Agenda item
13 & 13A Carlisle Road, Kingsbury, London, NW9 0HD Queensbury (Ref. 14/1482)
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended with additional conditions for suitable tarmac or alternative surface between units 13 and 13A to the front of enclosed loading bay (between units 11 & 13) and submission of a Servicing Management Agreement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of the premises into a food production unit (Use class B2) to include the creation of a multi-vehicle despatch facility, loading bays and alterations to the front pavement
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning consent subject to the conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice and amendments as set out in Supplementary Report to conditions 2 (approved plans), 6 (tree planting), 7 (hard standing) and 8 (ventilation and extraction).
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) outlined the noise complaints reported to Environmental Health and how they had been dealt with by the applicant.. She continued that the applicant had submitted updated plans showingthesiting ofacousticscreenseitherside ofthe extension,following the profile oftheroofto assistwith noisemanagementofthesite. The Area Planning Manager informed members that the applicant had advised that the timings of servicing would follow the same routine as has been in existence for many years. Members heard that the applicant had requested that the hard standing at the front of the plot should not be restricted to permeable material as easy cleaning of such an area was important for food factories. In respect of that, Rachel Murrell recommended an amended condition requiring details of the hard standing to be submitted for approval, as set out in the supplementary report.
Dipak Patel and Nigel Raveneau (objectors) expressed concerns about noise nuisance from the applicant’s current operations which they felt would be aggravated by the proposed development. They added that rat and mice infestation and food odour would also increase to the detriment of residential amenity. They continued that their concerns had not been adequately addressed by the applicant and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers.
David Quinn (applicant’s agent) drew members’ attention to the measures that the applicant would put in place including an acoustic barrier and modern refrigeration panels to mitigate the concerns expressed by the objectors. He referred to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s conclusion that there had been a significant improvement in noise generation at the site. In response to members’ questions, the applicant’s agent stated that the applicant would make every attempt to improve the operation in the service yard, including training of staff and notices to the drivers advising them of the need to respect their neighbours.
In bringing the discussion to an end, the Chair remarked that the operation of the business had previously had a detrimental impact on residential amenity and in order to minimise future impacts, she suggested additional conditions requiring the applicant to erect a suitable tarmac or alternative surface between 13 and 13A and the submission of a servicing management agreement. These were put to the vote and declared carried.
DECISION:
Granted planning permission as recommended with additional conditions for suitable tarmac or alternative surface between units 13 and 13A to the front of enclosed loading bay (between units 11 & 13 and submission of a Servicing Management Agreement.
Supporting documents: