Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Two storey extension to existing production building (use class B1 (c)) and reconfiguration to, and extension of, existing car park.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

5.1             This application was for a two storey extension to existing production building (use class B1 (c)) and reconfiguration to, and extension of, existing car park.

5.2             The Technical Planning Manager explained that the proposal sought to extend the existing light industrial premises to provide a larger production area and increase the level of car parking on the site.  The premises was located on an existing major employment site, as allocated in the adopted local plan and the principle of development was therefore acceptable.  The main issues arising from the application were the impact on the local highway network and the potential impact on nearby residential properties.  In terms of highways, the proposal would result in a relatively low increase in vehicular movements; the County Highways Officer had been consulted and raised no objection, subject to the inclusion of planning conditions as set out in the Officer report.  As the site backed onto the rear of commercial units, it was the potential impact on the houses and mobile home site on the opposite side of the B4063 that had raised most concern from those making representations.  The use was classified as B1 which meant it could be carried out in a residential area without harm to amenity, particularly in terms of noise, vibration, dust and smell; however, the concerns were focused mainly on potential overlooking from the new building to the properties opposite.  As could be seen on the proposed site location plan, the two properties to the immediate west of the mobile home park entrance were already directly opposite the proposed building and had a substantial evergreen hedge which would avoid any overlooking from the proposed extension.  A relatively new property, known as Bay Tree House, had been constructed in the former garden of Brookside and the extension would inevitably bring the building closer to that property; however, views from the front and gable end windows would be oblique and at a distance that would not give rise to undue overlooking.  The distance from the proposed windows to the nearest boundary of the closest residential properties was approximately 20 metres with the dwellings themselves set back at least 30 metres.  The proposed fire escape was set a further three metres back.  The building would be clearly visible from the neighbouring properties and the outlook from Bay Tree House in particular would change, but not to such a harmful extent as to warrant refusal.  For these reasons, Officers felt there would be an acceptable relationship between the existing dwellings and the proposed extension.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that there had been some concern about the accuracy of the plans; however, the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the site and block plans were based on a professional survey of the site which must be preferred over the Ordnance Survey mapping.  In terms of design, the extension would be a continuation of the existing building in terms of form and style and would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area whilst also serving to screen some of the lower quality industrial buildings behind.  It was regrettable that some of the trees at the western end of the site had been removed; however, those trees were not protected and a condition was suggested to secure an appropriate landscaping scheme including tree planting along the site boundary.  For all of the reasons outlined, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

5.3             The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The local Member for the area indicated that he had concerns about overlooking from the extension to the dwellings opposite, as had been explained by the Technical Planning Manager, and he asked whether a condition could be included to require the top floor windows to be obscure glazed in order to give additional privacy to those properties and demonstrate to the residents that their concerns had been taken seriously.  The Technical Planning Manager reiterated that Officers felt the distances involved were acceptable but it was within Members’ gift if they saw fit to include a condition requiring obscure glazing as suggested.  Another Member questioned whether the height of the residential properties opposite the site had been taken into consideration in relation to the proposed development.  She indicated that she regularly drove along the B4063 and felt that the visual impact since the trees had been felled was terrible.  She recognised that replacement trees were being planted but, in her view, this proposal was a step too far; the original building was a public house which had been sympathetically extended but the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene and would negatively affect the properties opposite.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that there was insufficient scope to achieve any further landscaping within the site to address the concerns raised by the Member as there was not a huge amount of room between the front of the building and the site boundary.  Whilst the proposed planting would provide some privacy, this would be limited, particularly during winter months; however, this was not considered to be an issue given the distances involved.  The impact on the streetscene was a matter of judgement - Officers felt it was acceptable and, whilst Members may take a different view, that particular issue could not be solved by any additional planting on site.  The Member recognised there would be an attempt to undertake some planting and, given the circumstances, she felt that was probably the best that could be hoped for, nevertheless, her main concern was the levels of the existing residential properties in relation to the proposed development as it had been stated they were somewhat lower.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that Officers were aware of the difference in levels, they had been taken into account in their assessment of the proposal and were not so significantly different to alter the recommendation in terms of loss of outlook and overlooking.

5.4             The proposer and seconder of the motion to permit the application indicated that they would be happy to include a condition to obscure glaze the first floor windows, as requested by the local Member, and the Chair sought clarification from the Technical Planning Manager as to whether that was achievable.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that there was a standard condition which could be used and would require the windows to be Pilkington Level 4, or equivalent standard, and obscure glazed; however, he asked Members to clarify exactly which windows they required to be obscure glazed.  The local Member indicated that this should apply to the five first floor windows facing toward the B4063. In response to a query as to whether there would be one sheet of glass on the upper and lower glazing, the Technical Planning Manager indicated that he did not have those details to hand but he provided assurance that the obscure glazing on the road-facing elevation would resolve the issues that the local Member had referred to.  The Legal Adviser indicated that the plans seemed to show there were eight first floor windows in total facing the B4063 and she sought clarification as to whether it was the five windows in the main part of the extension which Members wished to condition.  Having reconsulted the plan at Page No. 85 of the Officer report, the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that there were eight first floor windows in the front elevation of the proposed extension across the two different elements of the extension.  The local Member confirmed that he would like all eight to be obscure glazed and the proposer and seconder of the motion indicated they would be happy with that.

5.5             Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of a condition to obscure glaze the eight first floor windows of the proposed extension facing the B4063.