Agenda item

Proposal:

HGY/2022/0708 – Application for variation/removal of condition 1 (in accordance with the plans), condition 4 (restriction of use class) and condition 6 (deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2020/0100.

HGY/2022/0709 – Application for variation/removal of condition 8 (deliveries in respect of units 3, 4 and 5a as well as units 1, 5b and 6) condition 22 (no loading/unloading outside units 3, 4 & 5a) and condition 23 (no loading/unloading of deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2014/0055.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for:

HGY/2022/0708 – Application for variation/removal of condition 1 (in accordance with the plans), condition 4 (restriction of use class) and condition 6 (deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2020/0100.

HGY/2022/0709 – Application for variation/removal of condition 8 (deliveries in respect of units 3, 4 and 5a as well as units 1, 5b and 6) condition 22 (no loading/unloading outside units 3, 4 & 5a) and condition 23 (no loading/unloading of deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2014/0055

James Mead, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was asked how the noise assessment had been undertaken. The Noise and Nuisance Manager explained that a Noise Survey could be carried out using a model or measured data. The noise on site could be measured, uploaded into software, and then modified to consider the impact of things such as additional vehicular movements. It was highlighted that the Noise Survey included measurements on the site for specific time periods to more accurately determine the noise impact. In relation to the effect on residents, it was explained that the data could be modelled to determine the sound impact over different distances. The Head of Development Management stated that there would be higher noise levels but that these would not be significantly above background noise levels. The Noise and Nuisance Manager added that the additional measures were set out in the Noise Management Plan and noted that there would be additional controls between 11pm and 6am.

·         Some members asked whether unrestricted delivery hours were likely to result in higher noise levels and air pollution on the residential part of White Hart Lane, particularly in the early morning hours. It was noted that this was sometimes difficult to balance but that there could be a greater impact if delivery times were restricted. It was explained that providing the ability to deliver at any time could limit the impact on the road network and decrease congestion and air pollution.

·         It was enquired how issues of light pollution, particularly in the early morning hours, would be managed. The Planning Officer explained that the planning permission had a condition restricting external lighting and so the applicant would need to obtain permission from the Local Planning Authority for any additional lighting. The Head of Development Management noted that the site would be lit overnight for operational and security reasons and so vehicle lights were not expected to have a significant impact.

·         Some members enquired whether there could be an acoustic fence on the eastern side of the site. The Planning Officer noted that there would be an acoustic fence on the western side, adjacent to Unit 2. The Noise and Nuisance Manager explained that the noise assessment had modelled where the noise was most likely to be an issue and that this had been identified as the western site boundary. It was added that the eastern site would be significantly less impacted by noise due to the use of the units and the existing boundary and it was not considered that an acoustic fence was required in this location. It was noted that the applicant could provide more detailed information.

·         In relation to the impact on residents, some members enquired whether it was possible to grant a temporary permission and then to review the arrangements. The Head of Development Management noted that planning policy supported measures that enabled businesses to operate and that it was a significant risk for a business to agree a lease where the hours of operation could be reduced. It was noted that the proposals included noise mitigation and that, if there were unforeseen impacts or recurring issues, there were measures for resident liaison; officers considered that this was an acceptable balance.

·         Some members noted that the restrictions relating to delivery times and use class were considered necessary in the previous planning permission and it was enquired whether there had been any material changes to justify an extension. The Head of Development Management noted that, since the original planning permission had been granted, the site had been in operation and the market had indicated that the variations were important for operations on these sorts of units. It was added that the evidence relating to noise mitigation had also been considered and it was believed that the proposal balanced issues on the site in a different way to minimise the impact.

·         Members asked about whether there were any noise complaints in relation to the site. The Noise and Nuisance Manager noted that the consideration and review of complaints was usually informative for considering these types of cases but, as there were few noise complaints, the assessment had focused on the context and the noise mitigation measures.

·         It was noted that the report did not include the exact figures from the Noise Survey; it was queried whether the difference in noise would be truly imperceivable for local residents and what degree of reduction would be achieved with the acoustic barrier. The Noise and Nuisance Manager noted that the acoustician from the applicant team would likely be able to answer this question in further detail.

·         Some members asked whether a trip survey had been undertaken and expressed concerns that the increase in delivery hours would result in additional trips in the area. The Transport Strategy Team Manager explained that the number of deliveries was generally related to floor space; in this case, the floor space would not be larger and so a substantial increase in trip generation was not anticipated. It was added that the site would continue to have light industrial use and parking and that the change of use class was not expected to materially impact the number of deliveries.

·         It was enquired whether there had been an assessment of expected movements during the night and whether a constant movement of vehicles would be more intrusive for local residents. The Noise and Nuisance Manager explained that noise had been modelled from 12.50am over a four day period based on a ‘worst case’ scenario, with the quietest background noise and the loudest operational noise on the site. Members asked whether this had taken account of the number of vehicles that would be operating overnight. The Noise and Nuisance Manager stated that the survey had measured the noise impact of the units, vehicles, and forklift in the outside area to give a realistic impression of the maximum level of noise. The Head of Development Management noted that the size of the plot meant that a limited number of lorries could be on the site at any one time. The Noise and Nuisance Manager added that the number of vehicles was a restriction set out in the Noise Management Plan.

Wakako Hirose, Senior Planning Associate (Rapleys); Ed Fitch, Applicant (LaSalle Investment Management); and Adam Bamford, Noise Consultant (Cass Allen)were in attendance on behalf of the applicant. The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The applicant team stated that the landowner represented a pension fund and that it would be important to ensure that the site was commercially viable. It was explained that there would be a Managing Agent who would liaise with the tenants of the site and with residents and so noise complaints would be investigated and resolved or escalated.

·         In relation to queries about the acoustic fence, Adam Bamford noted that there was no noise barrier between Units 2 and 3. It was explained that noise attenuated over distance and so it was important to consider the location of the noise source. On the eastern side, it was stated that there was effective screening from the existing buildings which would reflect noise back towards the site and there was a significant topographical change in level; with these features, there would be a good level of noise mitigation. It was commented that the introduction of a noise barrier in this location had been investigated but that, while there would be a significant visual impact and cost, there would be an imperceptible difference in noise; the difference would be 2 decibels (dB) and anything less than 3dB was considered to be imperceptible. It was confirmed that the impact on the western side of the site was 13dB which would be very noticeable to residents without the proposed noise barrier.

·         Members asked about commercial viability and whether the proposed operational changes would result in additional deliveries. The applicant team explained that there was currently a requirement to make deliveries at particular times but that extending this time would allow flexibility and provide the option to avoid peak congestion issues. It was stated that there was no intention to make the site a 24 hour distribution centre. It was noted that the landowner wanted to ensure that the site was attractive for businesses and that the option to have 24 hour deliveries was more appealing and provided more options for the long term future of the site.

·         In response to a query about the expected noise levels during the day and night and the impact of vehicular sounds, Adam Bamford stated that Appendix 1 of the Noise Report set out the distribution of noise levels throughout the day and night. It was commented that the original survey had been undertaken in 2013 and this had found that the impact of the site would be equal to background noise. It was noted that an updated survey had been undertaken more recently and this had found a reduction in the levels of background noise; this meant that there was some small, adverse impact but it was considered that this was mitigated by the Noise Management Plan and noise barrier. It was added that the lowest level of background noise during the night was 44dB and the lowest level of background noise during the day was around 50-55dB. It was noted that noise levels varied throughout the day and that the ‘worst case’ scenario, which used the lowest levels of background noise, had been assessed.

·         Some members commented that, for future applications, it would be useful to have the detailed Noise Report included in the agenda pack.

·         It was noted that the landlord for the site planned to monitor site usage to ensure that residents were not adversely impacted; it was enquired how this would be undertaken, particularly in relation to noise concerns. The applicant team stated that the Noise Management Plan would be included as part of any lease negotiations and that any tenants looking to work at night would have to adhere to these requirements. It was noted that the Managing Agent would be available to deal with complaints, in consultation with the Noise and Nuisance Manager, and their contact details would be provided to residents.

It was noted that the recommendation was to grant planning permission as set out in the report and the addendum.

Following a vote with 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against, and 2 abstentions, and subject to the amendments above, it was

RESOLVED

HGY/2022/0708 and HGY/2022/0709:

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

Conditions:

HGY/2022/0708:

1)    Approved Plans

2)    Use Restriction

3)    Noise Levels

4)    Storage of Materials

5)    No Additional Floorspace

6)    Additions to the Roof

7)    External Lighting

8)    BREEAM

9)    Acoustic Fencing

10) Noise Management Plan

11)Noise Mitigation Measures

HGY/2022/0709:

1)    Noise Levels

2)    External Lighting

3)    Deliveries

4)    Storage of Materials

5)    No Additional Floorspace

6)    Additions to the Roof

7)    Use Class Restriction

8)    Acoustic Fencing

9)    Noise Management Plan

10)Noise Mitigation Measures

Informatives

1)    Previous Conditions (HGY/2020/0100)

2)    Previous Conditions (HGY/2014/0055)

3)    Proactive Statement

At 8.45pm, the Committee agreed a brief adjournment. The meeting resumed at 8.50pm.