Agenda item

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending approval be refused in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

Retrospective change of use from previous use for manufacture and sale of timber sheds to use for painting contractors premises, vehicle repair and MOT testing, storage of recycled materials, storage and manufacture of sheet metal acoustic panels, storage of scaffolding equipment, general open storage and car parking area, retention of 3m high fencing and proposed siting of portable building.

Mr Sayle (Agent) and Mrs Toner (Local resident) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE RETROSPECTIVE CHANGE OF USE AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO SERVE AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE (TO UNITS 1 AND 10 ONLY) WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESOLVED that retrospective planning permission for change of use of the premises be refused for the reasons set out below:

(i)  that Authority be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to:

(a)  Upon receipt of an adopted screen opinion from the Planning and Development Manager to serve an Enforcement Notice, requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use of Unit 3 of the former Dillons Shed site. Should the unauthorised use not cease, that authority be given to prosecute such a breach of control, via the Magistrates Court;

(b)  Unless a valid planning application accompanied by a noise report is submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the date of this decision, to serve Enforcement Notices, requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use at Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the former Dillons Shed site. Should the unauthorised use not cease, that authority be given to prosecute such a breach of control, via the Magistrates Court; and

(ii)  that no enforcement action be taken in respect of the uses in Units 1 and 10 at the current levels of activity.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1- Impact on Residential Amenity

The proposed development by reason of the intensification of the use and level and type of activity (including associated HGV movements) creates noise and disturbance which is harmful to the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties. This is having regard to the close physical relationship of the site to the residential neighbours and the cumulative impact of the uses on residential amenity. In particular in the absence of a noise report to the contrary, units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 shown on the submitted site plan are considered to represent an unneighbourly form of use for this location.  As such, the proposal would prove contrary to the provisions of saved policies SDP1 and SDP16 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (adopted version March 2006).

2 -Highway Safety

The increase in HGV movements associated with the proposal would be harmful to the safety and convenience of the users of the adjacent highway. This is having regard to the residential nature of the surrounding streets and the traffic calming measures in place. The proposal would increase pressure on nearby junctions including the Redbridge roundabout and result in an increase risk of vehicle conflict. In addition to this, the proposal is not designed with adequate on-site turning for HGV which could lead to further harm to the safety and convenience of the users of the adjacent highway and within the site itself. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CS19 of the Southampton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and saved policies SDP1, SDP4 and TI2 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (adopted version March 2006).

3 - Insufficient Information

In the absence of a noise report, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the uses operating from units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 do not cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties through noise and disturbance. As such the proposal would prove contrary to the provisions of saved policies SDP1 and SDP16 if the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (adopted version March 2006).