Agenda item
APPLICATION NO. 02/2020/0989 - FORMER WYNNSTAY STORES, PARK ROAD, RUTHIN
To consider an application for the variation of condition no. 7 of planning permission code no. 02/2020/0251 to allow the use of noise generating machinery between 0800 - 17.30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 - 12.30 on Saturdays at Former Wynnstay Stores, Park Road, Ruthin (copy attached).
Minutes:
An application was submitted for the
variation of condition number 7 of planning permission code no. 02/2020/0251 to
allow the use of noise generating machinery between 0800 - 17.30 Monday to
Friday and 08.00 - 12.30 on Saturdays at the Former Wynnstay Stores, Park Road,
Ruthin.
Public Speakers –
Gail Banks (Against) –
The public speaker outlined the reasons for
her objection to the application for the removal of condition 7 which included
the following reasons:
- The
conditions imposed acknowledged the noise concerns from residents and had
the aim of protecting the residents’ amenities. The public speaker
reported that the applicant had breached these conditions.
- The
continual breach of conditions and the use of noise generating equipment
has had a detrimental impact on the family’s daily lives. The crusher
makes a continual droning sound when running and it bangs and vibrates
when it was crushing materials.
- The
noise associated with the yard also affected the family’s amenity to enjoy
relaxing in the back garden, there have been times when we had needed to
come into the house because the noise of the crusher was too distracting.
- Concern
that should condition 7 be removed, it would ‘open the floodgates’ for
more noise generating equipment to be used in the yard and residents would
again be on the ‘back foot’ with regards to needing to record the noise generating
activities in the yard to provide a true picture of the day-to-day
activities as opposed to the limited information supplied by G Parry.
- If on
initial application, the true activities of the day to day running of the
yard had been presented, would the application have been granted?
- The
official issuing of a breach of three of seven conditions highlighted that
the activities on the site did not fit in with the surrounding area. Five
residents on two sides of the yard, who were in direct proximity were in
objection and the Mill childcare provision objected too.
- The
activities were more suited to an industrial estate environment, which
Ruthin was fortunate to have less than a mile up the road.
Mike Hall (For) –
The public speaker
for the application outlined the applicant’s business history and employment
opportunities. The operations within the yard were summarised.
The speaker advised
that the yard did not have fixed plant or machinery and was not used for
manufacturing. Noise was made from moving materials/plant around the storage
yard, unloading/loading materials, the occasional use of hand tools for cutting
materials and/or preparing materials for site, and the recycling of materials
to reduce waste and environmental impact. The Committee was advised that the
noise made was minimal and infrequent, and nothing that would be deemed
excessive or unreasonable for any business on this site. He reported that both
the Planning Office and the Public Protection Office had been to the site and
thought the level and timing of the noise was reasonable.
It was reported
that the site has been a commercial site for over 50 years, with all previous
businesses making considerably more noise than now. The speaker outlined the
previous operations undertaken on the site and how the site had been left empty
for two years. During that period, there had of course been no noise generated
and nearby residents may have become accustomed to that position.
The speaker
acknowledged that on taking over the site there had been an initial few months
of greater levels of noise as the site was being prepared but that the company
had worked with the local authority in order to minimise noise and the impact
on local residents. He advised that the company could not successfully operate
their business from the site without being able to make reasonable levels of
noise from their activities.
General Discussion
–
Officers reminded
members the condition was added at a previous planning committee meeting. The
conditions that officers had recommended were changed by the committee to add
the condition that there was no noise generating equipment at the site. The
application today was for the adoption of the original conditions recommended
by planning officers.
Councillor Bobby
Feeley (local member) highlighted points in support of the application. The
site has had a business on for in excess of 40 years which produced noise, and
the site was also located near a busy road. The company had also been providing
local employment. She reported that the pandemic had made any noise pollution
more apparent as people were spending more time working from home, however she
felt that the proposed planning officers’ conditions were the best options for
all involved.
Councillor Huw
Hilditch-Roberts (local member) queried with officers how an industrial unit
was meant to operate with no noise generating equipment and contrasted the use
now with the site’s previous noise generating usage, which had not been
contained by planning conditions.
Councillor Ann
Davies queried whether the rock crusher could be limited to 30 minutes a day,
and whether there had been any noise barriers included on site to mitigate any
noise pollution, also it was queried whether the issue of dust had been
highlighted.
Proposal Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be granted in
accordance with officers’ recommendations (condition 7 and 8) seconded by
Councillor Brian Jones.
Officers responded to
members on enforcement activity for planning condition breaches. Members were
also reminded that regulatory bodies such as the public protection team would
be involved with issues such as dust nuisances.
Vote
–
For – 16
Abstain – 0
Against – 0
RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in
accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and
supplementary papers.
Supporting documents: