards to the applications. David Rowen stated that in terms of the application site, in his opinion, there has been compete consistency with the detailed schemes as there has always been the requirement for noise mitigation measures to be provided and there has been a consistent approach in terms of the replacement buildings at the agricultural business as that is the source of noise and the assessment there included whether the development is likely to increase and expand activity which would mean an increase in noise and it was considered that would not be the case and therefore there was no reasonable requirement for noise mitigation to be provided. He explained that in respect of the bungalows on the other side of the business the first permission was granted by committee against the officer’s recommendation and noise may not have been addressed as part of that application and in addition there has been further permission granted for another two bungalows. David Rowen made the point that the previous decision that the committee had made in respect of the three dwellings post dated that decision on the two bungalows and the Council has accepted that there needs to be noise mitigation on plot 6.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that it is his understanding that the noise mitigation measures that were approved were intended to protect the people living in the house from any noise from the business and now the applicant wants to remove the conditions, so that whoever lives in the dwelling will not be protected against the noise and he fails to understand why anybody would not want to protect themselves from noise.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether a noise assessment study has ever been carried out to ascertain noise levels from the spraying business because there is no need for the mitigation measures to be implemented if there are no noise issues identified. David Rowen stated that as part of this application to remove noise mitigation measures there would be the expectation that some sort of assessment to justify the removal of such measures would be included but the comments received from Environmental Health have stated that there is no justification contained within the application to convince them that by removing the mitigation measures the people living in plot 6 would not be adversely affected and the onus would be on the applicant in this case to commission a noise assessment and submit it with the application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if the noise assessment is done and they are an agricultural business there will be different types of noise generated at different times of year.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked officers to clarify that the noise mitigation is required for plot six as that is the closest plot to where most of the work undertaken by the business is carried out? David Rowen confirmed that is the case.

·         Councillor Connor asked officers to clarify what has changed and David Rowen stated that there is no evidence which has been provided to demonstrate that anything has changed since January 2021 when the committee approved the application with the condition of the noise mitigation measures.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the committee have a duty to protect the wellbeing of those residents who will reside at plot number six.

Members asked questions, made comments  and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that this application concerns her and if it is  approved it will set a precedent that applicants will ignore any conditions added to applications and do exactly what they want and, therefore, in her opinion she will be refusing the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Topgood and agreed that the application should be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Miscandlon left the meeting at 5.00pm following this application)