Minutes:
The Assistant Director of Culture and City Development reported in the supplementary matters list that the following comments had been received from the Highway Engineer:
Whilst on-street parking in the vicinity is unrestricted, it is severely congested due to the predominantly terraced housing without off-road parking facilities. A proposed parking scheme was rejected by residents within 3 years ago as the majority of vehicles are associated with residents but the width of the housing frontages allows for 1 space per household. Vehicles associated with vehicle repair/MOT garages can cause frustration for local residents, with vehicles left in the residential roads on a regular basis, reducing parking availability. However, considering the unrestricted parking in the vicinity of the site an objection on highway grounds cannot be sustained and therefore no objection is raised.
A further objection had been received on the grounds that the applicants existing garage in Wadham Road causes parking problems and is noisy.
Deputations were heard from Mr Farah, Mr Hoard and Mr Knight, all objecting to the proposal, who included the following points in their representations:
· This is the third time the applicant has sought to change the use of the building. The first was withdrawn and the second was refused.
· This proposal has produced 32 objections from residents.
· A repair centre will impact on local residents.
· The noise will have an impact. This proposal brings an additional 60 hours of noise.
· The proposal will generate additional traffic.
· There is an issue of personal safety to pedestrians on the thoroughfare.
· Nearest home is 12 inches away.
· There is a major risk of fire and explosion from this use.
· There is no talk of improvement for local residents from what is there already.
· Residents' objections have not been addressed.
· The proposal does not offer economic or social benefit to residents.
· The corrugated roof and plastic curtain will not delight or enhance the area.
· The proposal is on a 2-way road with vehicles crossing.
· I live next door to the site and have done for 30 years.
· It has always been used as a store. Vehicles would arrive to drop off/pick up items from the store maybe twice a day. Sometimes noise could be heard from items being thrown into the van or into the store.
· The noise associated with a repair garage and MOT testing station is going to be far greater.
A deputation was also heard from the applicants' agent, Mr Tutton who included the following points in his representations:
· The building stands back 2m from the footpath.
· There are obscure glazed windows on the east elevation which are mainly broken.
· The previous application for the change of use was refused for one reason. Rather than appeal the decision the applicant decided to address the reason for refusal.
· The asbestos roof will be replaced.
· There will be plastic cladding on the front and plastic windows to replace the broken ones.
· A heavy plastic curtain will be fixed across the entrance to curtail noise.
· Highly unlikely that these works will have an adverse impact on local residents.
· This will provide an alternative commercial use for these premises.
Members' questions
Members sought clarification on the term 'sui generis', the noise and fumes from an MOT testing station, the number of parking permits a garage is entitled to in a residential area, the opening hours and whether there was to be an extraction fan system to be installed. The term 'sui generis' in planning law refers to something which doesn't fall within any use class. A noise assessment has been undertaken and based on that report and the proposed works as offered by the applicant, officers do not feel that there will be any demonstrable harm. Vehicles are tested/run for between 30 seconds to 1.30 so fumes are minimal. It was noted that the garage opening hours were from 0800 to 1800 hours daily. It was also noted that garages are entitled to eight parking permits for vehicles.
Members' comments
Members felt that this proposal would have an impact on local residents particularly with the revving of engines in a small confined space creating noise and disturbance. The parking of vehicles in residential roads will also have an impact on residential amenity. Councillor New supported the application. He felt that with the acoustic noise treatment there would not be a noise impact to residents. He was supportive of the applicant running a small business employing local people and felt he had done well to address the previous reasons for refusal.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed use of the building would, by reason of the noise and disturbance associated with it, be likely to give rise to an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the detriment of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.