PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011
APPLIC REF NO 2008/0128/ST &
2008/0558/ST
DATE RECEIVED
20/02/2008
22/09/2008
CASE OFFICER
Graham Wraight
DATE OF EXPIRY
16/04/2008
22/09/2008
APPLICANT
BM CATALYSTS
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BM CATALYSTS, REED MILL, SHEEPBRIDGE LANE
MANSFIELD NG18 5DL
2008/0128/ST
RETENTION OF CHIMNEY
2008/0558/ST
ERECTION OF NEW CHIMNEY (TO REPLACE EXISTING) –
RESUBMISSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION WITH CONDITIONS
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE
This report refers to two separate planning applications (2008/0128/ST and
2008/0558/ST) which seek retrospective planning permission to retain two
chimneys which have been sited on the roof of BM Catalysts, Reed Mill,
Sheepbridge Lane, Mansfield, with Chimney 1 being the eastern chimney and
Chimney 2 being the western chimney. The site is bounded to the north by
Sheepbridge Lane, to the east by a pond, to the south by the I2 business
centre and to the west by Hamilton Way. The nearest residential properties
are located to the north-east on Sheepbridge Lane and Matlock Avenue.
Industrial premises are located to the north-west of the site and the site is
located on the edge of the High Oakham business park.
The applications are presented before the Planning Committee as more than
four letters of objection have been received in respect of both applications.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
2001/0481/WT Change of use for the manufacture, storage and wholesale of
catalytic converters, exhaust systems, ancillary items and ancillary offices –
Planning permission granted with conditions.
2007/1043/ST Retrospective application for the retention of chimney –
Refused planning permission due to impact upon visual amenity. Appeal
dismissed.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011
OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application
are presented in summary form. The full letters and consultation responses
received, including details of any non-material planning observations, are
available for inspection both prior to and at the meeting.
Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must
ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day
before the date of the Committee.
1)
Environmental Health Manager
I have carried out an assessment of the above proposal following extensive
environmental monitoring and I have not collected any evidence from this
monitoring to conclude whether emissions are harmful or not. However,
Environmental Health have served notice under the Clean Air Act 1993
Section 36 requiring them to provide current detailed information about
emissions from all four chimneys on site. Once this information is available
the results will be assessed and any necessary emission control measures
can be required under relevant Environmental Health legislation.
Noise assessments have also been carried out on site comparing Lmin with the
fans to the chimneys operating and not operating, the variation was below
5dBA.
Having regard to the above comments I have no objections to make with regard
to this application.
2)
Members of the Public
Written letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of
Nos. 4, 7, 15, 17 and 37 Matlock Avenue. Two petitions signed by the
occupiers of Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 27 and 37 Matlock Avenue,
11a Hillsway Crescent and 125 Sheepbridge Lane nearby properties
have also been received. These objections are summarised as follows:










The chimneys are harmful to visual amenity
The chimneys are too close to residential properties
Noise and disturbance
Harmful emissions and pollution
It is necessary to clean windows daily
Concern regarding impact upon wildlife/local nature reserve
Chimneys should be located internally and exit to rear of premises
Planning permission has not been obtained
Filtration systems should be fitted
Air from the chimneys could dislodge asbestos in the roof/asbestos
roof has been cut into to insert chimneys
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011



Sun shining on chimneys can distract/dazzle drivers
The business should move to a bespoke unit on Oakham Business
Park
There is a third chimney at the site
POLICY & GUIDANCE
National
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
Sets out the overarching policy and principles for the planning system. States
that new development should be sustainable in nature and should achieve a
high quality of design.
Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning & Pollution Control
Sets out government’s core policies and principles with regard to planning and
the control of pollution.
Mansfield Local Plan
Saved Policy DPS2 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure development is
concentrated in the most sustainable locations.
Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure developments
achieve a high standard of design.
The Mansfield District Local Plan 1998 identifies the site as being within the
defined urban boundary.
ISSUES
The issues for consideration are:



The impact upon visual amenity
Emissions
Noise
The impact upon visual amenity
The chimneys are clearly visible from Sheepbridge Lane and also from the
gardens of some adjacent residential properties. Chimney 1 was originally a
much larger chimney located on the front roof place fronting Sheepbridge
Lane and was refused planning permission in 2008. A subsequent appeal
against the Council’s decision was dismissed and the chimney was the
subject of an enforcement notice requiring its removal. This chimney has
since been removed and replaced with a smaller chimney located on the rear
roof plane, albeit still visible from the public realm. In terms of the impact upon
visual amenity, whilst both chimneys are visible from the public realm, it is not
considered that they form incongruous features by reason of their size,
positioning or appearance. The building is of an industrial appearance and the
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011
addition of the chimneys is not, in visual terms, an unreasonable
development. Chimney 1 has been modified to address concerns regarding
visual amenity and now reflects the more modest Chimney 2. It is not
considered that a refusal of planning permission could be sustained on the
grounds of the impact upon visual amenity.
Emissions
Extensive monitoring has been undertaken to establish whether there is any
harm arising from emissions from the two chimneys currently under
consideration. This monitoring has been carried out on the chimneys
themselves, at a location adjacent to Sheepbridge Lane and within the garden
of the nearest residential dwelling. The Environmental Health Manager
advises that:
“I have carried out an assessment of the above proposal following extensive
environmental monitoring and I have not collected any evidence from this
monitoring to conclude whether emissions are harmful or not. However,
Environmental Health have served notice under the Clean Air Act 1993
Section 36 requiring them to provide current detailed information about
emissions from all four chimneys on site. Once this information is available
the results will be assessed and any necessary emission control measures
can be required under relevant Environmental Health legislation”.
Accordingly, it is considered that the assessment of emissions from the two
chimneys falls to be controlled, if necessary, under Environmental Health
legislation. On this basis therefore the current applications can be determined
based upon the information already available. This is also considered to be
consistent with the advice of paragraph 10 of Planning Policy Statement 23 –
Planning & Pollution Control which states:
“The planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary.
Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of
measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment
from different sources to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that
ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to
the environment and human health. The planning system controls the
development and use of land in the public interest. It plays an important role in
determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution,
either directly or from traffic generated, and in ensuring that other
developments are, as far as possible, not affected by major existing, or
potential sources of pollution. The planning system should focus on whether
the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of
those uses, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves.
Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution
control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to
complement but not seek to duplicate it.”
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011
Noise
When the chimneys were first installed on the roof concern was raised by the
occupiers of adjacent residential properties with regard to their noise output.
This was the subject of an investigation by the Council’s Environmental Health
department with the outcome being that that noise was abated. The Council’s
Environmental Health Manager has not raised an objection to the chimneys
with regard to noise issues and therefore it is not considered that they are
currently causing harm to residential amenity. Should this situation alter then
the Environmental Health department would be able to re-investigate and act
as appropriate under separate Environmental Health legislation.
Other issues
There is no evidence to suggest that two chimneys have caused harm to
wildlife and the nearby local nature reserve, that they are detrimental to
highway safety or that they have resulted in the release of asbestos. In terms
of alternative locations for the chimneys, the applications must considered
based upon their merits as submitted. There is no scope to require the
business to find alternative premises as part of these applications. There are
other chimneys on the roof of the premises, however these are either been
deemed to be de-minimus (not requiring planning permission) or have been in
situ for in excess of 4 years (and therefore are immune from enforcement
action). This does not however prevent any issues relating to noise or
emissions from being addressed under Environmental Protection legislation
as necessary.
CONCLUSION
Although visible from the public realm, it is not considered that the two
chimneys that have been erected have caused harm to the visual amenity of
the surrounding area. Extensive emissions monitoring has been undertaken
and to date there is no evidence from this monitoring to conclude whether
emissions are harmful or not. However, Environmental Health has served
notice under the Clean Air Act 1993 Section 36 requiring them to provide
current detailed information in relation to emissions from four chimneys on
site. Once this information is available any necessary emission control
measures can be required under relevant Environmental Health legislation.
The Environmental Health Manager has not raised any objection to the
chimneys with respect to noise.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS/REASONS/NOTES
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR DECISION
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the retention of the two
chimneys is in accordance with Saved Policies DPS2 and BE1 [28/09/07] of
the Mansfield District Local Plan 1998 and the advice contained within PPS23
Planning & Pollution Control. The chimneys do not cause harm to the visual
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011
amenity of the surrounding area and any future matters which relate to noise
and/or emissions would be controlled under Environmental Health legislation.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no other material
planning considerations to be taken into account that would warrant a
decision at variance with the above.
Recommended Conditions / Reasons for 2008/0128/ST
(1) This permission shall be read in accordance with the following plans:
Site location plan, received on 20/02/08
Elevational detail, received on 20/02/08
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these
plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(1) Reason: To define the permission, for the avoidance of doubt.
(2) Within 28 days of the date of this decision details of a proposed external
matt colour finish to the chimney hereby approved shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval. The chimney shall then be finished in
the approved colour within 56 days of approval be given by the Local Planning
Authority and shall thereafter be retained in the approved colour unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(2) Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Saved Policy
BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
Recommended Conditions / Reasons for 2008/0558/ST
(1) This permission shall be read in accordance with the following plans:
Site location plan, received on 28/07/08
Elevational detail, received on 28/07/08
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these
plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(1) Reason: To define the permission, for the avoidance of doubt.
(2) Within 28 days of the date of this decision details of a proposed external
matt colour finish to the chimney hereby approved shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval. The chimney shall then be finished in
the approved colour within 56 days of approval be given by the Local Planning
Authority and shall thereafter be retained in the approved colour unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(2) Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Saved Policy
BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 14/02/2011