Issue - meetings

Issue - meetings

20/00646/FUL - 15 - 17 Greycaine Road, Watford, WD24 7GP

Meeting: 15/03/2021 - Development Management Committee (Item 57)

57 20/00646/FUL - 15 - 17 Greycaine Road, Watford pdf icon PDF 423 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and provided a short summary on what had been covered at the 3 March meeting.  He then invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to present a brief summary of any new matters that had arisen since the earlier meeting. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer briefly summed up the application as set out in his report and referenced the update sheet (Appendix 2) that had been circulated to all parties and published onto the internet, prior to the meeting.

 

The points raised were that the applicant, Gap, had agreed to:

·        Not using the floodlights outside operating hours.

·        Changing the hours of audible operation to 07.00-18.30 Monday to Friday, 09.00-13.00 Saturday and no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the aerial photograph of the site, contained in his report, although showing the occupier Gap, was not up to date.  He also clarified the lighting, explaining that there were ten 150 Watt LED lamps, five on each side of the site.  This meant that five were pointed towards Tudor Walk, but were angled at 25 degrees down.  Environmental Health had visited the site and had raised no objections. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer added that any fumes from the site would be from vehicles or plant moving around the site and would not be considered excessive.  He concluded that the tree survey covered the ecology and found no suitable bat habitats. 

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and invited local resident, Mr Peter Hazeldine, to address the committee. 

 

Mr Hazeldine stated that the proposed use of this site was unsuitable for an industrial estate so near to residential properties.  He had sent an email to the committee explaining further the residents’ concerns.  He felt there were discrepancies from the previous meeting:  there were 13 light and 14 fume objections contained in the original submissions.    

 

He went on to express his concern that Gap were now seeking a 07.00 start, when they originally requested a 07.30 start.  He concluded by playing a recording of some machine noise which he stated had been recorded from the site within the last week.

 

The Chair then invited Councillor Bill Stanton, Ward Councillor for Tudor, to speak to the committee.

 

Councillor Stanton expressed his desire to see Gap acting as responsible neighbours and to deal with any complaints in a timely manner.  He hoped that Gap would not take advantage of any permissions they might be granted. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Stanton and opened the discussion to the committee. 

 

The committee focused its discussion on appropriate operating hours and limitation on use of the floodlights, with the suggested hours being:

 

08.00-17.30, Monday to Friday

09.00-13.00 Saturday

Closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

 

The floodlights were to be switched off outside those operating hours. 

 

Various options were discussed, which culminated in the Chair putting the motion to the committee that, planning permission be granted subject to the amended conditions and the existing conditions and informatives  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57


Meeting: 03/03/2021 - Development Management Committee (Item 57)

57 20/00646/FUL - 15 - 17 Greycaine Road, Watford, WD24 7GP pdf icon PDF 423 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Principal Planning Officer (AC) to present his report

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application as set out in his report and referenced the brief update sheet that had been circulated to all parties at the meeting.  This detailed that two additional objections had been received and that the matters they raised had been dealt with in his report.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his report and invited local resident, Mr Peter Hazeldine, to address the committee. 

 

Mr Hazeldine stated that he had been a resident of Tudor Walk for 40 years and was representing the views of a number of local residents.  Prior to the arrival of Gap there had been no problems, but Gap had caused a number of issues and generated many complaints; the first being in 2004. 

 

In 2016 a planning application for the site was refused due to potential noise adversely affecting the amenity for local residents.  Accordingly, the subsequent use of the site was unlawful and Gap were advised to submit a planning application.  Despite the refusal, Gap had continued to operate in breach of planning regulations. 

 

Mr Hazeldine explained that Gap’s operations generated noise as a result of the use of heavy machinery and associated dust and fumes were a blight on the lives of residents.  Various complaints had been made to Gap at both local and head office level to no effect.  Mr Hazeldine stated that over the years, hundreds of complaints had been made to Environmental Health regarding the detrimental effect of the Gap operations.

 

Mr Hazeldine described the excessive noise, dust and fumes, and expressed concern that should the application be granted, then the excessive noise, dust and fumes from the site would be to the detriment of the local residents.  These extended beyond normal working hours and the change of use from Use Class E to B8 was inappropriate due to the proximity of residential premises.  He pointed out the light spill from the flood lights on site was a nuisance and that there had not been an ecological survey carried out. 

 

Mr Hazeldine concluded that he felt if approved, the matter would breach the Human Rights Act, Article 1 and that the acoustic barrier would not have any effect on noise pollution at the first and second floor levels.  He urged the committee to refuse the application. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Hazeldine and stated that he had identified three main points:

1.     Noise, fumes and dust – whilst noise had been address by the officer, the committee would like to hear more about the fumes and dust. 

2.     Detrimental light spill – he asked for clarification on paragraphs 6.17-6.20 of the officer’s report regarding the retrospective application for the lights.

3.     Whether there should have been an ecological survey.

 

At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer expanded on the points, explaining that as there were no buildings or industrial processes on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57


 

rating button