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.

Retention of use for the production of sheet plastic (Class B2 - general industrial use) together with the retention of associated elevational changes including 8 grilles to northern facade and noise attenuated vents to roof.

Mr Patrick (Agent), Mr Reay (Interested Party), Ms Salomon-Olsen (Chamber of Commerce), Ms Tarandip (Local Resident) and Councillor Barnes-Andrews (Ward Councillor) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION (1) TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION WAS CARRIED

RECORDED VOTE

FOR:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford, Claisse, L Harris, Osmond and Thomas

AGAINST:  Councillors Jones and Cunio

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION (2) TO INSTITUTE COURT PROCEEDINGS WAS CARRIED

RECORDED VOTE

FOR:  Councillors Jones, Mrs Blatchford, Claisse, L Harris, Osmond and Thomas

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Cunio

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION (3) TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH AN UPDATED LIST OF AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESOLVED

(i)  that planning permission be refused for the reason set out below;

(ii)  that Court proceedings should be instituted to prosecute the breach of the Enforcement Notice, to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use for the manufacture of plastic products; and,

(iii)  that the applicant be provided with an updated list of available commercial property suitable for relocation.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

The retention of this general industrial use, operating on a 24 hour a day basis for most days of the year is considered to be injurious to the residential amenities of those living in the Northam Estate opposite the site during the late evening and early morning hours, especially during still, dry weather conditions, by reason of adverse noise impact.  Notwithstanding the works which have been undertaken to seek to mitigate noise impact, a number of site visits have revealed a low continuous tonal hum is still present, with intermittent noise episodes, such as a bell ringing when certain plant is in operation, clearly distinguished above background noise levels in the immediate area.  The council, as local planning authority, is mindful that such disturbance has been present since 2002; the use is unlawful and has generated complaints, substantiated by noise monitoring.  Two planning Appeals have been dismissed, the latter to an Enforcement Notice, which the Inspector upheld and which the applicant has breached.  The last Inspector was not prepared to impose mitigating conditions without the certainty of such mitigation working.  Officers have also witnessed a side fire exit door being left open and consider that conditions requiring openings to be kept shut during certain hours, deliveries not to be received during certain hours and on-going maintenance of plant to involve an intolerable level of supervision, where the basic test of enforceability is therefore in grave doubt.  The council notes the local employment Baba Trading provides, but in overall terms considers the harm from this use continuing on a 24 hour a day basis to be harmful to the amenities of those living close by.  As such, the proposals are considered to be contrary to ‘saved’ Policies SDP1 (i) and SDP16 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006).