An article - Concrete factory prevents agricultural barn conversion to dwelling - appeared this week:
The adverse environmental impact of a concrete products factory prevented a farm barn in Devon from being converted into a dwelling under Class Q of Schedule 2 of Part 3 of the GPDO 2015.
The factory had no restriction on its hours of operation or the noise levels emitted an inspector noted. Despite the appellant’s noise survey suggesting that acceptable indoor noise levels that would be experienced at day and night. Nonetheless, it was not clear whether the factory had been operating at night when the readings were taken and it was conceivable that at periods of high demand, the factory would operate 24 hours. The inspector decided that allowing the appeal might lead to pressure from future occupants to try and curtail operating hours at the factory which would in turn adversely affect the contribution it made to the local economy. It was therefore undesirable to allow the barn to be converted.
The article related to application 16/01343/PNCOU, received by MDDC on the 5 September 2016, to convert a farm barn NGR 307104 113338 to residential use. The barn is next to the area used to store concrete blocks at AI’s plant at Uffculme.
It would seem that AI didn’t get wind of the application until November 2016, by which time consultation expiry dates had passed. Even so, on 17 November AI wrote:
Aggregate Industries wish to object to the proposed development as we have serious concerns that should planning permission be granted it would introduce an unnecessary constraint on our business by placing a likely complainant within an industrial setting and thus prejudice our permitted site operations.
The proposed dwelling was clearly outside any industrial setting, and you might have hoped that planning conditions and good working practices would have precluded any complainants.
I was only made aware of this application today by a third party, and it is of concern that Devon County Council has not been consulted in its role as the mineral planning authority.
The factory manager has expressed concerns that a residential property located so close to the Blockworks may introduce a number of restrictions on the daytime operations of the site
A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application but is deemed to fail to take into account the activities of two large vehicles which regularly operate within 25 metres of the application site and which have high noise level outputs... On this basis, it is not desirable or suitable for a dwelling to be provided in this location.
The applicant appealed; their Statement of Case maintained that such vehicles operated to the north of the blockworks, "at the furthest point from the Proposed Development", and:
It is therefore questionable as to how regularly, if at all, Wheeled Front End Loaders would be operating near to the Proposed Development, given that there is no ostensible use for them in this location. 3.1.9
Whilst the Concrete Products Factory does have permissions in place to operate on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week basis, with no specific noise limits; it does not give the operator carte blanche to generate infinite levels of noise without any form of action from the Local Authority. Given that we have measured very low ambient sound levels during the daytime, it is reasonable to assume that operations are not going to be louder during the night-time period, as the fixed and mobile plant will be exactly the same, operating on a similar basis (at worst). 3.3.4
DCC prepared a lengthy Statement of Case to support the objection of its aggregate friends. However, the appellants argued that DCC:
fails to recognise that there are already residential properties to the east of the industrial site; namely Hill Park Farmhouse and Hill Park House, which are some 45 m and 35 m, respectively, from the eastern boundary of the industrial site, and only 75 m and 65 m, respectively, from the production building associated with the Concrete Products Factory and Aggregate Bagging Area. The Proposed Development is approximately 100 m from the building associated with the Concrete Products Factory and Aggregate Bagging Area, which is the main source of noise, as established earlier in this Statement, with the area immediately adjacent to Proposed Development being used solely for the storage of manufactured products. 3.3.6
As such, the Concrete Products Factory and Aggregate Bagging Area are already constrained by properties to the east (Hill Park Farmhouse and Hill Park House), which are at least 25 m closer to the noise generating elements of the industrial site, than the property forming the subject of this appeal. 3.3.7
It made no difference. Up against two councils and an aggregates company, the appeal was dismissed.
