Agenda item

Retrospective planning application for change of use of field towoodyard for log cutting and amendment to 3 sided cutting shed to incorporate amendments made on site, including bio mass unit at Orange Farm, Sykes Lane, Saxilby.

Retrospective planning application for change of use of field towoodyard for log cutting and amendment to three sided cutting shed to incorporate amendments made on site, including bio mass unit at Orange Farm, Sykes Lane, Saxilby.

This application had been deferred from the previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit to take place to assess the impact on the residential amenity, location, noise and impact on the countryside. Also further information had been awaited from the Environment Agency.

The Case Officer updated the Committee, advising that the only update was to inform Committee, that following their previous request, an Environmental Officer was in attendance, should there be any questions, in respect of environmental issues.

Mr Andrew Argyle spoke in objection to the application and made reference to points contained in Mr Colley’s submission made to the previous Committee meeting.  He challenged the reasons stated by Mr Colley for not having previously applied for planning permission as he himself had now contacted the manufacturer of the bio-mass boiler and ascertained that they would not in fact give such advice. He also advised that the documentation relating to the employment of individuals had not been forthcoming. He challenged the necessity of the bio-mass boiler to the industrial process and suggested that Mr Colley had tried to mislead the Committee.  Furthermore Committee had previously been advised that the nearest neighbour had not complained, Mr Argyle made a number of suggestions as to why this might be the case.  Referring to noise monitoring forms, all neighbours had been asked to complete these yet it had been suggested that the only evidence which would be accepted was an eye-witness statement from an Officer, Mr Argyle considered this fundamentally wrong.   The forms had been completed on a daily basis but simply ignored.  Planning Officers had stated such at the meeting in October.  Mr Argyle also stated that video and photographic evidence had been submitted to the Authority, but not shared with the Committee and thus was being ignored.   

Mr Argyle stated that the nuisance previously reported had continued both day and night and that the boiler was struck up the day after the last Committee meeting, this was in breach of planning and despite a stop notice being issued.  He was of the view Mr Colley had a complete disregard for any law of the land, his neighbours and this Authority.  He cited a number of incidents where users of the riding school had made complaints regarding the noise and smells being emitted.  Autistic children, users of the riding school, were having to cover their ears due to the chain saw noise, which was meant to be operated within the “shed” but was regularly used outside in the open.  Planning conditions were being breached on a daily basis causing distress to residents, and simply applying more would not prevent Mr Colley continuing in his current vein.  Mr Argyle stated that he and his wife simply could not live like this any longer, feared for their health and had complained on numerous occasions and were now at the point of considering moving.  This was having a huge impact on the local riding school, which was nationally recognised for the work it did, and which would have to close, and would mean a loss of employment.  This flourishing legitimate business was being undermined and ruined by a man who flouted the law and the local authority was doing nothing to protect the residents.  He went as far as to suggest that Planning Officers had failed to properly investigate the concerns raised by neighbours, nor had they given the Committee the full picture.  He urged the Committee to do the right thing and give residents back their lives and health.

Councillor Brockway addressed the meeting as Ward Member, stating that she whole heartedly supported the objections raised by neighbours and shared their concerns for their health.  The issued stop notice had been completely ignored.  The bio-mass boiler continued to emit a considerable amount of pollutants.  Only today a complaint had been received from Aegir school enquiring as to what the high pitched noise was which was disturbing their children, this was from the chainsaw being used outside and causing disruption within a closed classroom.

There was a complete disregard for health and safety and Mrs Brockway was of the view that the way in which the wood was being stored, outside, was adding to the risk from evidence she had read. Councillor Brockway stated that she had no confidence, even with conditions that this would be obeyed. Environmental Protection UK also said the length of exposure was a factor, and these residents were being exposed 24/7.  This Authority had a duty to test air quality and draw up an action plan to improve it, however despite two years of complaints this had not been done, in fact residents had been told to do this themselves.  Mrs Brockway considered this business did not need to be in a rural location and was better placed on an industrial site. As the applicant had ignored all attempts to mitigate the impact on the neighbours and ignored planning rules, she urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Case Officer was afforded the opportunity to respond to the points raised and in doing so reminded Members that whilst operation and usage of the site historically had been an issue, there was now a planning application for determination.  Members needed to determine this on its own merits and not on the applicant’s history.  With regard to impact on the amenity and evidence of it, the Environmental Protection Officer, who had attended the site a number of times, was asked to address the Committee.  He outlined the purpose of monitoring forms and why residents were asked to complete these stating dates and times of incidents as this helped Officers in targeting their monitoring.  Therefore if an issue was reported as happening 24/7 they would expect to see an incident regardless of the time they visited at. 17 visits had been undertaken by the Environmental Health department at various times throughout the day and as yet Officers had seen no evidence of a problem on the magnitude reported by residents.  Air quality was monitored by Officers and they were required to report figures annually. These figures were published on the website.  Currently, there were no sites in the District which warranted further action. The site in question was currently being monitored for air quality and the results were awaited.

Members were reminded that if they were minded to go against the Officer decision they would need to provide evidence for their reasons in the light of no objections being raised by Public Protection Officers to the application and the 17 visits to the premises with no witnessed issues.

The Chairman sought and received confirmation that the operation of the chainsaw was conditioned to be undertaken inside.

The Committee then debated the application.  Concern was raised that this enterprise was started without planning permission, complaints had been received since 2013, this had resulted in it being deemed planning permission was required.  The original application had been dealt with under delegated powers as both Ward Members had been of the view that the requirements that had been placed on the applicant would negate the issues that had previously been raised by the community.  It was a rural business in a rural location, no buildings, no chainsaws. It was accepted that this was not the application, but history.    This application was again going to be retrospective, Ward Members were not aware of its existence until the complaints started again. Concerns were raised that the enterprise had continued to grow and grow and at every stage failed to work within the law. Complaints for various issues had been emanating from the site for over two years.  It was stressed that the riding school affected was nationally recognised for the work it did with autistic children and there was a view that if this were to close it would be a great loss of something very valuable.  Members accepted that this was not part of the application in front of them, but it was part of the context.  Some Members felt if the application had come forward in its entirety, it would be viewed as being in an inappropriate location. Residents’ concerns were not taken seriously.  No one was suggesting the business should close, merely that it should operate within the manner that was required and as was originally purported.  Concern was raised that by granting the application, the site operator would continue to the flout the rules and it would be down to enforcement which could prove more difficult.

In responding Officers confirmed that if Members were minded to grant the application a series of conditions would be applicable, these included conditions on the operating hours, restrictions on delivery and collection hours, a need to construct the timber building within a two month period from granting, in order that the chainsaw and wood-splitter must be operated within it only.  If it was not in place, that would be a breach of condition, allowing the authority to take action.

Concern was raised however, that the part of the site with planning permission, did also have conditions, but these had never been adhered to and planning enforcement had not been able to enforce them.

Again Members were reminded that they needed to determine the application on its merit, not the history and performance of the site operator. 

A number of the Members who had attended the site visit, stated they had not seen or experienced the issues raised by neighbours.  The boiler had been struck up, and the equipment turned on, no smell had been experienced, no smoke had been seen and Members had not considered the noise to be of a level to cause complaint.  The site operator had co-operated fully and answered all of Members’ questions.

The Vice-Chairman shared his concerns regarding the site operation and sought assurance that conditions would be enforced if permission was granted.

Officers confirmed that they had a statutory duty to do so but cautioned members regarding letting opinions or views on enforcement and previous activity affect their decision making on this application.

It was noted by Members of the Committee that the Highways Department had recommended a number of passing places, Members shared their experiences of using that road, and were of the view it was very tight.  Furthermore, highways did not recommend conditions lightly.

Officers confirmed that consideration had been given to this, around 15 HGV deliveries were taken per year hence no condition had been included at this stage. However, if Members were minded to they could make this an additional condition.

It was therefore moved and seconded and on being voted upon it was AGREED that the application be granted subject to the conditions contained within the report and the following additional condition: -

Within 3 months of the date of this permission a scheme of passing places along Sykes Lane (between the site and the Saxilby settlement boundary) shall be submitted to , approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and subsequently  implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan Review 2006 and policy LP1 of the Submitted Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.