Agenda item
SKL House, 18 Beresford Avenue, Wembley, HA0 1YP 03 (Ref. 12/3089)
Decision:
Granted subject to a revised Condition 6 regarding car parking.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor extension to front of building, alterations to the front forecourt layout, reduction in width to existing vehicle access, retention of existing extraction plant/wood burner installation to the rear and change of use from office (B1a) to a mixed use with B2 (general industrial), B8 (warehouse & distribution) with ancillary office and ancillary showroom (as amended by revised plans).
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
The application was deferred by Planning Committee on 11 December 2013 for greater clarity of the environmental view including a fuller explanation on the impact of air quality and for an Officer from Environmental Health to be present at Committee when it was next considered.
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager informed the Committee that in recommending approval of the proposal, due consideration had been given to the principle of the use, the transportation impacts, the impacts on the surrounding area, local air quality and residential amenity. In addition, local objections had been reported in detail and the professional expertise of Environmental Health Officers (EHO) had been sought which confirmed the suitability of the site for the proposed use and the operation of the wood burner without causing harm to neighbouring residents.
Members heard that as the site was designated as Strategic Industrial Land it was not considered inappropriate for the proposal to be sited there and furthermore, the location of the burner to the rear of the building made it less prominent. The Area Planning Manager added that the site was within the Northfields Industrial Estate which remained protected for industrial use by the Mayor's London Plan. He continued that Transportation Officers fully supported the use with an 8m deep loading bay, as proposed. In respect of refuse storage and cycle parking, the Area Planning Manager stated that although this had been addressed, further details would be secured through Condition 10. Additionally, there existed sufficient space in front of the entrance for these to be located without obstructing parking bays.
Mr David Stock, in objecting to the proposal on behalf of Heather Park Branch Neighbourhood Watch (HPBNW) raised the following issues:
i) Local residents had collected adequate evidence to prove that the burner was being operated after 6:00pm and during bank holidays.
(ii) Residents were not informed about the draft permit that was issued to the applicant and that letters to the residents did not explain the burner process.
(iii) The reduction of parking provision from 4 to 2 would compound the problems associated with parking, refuse storage and servicing arrangements caused by lorries.
(iv) Detrimental environmental impact on residents as a result of the offensive odour and dust from the wood burner which was also soiling cars locally.
In response to members’; questions, Mr Stock stated that residents were not consulted or contacted by EHO about the permit licence and the hours of operation. He continued that the applicant had flouted the permit licence by burning medium density fibreboard (MDF) on site. Mr Stock added that as filters for the burner were not being cleaned as often as they should be, offensive smells and dust were going onto cars and into lungs which could have fatal consequences in 10-15 years from now. He continued that the siting and operation of the wood burner which was between 30-50 metres away from residential properties was inappropriate.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Brown stated that he had received a communication from HPBNW group. Councillor Brown highlighted the following key concerns;
i) The location and operation of the wood burner some 30-50 metres away from residential properties was inappropriate in view of concerns expressed about the detrimental impact of burning MDF.
(ii) More detailed work was required on parking issues particularly as part of the space was being taken by skips.
(iii) Hours of operation including bank holidays should be restricted in the interest of residential amenity.
In response to a member’s request, the Area Planning Manager commented on parking spaces and outlook. He stated that following consultation with and a site visit by Transportation officers, they had concluded that by formalising the arrangement and reducing excessive crossover, the parking situation would beacceptable. He added that as a strategic industrial estate in the Mayor of London’s Plan, the proposal would not be out of place. He drew members’ attention to conditions recommended to ensure satisfactory refuse storage and bicycle parking.
Stephen Inch, Enforcement Officer, Licensing and Pollution (EOLP) attended the meeting at the request of the Committee. The EOLP stated that in his professional view whilst MDF was unpleasant to work with, he was satisfied that the wood burning system had been constructed to prevent dust escape within smoke controlled areas. He confirmed the advice reported in the tabled supplementary and added that during his unannounced visits to the site he had not observed any odour nor received complaints about smells. Stephen Inch assured members that Environmental Services would continue its involvement and monitoring of the system.
In response to a member’s enquiries, Stephen Inch stated that the burner could be operated 24 hours a day and throughout the week because the hours of operation were not defined in strategic industrial cases. He also stated that the permit had not been granted as officers were awaiting the outcome of the Planning Committee and to consider further representations that may be received. He confirmed that the decision to grant the permit would not be based solely on the site’s designation. He also added that the design of the burner and the filters would minimise pollution in the area.
Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning advised members that if the applicant failed to comply with the parking layout as set out in the main report, it would constitute a breach of condition thus providing enough grounds with which to pursue enforcement action. He therefore recommended an amendment to condition 6 to reflect that. In his closing remarks, the Chair stated that Environmental Health Officers should maintain dialogue with the residents and the applicant and seek to address all complaints brought to their attention.
DECISION: Granted permission subject to a revised condition 6 regarding car parking.
Supporting documents: