This is an example only and should not be copied – please use and tailor to your own circumstances
By planning portal
Dear Ms Nicky Powis,
I am writing to vehemently object to the above application.
The grounds for objection are set out below.
ENFORCEMENT
We understand that the application has been submitted to regularise a breach of condition of permission 13/01966/FUL for the Brickyards Industrial Estate and to avoid enforcement action.
The breach of the planning condition shows a complete disregard for the planning system and it is clear that the applicant has only reactively sought to address the breach once it had been brought to light and investigated.
This is a regular pattern of behaviour at the Brickyards Industrial Estate, whereby changes are undertaken prior to permissions being granted – to date we have seen 3 of these.
It is acknowledged that use class B1 (c) – Industrial Processes has been replaced by use class E (g) iii – Industrial Processes. We therefore suggest that the condition is only amended to reflect this, we do not understand why the condition needs to be varied to include Storage and Distribution, in fact the application contains very little information on which to judge the application.
LACK OF INFORMATION
On reviewing the application, we would like clarity from both the council and the applicant as to which use class the current operations fall within. The application provides little or no information on the actual use of the building and no justification is given for the proposed change of use. – WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION BASED ON THE LACK OF INFORMATION.
MINIMAL HARM
We also note that the enforcement officer has stated – by email dated 29th September “…the Council accepts that the current B8 use of the site is causing minimal harm…”.
We would ask that the full response from the Senior Enforcement Officer is Included as part of the submission to us to better understand the context. The absence of this letter and any kind of genuine supporting statement prejudices our and other third-party interests.
ONCE AGAIN HOW CAN THE OFFICE COME TO THIS JUDGEMENT WITH SO LITTLE INFORMATION. NOTWITHSTANDING ONE CASE OFFICER SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE FINAL DECISION
Further as a resident I do not see the harm as minimal it is materially impacting on my enjoyment of my environment and the safety of my children on the roads.
I draw your attention to a number of routinely breached constraints:
Hours of Operation
Condition 6 of permission SDNP/13/01966/FUL stated:
“The premises shall not be used outside the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 13:00 Saturday and at no times on Sunday, Public or Bank holidays.
Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the (area/adjacent property) are not detrimentally affected by the use of the site outside reasonable working times.”
This condition is routinely ignored, and this issue has been brought to the attention of the Enforcement Team previously and the residents have been told that there are different conditions relating to different permissions which makes the hours of operation hard to enforce, however this is not a valid reason for the Council not to uphold this condition.
Increased usage
Extending the use of the site to include Use Class B8 brings with it a very wide range of uses from commercial scale storage and distribution operations, which based on history will involve Heavy Goods Vehicle movements (their movement and size is also not enforced) to self-storage facilities which involve cars and delivery trucks and vans.
I am very concerned that by allowing B8 uses onto the site, the Council will be placed under pressure to relax the hours of operation, most likely through the submission of further retrospective applications (as has been the pattern at this site).
Noise
Class B8 uses include commercial storage and distribution operations, which was in process at the site until the first enforcement notice.
It should be noted that these types of uses are situated on the edge of the built up areas and are surrounded by commercial uses. In this instance the site is within a small rural settlement situated very close to residential users. The type of noises that are generated currently include:
…of note is that these noises are often outside the “permitted hours” in some instances very early on Sundays.
I would ask, once again how consent can be sought for an open Class B8 use with no information on noise impact being provided.
Traffic
As per the noise we fail to understand how the transport impact can be assessed with no information in the planning application, we would ask that any information of this nature is added to the application.
Please be aware that we, the residents of Steep Marsh carried out a traffic survey (August 2021) of the same nature and methodology as that provided by the applicants (previous application in 2012) this indicates an average increase in traffic of 43%, peaking on several days at an increase of 89%. (copy can be provided if necessary.) We would strongly suggest this increase is largely as a result of the success of the previous planning application.
The change in the nature of the use is materially different to the original consent. The site routinely ignores the current consents, this has already resulted in the increase in the amount of traffic, notwithstanding the damage to the local highway system.
What is being applied for:
We are of the opinion that the true application amounts to the creation of 310 sq.m of Class B8 floorspace. Our view is that the comments made by Hampshire County Council in respect of the original application (SDNO/12/00513) should no longer apply and should be revisited.
Consideration and information
We have come to the conclusion that this level of consideration can ONLY be given within the scope of a S73 application therefore the LPA should request the submission of a full planning application (with all necessary supporting documents) to enable the full range of considerations to be properly assessed.
Policy Considerations
An unrestricted B8 Use in this location is not appropriate, the proposed development would fail to meet the requirements of the following policies within the adopted South Downs Local Plan.
The proposal as the potential to have a significant negative affect on people and the natural environment through noise pollution and disturbance.
The development proposals do not ‘demonstrate the continued safe and efficient operation of the strategic and local road networks’.
The proposal has the potential to adversely impact the ‘landscape and other special qualities of the National Park including by reason of traffic, noise or pollution.’
Sidestepping the planning process
The proposed B8 use is materially different to that permitted under the current operational planning consent. However, by lodging an application under S73 the applicant has side-stepped the requirement to submit the full range of supporting documents needed to properly assess the impact of the proposal. Therefore we believe rhe LPA should decline the proposal to amend Condition 10 to include this new use and restrict the changes to only make reference to Use Class E.
New Use Class
We are firmly of the opinion that any proposal for a new use class in this location should be determined through a full planning application complete with a full suite of supporting documents including a Noise and Transport Impact Assessment.
Notwithstanding we are still of the opinion that planning consent for Use Class B8 on this site be refused.
We request that the above matters are taken into consideration when determining the application and would urge the current application to be amended as per the above comments, and if not refused due to the material change and adverse impact resulting from it.
Yours faithfully
My name and address
