Part retrospective application for the retention of storage containers, meter access door, and a ventilation flue to the south east elevation of the existing building, plus cladding of the containers and ventilation flue.
(Planning application number: P2020/0584/FUL)
In the discussion the following points were made:
· The Chair reminded members that the application relates to the physical works and not to the uses on the site which is the case with item B1 and it should be dealt with independently.
· Site is not listed and the property is not located within a Conservation Area and situated within the Nag’s Head Town Centre and Nags Head Primary Retail Frontage
· The Planning Officer advised that the key issues for consideration relate to its design appearance and impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
· Members were advised that the application addresses the reasons for the previous refusal and officers are now of the view that this is now considered an acceptable form of development.
· The Planning Officer advised that the ventilation flue as amended, projects upwards at first floor level above the storage container. Members were advised that the flue as proposed would terminate at the eaves of the existing roof and would be reduced in height compared with the flue installed at the site.
· Members were informed that the differences between the application and the refused application is the removal of the first floor container, a reduction in scale of the flue and the cladding of the containers.
· To address concerns about the visual appearance, the Planning Officer advised that the proposal will now include the cladding of the containers with painted brick slips to be painted green to match the colour of the consented proposal for the renovation of the North and West entrances.
· With regard to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of residents, meeting was advised that conditions have been included to address noise and odour concerns from the ventilation flue.
· With regards to the location of the flue and its impact on neighbouring residents, the Planning Officer acknowledged that a noise assessment report was submitted with the application reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Team, that condition 4 in the report recommends noise levels ,while conditions 5 and 6 ensures that issues such as odour and air quality are addressed.
· Reasons for refusal of a previous application for works as installed were its incongruous design and unsympathetic appearance of the containers and the scale and location of the storage containers. The decision was appealed and subsequently dismissed by the Inspector.
· With regard to the external alterations and development to be retained, members were advised that the proposal is considered acceptable in design and this would not harm the character and appearance of the area. terms a
· In response to concerns about the ventilation flue on the well being of residents, the agent informed the meeting that it is located at the south elevation and in close proximity to Hertslet Road and is 22metres further from neighbouring residents
· An objector was concerned with the location of the flue as it should be at the back of the building, that storage containers have been put in place without planning permission objection and it should not be allowed.
· An objector reiterated his concern that the agent has demonstrated once again that he can put a 100sqm container and 8m flue without planning permission, no building control on the building has been considered so the applicant continues to flout the law
· A Ward Councillor objected to the number of storage and if it actually serves the food halls. He also raised concerns about the flue’s location, that it should be moved further to the rear of the site.
· In response, the agent acknowledged that the storage units supports the day to day operations of the existing ground floor units and not related to the upstairs use, that the use is acceptable in principle. Members acknowledged that there have been a number of changes since the refused application, the reduction in height and an improvement in the visual appearance. The agent noted that although the containers have been in place for over 5 years, no complaint was ever lodged and as officers have noted it will not generate noise or be visually obtrusive.
· With regards to the location of the flue and the reasons, the Planning Officer advised that from a planning view point the assessment is based on the proposal, which is considered to be acceptable.
That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.