Agenda item

Retrospective: Siting of upcycled shipping containers, installation of 2no. areas with tented roof covering and installation of a fixed roof with timber clad walls to provide a mixed use of land with bar, seating, toilet facilities and a venue for entertainment including live music (Sui Generis) (as amended 29.11.2021) (amended red line boundary 03.02.2022)  (description amended 04.05.2022)

JH Laidler Storage Yard, Double Row, Seaton Delaval, NE25 0PP.

 

Retrospective: Siting of upcycled shipping containers, installation of 2 no. Areas with tented roof covering and installation of a fixed roof with timer clad walls to provide a mixed use of land with bar, seating, toilet facilities and a venue for entertainment including live music (sui generis) (as amended 29.22 21) (amended red line boundary 03.02.2022) (description amended 04.05.2022)

 

J H Laidler Storage Yard, Double Row, Seaton Delaval, NE25 0PP

 

R Laughton, Planning Officer provided updates on the recommendations:-

 

Update 1 – Car parking Plan 

 

For condition number two in the report, it was recommended to include an additional plan to ensure the disabled car parking bays, cycle parking and electric points are secured. The reference number was LM-PL- 012 Rev C.

 

Update 2 – Opening hours

 

The report did not acknowledge the opening hours of the establishment therefore it was recommended to impose an additional condition if the application was approved. 

 

The premises hereby approved shall not be open for business outside the following hours:

 

Sunday – Thursday 12pm –11pm

 

Friday and Saturday 12pm –12am 

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with the NPPF.

 

Update 3

 

After discussion with the highways team, it was also considered appropriate to impose a condition for a crowd management strategy for highway safety purposes. The condition would read as:

 

 

“Within 1 month of the date of this permission, an external areas crowd management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The crowd management Strategy shall set out all matters pertaining to the external areas which will be used for ancillary purposes associated with the use. The approved crowd management Strategy shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

 

In the interest of highway safety to ensure unfettered use of the public highway”

 

Update 4

To ensure the compliance of the noise levels of condition 10, it was recommended to also secure a noise verification report if approval is granted, to read as:

 

With 3 months of the date of this permission, a noise verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report must detail the findings of an acoustic monitoring exercise which will determine the venues compliance with Condition 10  during all hours of operation. The Sound Level Meter must conform to the requirements of Section 5.1 of BS 4142: 2014+A1:2019. In the event that the report identifies a breach of the requirements of Condition 10 the report shall detail a scheme of suitable mitigation for approval within the report. Once approved the mitigation measures must be retained for the lifetime of the development unless varied in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:?To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

 

Mr Laughton then introduced the application with the aid of a presentation..

 

Councillor Henderson, Seaton Valley Community Council was in attendance and her comments included the following:-

 

Seaton Valley Community Council objected to the proposed development as it conflicted with the recently adopted local plan particularly employment land and supporting town centres

 

The officer’s report referred to the existing buildings which currently accommodated a café and food outlet were permitted development and the proposed development was ancillary.  No lawful development certificate had been granted for these uses.

 

The lawful planning use for the site was a wholesale cash and carry which fell within the B8 Planning Use Class

 

No evidence had been provided to demonstrate the previous reasons for refusal, with the adoption of the local plan therefore the previous reasons for refusal remained valid and strengthened

 

If the Committee granted the application this would undermine employment allocations within the newly adopted local plan

 

The proposed development would result in main town centre use being located outside the defined town centre boundary and loss of allocated employment land 

 

Local plan policy ECN 6 was clear that the purpose of allocating employment land was to support the strategic plan for employment development to enable the south east of the county to offer a range and quality of employment

 

LP ECN8 supported land generated for employment use, however, that specific criteria must be met, and the officer's report explained these had not been met, as the development would provide continual access to members of the public who did not work in the employment area.  If the application was approved, the policy was being ignored by the Council, setting a dangerous precedent.

 

Local Plan policy ECN 9 provided further criteria should also be met

 

It was also suggested in the officer's report that the proposed development would deliver significant community and economic benefits, the benefits outlined did not override the need to maintain an allocated employment site with the local plan that had just been adopted

 

The applicant had referred to the site not being viable for employment uses, yet no further details had been provided

 

The policies of the local plan would further be undermined contrary to policies TS4 and TS5

 

Seaton Valley Community Council also had concerns about highways safety and amenity, however, it was noted that the Highways and Public Protection Teams had not objections to the proposal

 

The Committee was asked to refuse the application in accordance with the detailed requirement of the newly adopted local plan

 

Daniel Miller, Applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.    His comments included the following: -

 

He had purchased the site in July 2020 after the business and gone into administration and then liquidation with the loss of 24 jobs

 

He had purchased the freehold of the site and now the current level of employment was more than double that it had been when it was trading

 

The units that had been converted had been evidence to the Local Authority with regards to the shops where the public could buy goods and the café was subject to an application to change the elevation to be used as a cafe

 

The businesses all traded as independents and were rented and funded by himself operated by a brand-new start up with zero risk

 

He acknowledged that town centres were important

 

He had over 100 sites, food related that were government backed incubators which removed barriers to give an opportunity for those who did not have the opportunity before

 

The sites were very small and it was encouraged to use the site as a springboard to the high street and was a risk-free chance and opportunity to try with no bond or security

 

He had shops in the high street himself and his intention was to use the site to enable movement for social mobility in and around Blyth

 

The application site was the yard adjacent to the buildings which supported the businesses which employed new staff

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, the following information was provided:-

 

It was clarified that an independent competent acoustician would be employed by the applicant to carry out a noise and acoustic assessment.

 

Since the application had been refused in April 2021, a sequential test had been carried out.  The loss of employment land was still an issue but had been justified through another policy, with other circumstances to override that.  In addition, temporary permission was being sought, and any concerns or issues would be monitored and addressed.

 

The application before members was what the applicant had proposed, and the pods would be removed for a parking area.

 

The yard had currently been used for cash and carry wholesalers and therefore had elements of employment use.

 

The Planning Officer was not aware of any forthcoming plans but there was the intention for neighbouring sites to create hubs

 

Fire risks were not a planning matter, and all issues would be dealt with by separate legislation by licensing.

 

The rateable value of the site was not a material planning consideration.

 

The additional noise condition would cover any noise issues.  Essentially, the noise survey which was carried out was representative of the site as it was when members visited and when the survey was carried out in 2021.

 

Permitted development was not an issue for this application.

 

The Highways Officer did not have any issues with car parking and there was more than enough parking.

 

With respect to the change of use, officers did not directly contact businesses, but part of the planning application was to consult those neighbours around the site.

 

The fire exits and buildings regs was raised at the site visit and the applicant had confirmed that fire certificates and fire safety were in place.

 

Policy EC9 of the new local plan offered flexibility in terms of employment areas.  Employment was attached to the site, eg, taxi drivers, brewery.   Permission was for a temporary, 2-year monitoring exercise.  The applicant had submitted a sequential test which showed that there were no other suitable sites.

 

Councillor Robinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve temporary permission with the new additional conditions which was seconded by Councillor Ferguson. 

 

Councillor Daley was concerned at the consistent theme of retrospective applications and was very aware of approving the application and the signal it sent out to other developers.  

 

Councillor Chicken stated that the applicant had addressed all issues and the objections were not about planning at all.  As the applicant had stated a business had been lost which had been a great loss to the community.  Employment at the site was double than it had been before, which was important for the local economy.  The applicant's idea was to support the high street and residents were   happy to have this in the area.  The application was for temporary permission which would be assessed again in two years.

 

Mrs Murphy provided clarification regarding the previous reason for refusal and explained that during this application the applicant had continued to provide information.

 

Discussion took place on the planning legislation for retrospective applications and the trend for industrial estates to be converted into leisure destinations and concerns were raised about the location of the site and parking.

 

Councillor Swinburn stated that the new conditions had met any concerns that he had.

 

Further debate took place on the location of the site and the use and operation of the premises.

 

Councillor Robinson summed up and had listened to all the points raised, the business was creating jobs and small business which was a policy in the local plan.  He had no concerns in planning terms and that what was he was supporting.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application as follows:- FOR 8; AGAINST 3; ABSTAIN 0.

 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED temporary permission subject to the conditions/reasons in the report together with the additional conditions.