Mr. Kevin and Mrs. Cathy Gill
9, Oak Bank
Whinney Hill Road
Altham West
Accrington
BB5 6NR
Tuesday 27th November2012
Planning and Transport Services
Scaitcliffe House
Ormerod Street
Accrington
BB5 0PF
Re Planning Application number 11/12/0456
For the attention of Hazel Fox
With reference to your letter of 8th November 2012 regarding the application number quoted
above, we would like you to consider the following points.
1 The Planning Application has incorrect information documented as follows
a. The past use of the site (prior to the erection of a large steel structure) was a ‘single
storey’ maintenance garage.
b. The ‘considerable’ modifications indicated are:i. Building footprint dramatically reduced – not the case.
ii. Height substantially reduced – No height reduction, actually appears to
exceed original height.
iii. Length substantially reduced – Length reduced slightly but width increased.
c. Question 3 on form asks if building has already started – This is correct but is
currently subject to a planning enforcement appeal!
d. In answer to Question 10 applicant states there are 10 car park spaces existing –
There are no current parking spaces.
e. In answer to Question 12 the applicant states that the proposed building is NOT
within 20 metres of a watercourse – this is incorrect.
f. In answer to Question 14, the applicant states that the current use of the site is
‘awaiting development’ – In fact it is awaiting an appeal decision for the existing
steel structure.
g. In answer to Question 15, the applicant states there are no trees or hedges – this is
incorrect.
h. In answer to Question 20, it is stated that the opening hours are not known – this is
unacceptable and open to abuse if granted.
2 Access, Egress and parking – The building size is too big for the plot and does not allow
for adequate access around the building or sufficient parking for its staff (3 spaces and 8
staff) this leads to the question of where will they park? Unless a ‘park and ride scheme’
is going to be introduced for staff by the applicant? How will the gates operate? Will
they be kept open or closed? What impact will this have on the footpath and bus stop?
Will there need to be a refuge area if they are not to be remotely operated? There will
be obscured visibility to users of Bolton Avenue emerging into Whinney Hill Road by
proposed planting scheme. Why will there be a need for yellow lines, if parking is
adequate (3 spaces for 8 employees). If yellow lines are needed does this infer that
parking on the main road is anticipated? If so what preventative measures will be placed
in operation for protection of residents parking in front of their properties?
3 Perimeter fencing –Any industrial units that, albeit remotely, face our property do not
have a 2.4m high palisade fence surrounding them. In this respect the proposed
structure would be obtrusive and would bring the industrial estate in front of our house,
which currently it does not.
4 Height and footprint of building – The very imposing structure replaced a single storey
Garage, this could not be described as a single storey. The existing structure is not
proposed it actually exists albeit whilst the enforcement appeal reaches its decision. The
footprint of the building is too large for the plot and is unable to accommodate the
ancillary areas associated with an industrial unit (car parking and circulation)
5 Opening times – Not disclosed – which is totally unacceptable to us as residents who will
be affected on a daily basis.
6 Aesthetics – As residents in adjacent dwellings (which have been standing since 1897),
we feel that in spite of any legal/procedural criteria which the applicant is required to
meet, that this should not be the only deciding factor. We feel the planning department
have a responsibility to protect our interests and consider them with the same attention
to detail.
7 Noise nuisance – On previous applications by the applicant, opening times were a
concern and were restricted as part of the consultation process. Although the architect
refers to the application form to see proposed opening times, the applicant states the
opening times as ‘unknown’. I find it confusing that the applicant is described as
successful and established by the architect but has not decided the hours of operation
which his staff will be contracted for. I could be logical and cynically suggest that as it
was a previous restriction, the applicant has put unknown then he can have full control
of the opening times after planning has been granted and when we, as residents, will
have no say in the matter. Another concern is the possibility of haulage vehicle reversing
noise; equipment noise and any alarms which will be fitted to the building.
8 Security System – We have concerns that any security/CCTV cameras which will be fitted
should protect the privacy of adjacent residents.
9 Photographs – Please see 3 photographs of the site as follows.
Picture 1 - showing previous structure height and size (with no boundary)
Single storey
Garage
Picture 2 – shows current steel framed units with temporary boundary
Picture 3- Google map showing proximity of existing industrial units to our property and footprint of old garage building prior to
demolition and erection of current large steel frame structure. Also shown are current bus stops with blue icons
In conclusion, we are concerned that the applicants stamina and continued appeal and
resubmission of his plans will succeed at the expense of the negative impact a building of this
height and unknown operating times will have on our everyday lives. It also concerns me that
whilst the decision of enforcement appeal is pending, that if planning permission is agreed prior
to the decision being made, it will impact upon the result.
Yours Faithfully
Mrs. C.S. Gill
Mr. K.L. Gill