Agenda item

The Officers confirmed that a petrol station was a lawful use on this site.  It was commented that the design was industrial in nature but on balance it was considered acceptable as the proposal was set back from the High Street and not directly opposite the properties in Southfield Drive.

It was noted that the building was higher, but that the previous building had a flat roof.  It was explained that there would not be a harmful impact especially having regard to the orientation of the building.  It was reported that the building was single storey in part and that there were no windows directly overlooking neighbours.  It was reported that the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection to the proposal in terms of noise and disturbance.

It was reported that concerns had been raised regarding safety and it was highlighted that there were a number of conditions proposed in this regard but also that some concerns were controlled by other legislation other than planning.

It was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection but it was considered that an informative should be added regarding the access and egress to the site.

Yvonne Cocking made a statement objecting to the application.  She explained that she did not oppose the principle of a garage on this site but expressed concern regarding safety commenting that her property, no.14 Southfield Drive, had suffered damage as a result of the recent fire. She explained that she had concerns which she had reported to Officers previously regarding height; loss of light; the proposal being inconsistent with neighbouring houses and over dominant.  However, she commented that her main concern was the 1 metre strip of land which separated the site from the neighbour which was currently covered with foliage.  She reported that when this area was cleared, a condition should be imposed requiring that it be maintained as an open area and not used as a dumping ground for rubbish, tyres and other combustible materials and items.  She suggested that the strip should be sealed to prevent access.  Furthermore, she considered that a condition should be added to prevent car sales at the garage in perpetuity.  She raised concerns regarding gases being combustible and smell.  Finally she questioned whether Members had considered traffic coming from the east and turning right very close to properties.  She suggested that the entrance to the garage should be from the High Street and not in Southfield Drive.

Angela Banks, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the proposal to retain a garage in the village had been welcomed by residents.  She referred to design commenting that it was higher for safety reasons but that the roof was further away from the neighbour at no.14 Southfield Drive. She reported that there were no windows that would result in overlooking and that the access was acceptable. She reported that the applicant was willing to keep the area at the back clear. She reiterated that the proposal was for a garage and that the proposal amalgamated what was there before.  She explained that there were benefits in that the portacabin would be removed and that the garage would be more attractive in the locality providing a service for local people.

One Member spoke in support of the application noting that the applicant’s agent had stated that combustible material would not be stored on the site; the applicant would have to seek planning permission to sell vehicles from the site and that the access was gated and conditions were proposed to address fire safety requirements.

The local Member reported that he was not opposed to the application but that appropriate conditions should be imposed on any permission.  He expressed concern regarding size, height and width of the proposed building.  He commented that there was concern locally regarding car sales from this site in view of the on-street parking of vehicles and access and egress to the site. He reported that the nearby road was narrow and cars had been parked everywhere causing nuisance and annoyance to residents. He hoped that vehicle sales would not be allowed in the future and he welcomed the informative in this regard.  He reported that there was a mini roundabout which was steadily growing and the visibility was not good.  He suggested that there should be an in and out access system away from the roundabout.  Finally he referred to the strip of land at the back commenting that it was used as a tip. He asked that this strip be cleared and used properly and not as a dumping ground especially for flammable materials and items.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that the applicant could not rebuild the garage to the original plan without planning permission.  One Member commented that he had considered what had been there before stating that it was unfortunate that what was being proposed was something bigger.  However, the previous structure had been a 1950’s petrol station.  In response to a further question raised it was noted that brick render was proposed together with a more industrial material.  The Member expressed some concerns in terms of design and visual impact towards the southwest elevation commenting that the building would be so much larger than what was there before.  Finally, the Member referred to the impact on neighbours and welcomed the conditions regarding boundary treatment and storage.

One Member suggested that the proposed materials should be reported back to Committee for approval and this was agreed.

The Officers commented that the boundary treatment was to ensure that the boundary was secure and that the only way of getting in would be by the gate.  It was reported that the storage of hazardous materials was not a planning issue.

One Member commented that the design could have been improved but on balance the proposal was acceptable having regard to the benefits of the facility to the village and the locality. In respect of the rear strip of land he raised concerns regarding storage and other issues such as vermin.  He suggested that a condition should be added to require that the area be kept free of stored material.  In response the Officers asked Members to consider what would be the harm in that vermin and flammable materials were covered by other legislation and the area was not visible; therefore this would be an unreasonable condition.

One Member commented that he disagreed with the Officer’s comments stating that the garage had burnt down and that the storage of materials in this area was an important consideration. 

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson and seconded by Councillor Terry Cox that should the Committee be minded to approve the application a further condition be added to ensure that the rear strip of land be kept clear.  However, on being put this was lost by 8 votes to 6.

By 13 votes to 1 it was

RESOLVED

that application SUT/375/3 be approved subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report with a further condition to require that the materials be presented back to Committee for approval.