The committee will take items in the following order:

1.      All items where people wish to speak and have registered with Democratic Services.

2.      Any remaining items the committee agrees can be determined without further debate.

3.      Those applications which the committee wishes to discuss in detail.

Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, the Chair explained the procedure for the virtual meeting and the method he would employ to ensure the voting was accurately completed.  The Chair also ensured that all participants were introduced. 

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Johnson explained that as the Ward Councillor for Tudor, he was aware that his two fellow Councillors had met with residents about item 4 on the agenda, Greycaine Road.  He had not taken part in the meetings or pre-determined the issue. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 to be submitted and signed.

The minutes for the meeting on 3 February 2021 were approved, and would be signed at the next non-virtual meeting. 

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.

This item was withdrawn prior to this meeting, but this will be noted at the reconvened meeting on 15 March 2021. 

This will be considered at the reconvened meeting on 15 March 2021.