Agenda item

Description of application – Change of use of existing building to mausoleum with associated landscaping, elevational alterations, hardstanding and parking for 25 cars.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received and that the Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection.  Correspondence had also been received from local residents that included a request by an objector for the Sub-Committee to consider the conclusions of guidance issued by the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association of Victoria, Australia.

It was also reported that Jo Johnson MP had raised the possibility of legislation being drafted in the United Kingdom to cover mausoleums and the  Sub-Committee was advised by the Chief Planner’s representative that whilst concerns raised in this regard were acknowledged, the lack of statutory regulation for mausoleums was not a planning consideration.

Various correspondence had also been received regarding the existing uses at the site, its current occupiers and their intentions. Concerns that the applicant had misled the Council had been raised in respect of tenancy information, but this was not taken into consideration as it was irrelevant in the determination of the application.

An officer site visit had taken place during the week that had established the current use of Building 2 was considered to be Class B8 storage and distribution, and confirmation had been received from the former tenant that Building 2 was vacated on 1 February 2014.  Tenants currently occupied Building 1 and this building was considered to be a mixed B1 and B8 use.

The Unitary Development Plan did not require demonstration that marketing of the premises had taken place, nor the advertisement of part vacancy of the premises, or the nature of the existing businesses, or whether current occupiers wished to remain at the site.

Reference had been made to Policy EMP3 by objectors but this was irrelevant as the only office use within the existing building was considered to be ancillary. In general the EMP Polices from the Unitary Development Plan were not relevant to this proposal as it involved the replacement, rather than the loss of a commercial use, although Councillor Simon Fawthrop asked whether Policy EMP6 could be relevant and the Chief Planner’s Representative agreed that it could.  Members were concerned about the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of local residents particularly in light of the lack of examples of mausoleums in the UK.  Councillor Nicky Dykes considered that the nearest properties were some distance way.

Residents and some of the Sub-Committee Members had concerns regarding the viability of the proposed business and future funding and maintenance of the site.  The Chief Planner’s representative advised that whilst such concerns were acknowledged, there were no planning policies that could support a ground of refusal in relation to this matter.

A Supreme Court case, (Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council – 2012) had been submitted by the objector to suggest that when making its decision, the Council should have regard to the potential financial consequences of the proposed scheme.  However this Supreme Court decision related to a discontinuance order which differed from a planning application decision.  Legal advice had been sought and the viability of the proposed business was not a land use consideration, and therefore irrelevant to the consideration of this application and neither was the background or experience of the applicant. Notwithstanding the above, the Chief Planner’s representative advised that the applicant had confirmed that the application site would be owned and managed by a UK based company and, if planning permission was granted, a proportion of the sales would be put into a sinking fund for the long term maintenance of the site in perpetuity, alongside an annual management fee payable by customers.

Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt and suggested that it was an inappropriate development.  The Chief Planner’s representative advised that the re-use of buildings could not in itself be considered inappropriate although the Sub-Committee Members could consider whether the use preserved the openness of the Green Belt or conflicted with the purposes of including land within it.

Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, and Councillors Lydia Buttinger, Russell Jackson and Charles Joel were concerned that Highways Division had no objection to the application bearing in mind their local knowledge of the area, road layouts and traffic issues in the immediate vicinity and the lack of other examples of such development.

Councillor Peter Dean understood that it was an emotive application and in his opinion, it met with the Green Belt policy and that whilst the future cost of maintenance was an issue, it was not a planning concern and could not be taken into account.

Councillor Russell Jackson raised concerns regarding the impact of external storage on the Green Belt.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal, in the absence of any suitably justified information to demonstrate otherwise, would give rise to potentially unsafe conditions in the public highway and harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt by reason of uncontrolled and potentially indiscriminate parking within the site and on the local highway network, contrary to Policies G1 and T18 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2. In the absence of any detailed information submitted with the application to demonstrate otherwise, the proposal would give rise to significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties by reason of noise, odours and contamination contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies BE1(v) and EMP6 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(Councillor Peter Dean wished his vote for ‘permission’ to be recorded.)