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).
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.
For – 16
Abstain – 0
Against – 0
RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and supplementary papers.