Agenda item

24-26 Pate Road, Melton Mowbray

Applicant:     Mr Lewis Wardle

Location:      24-26 Pate Road, Melton Mowbray

Proposal:     Proposed retention of a Crossfit Gymnasium. Change of use from B2 to D2.

 

(a)  The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services presented the report.

 

(b)  Jeremy Watkinson, an objector, had a statement read out by the Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services and stated that:

 

 

Following the publication of the planning departments report and recommendation with regard the change of use of units 24-26 Pate Road, Leicester Road industrial Estate (Planning Application Number: 19/00165/COU) from B1/B2 to D2 use, 

My initial concerns I raised with the Council Chief Executive are now a grave reality, we are heading for a U turn on the Melton Plan.

 

The planning officer has decided that sport and recreation take precedence over what is meant to be a safeguarded space for industry and employment.

 

If MBC does not stand by the very comprehensive and meticulously constructed Melton Plan it will send completely the wrong message to businesses looking to move or expand in Melton, when MBC then makes changes so freely on what appears to be the recommendation of one planning officer to valuable industrial and employment space that had specifically been safeguarded for very good reasons in the Melton plan and was approved by the full council members.

 

It would appear that the author of the planning report is the same planning officer that had given pre-application planning advice to the applicant and so it could be seen as a conflict of interests and maybe why the planning report looks so biased with missing and incorrect key facts.

 

The amount of industrial space in the Melton plan is measured in square feet/meters and not in the number of industrial units. There would be a clear loss of B1/B2 space if the application was approved units 24-26 are 4160 square feet, the gyms previous unit number 32 was only 1400 square feet, this unit also had no change of use, so the space was included in the Melton plan reports for the total industrial area for Melton. 

 

If the application is approved we will see a lose of 4160 square feet of B1/B2 industrial space this will mean businesses like my own will find it impossible to expand and take on additional staff without moving out of Melton.

The membership of the gym is given as 90+ in the applicants supporting statement with plans to increase the membership in the new site.

LHA in their original consultation response asked for the number of gym users so they could determine the amount of parking required, this question has never been answered?

 

The planning officer’s report now only puts membership at 60-70??

 

Since the extra parking was created by the gym last month I have noticed we still get on-street parking from gym members when their own parking is full, please can we look at the true facts on these numbers.

 

My own business PPC Labels in units 16 & 18 has 4500 square feet and employs 12 full and part time staff, if we had taken on units 24-26 last November we intended to install two pieces of printing equipment and would have employed a further 4 people. 

 

It gives you an idea of the potential employment use for industry compared with a one man gym operation. We also have a number of suppliers in Melton that benefit from our business so the bigger picture should be considered with industrial use.

Just to be clear my objection is definitely not intended to close the gym down, I am sure a solution could be found where by the gym could move to another suitable site in or around Melton and units 24-26 retained for industrial use and employment. I am surprised that the planning officer has not considered or mentioned this possibility in the report.

 

I would strongly advise that this application is not passed and instead more time given into looking at a solution whereby the industrial space can be retained and another site found for the gym, this would result in a “win win” situation for MBC and the Melton plan left unscathed.

 

Other points to note:

Units 24-26 also have a large capacity 3 phase electricity supply, a vital resource for industrial and manufacturing use that is now being wasted, Western Power have no spare capacity at this end of Pate Road.

Just one more point to consider with regard the overall planning strategy for the estate and the promised future industrial development.

 

Since we purchased our units and moved my business to the industrial estate in 2011 we have seen a number of the two or three unit premises come on the market and sold to investors, they have then split the units up into small individual units, this is fine for small start up business but leaves the industrial estate desperately short on medium sized units. Unless MBC can push forward with their plans/promises of more industrial space and of suitable sizes to fill this gap we will find businesses have to move out of Melton due to the shortage of medium sized unit space.

 

With regard to Health and Safety: I am surprised that Leicestershire Fire dept. has not been consulted on the suitability of the building for a gym and if any work is required to bring it up to the required levels with the change of use. I am sure if a Pure Gym or a MBC owned property was to apply for change of use/ refurbishment a full plans application would be necessary and building regs followed, I would have thought it would also be appropriate in this case.

 

With regard the use of the road by the gym in their work out schedules, I did question LHA at what number of users is an application required for this purpose I understand that with events on the public roads organises are required to have carried out a risk assessment and have public liability insurance in place for ten million pounds, the gym members may be very careful but it is the other road users that must also be considered.

 

With regard the noise issue we have experienced over the last 7 months, now that Environmental Health have taken action we will see if it can now be controlled.

 

All these points that I have raised need to be fully looked into and clear answers given. 

I very much hope that all the options available are looked into before this application is approved and the Melton Plan eroded.

 

(c)  Brendan McMullan, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Prior to 1 objection no complaints were made in 4 years

·         No net loss of B1 use

·         Surrounded by B1 units

·         Environmental Health have been worked with

·         Acoustic tests carried out – no nuisance

·         Applicant happy to have noise levels conditioned

·         More than adequate parking

·         14 letters of support from businesses within estate

·         No ambition to increase membership

·         Positive and inclusive business

·         Much needed to promote wellbeing and health

 

A Cllr asked what the busiest times were.

 

Mr McMullan stated there are 2 classes in the morning, midday and 5/6/7pm.

 

The Chair asked what the cap on membership is.

 

Mr McMullan advised 100 members.

 

(d)  Cllr Posnett had a statement read out by the Chair and stated that:

·         Retrospective application as applicant was not aware the unit was B1.

·         No alterations or extensions

·         Carpark extended at applicant’s own expense

·         Nosie can be conditioned

·         Environmental Health have already visited

·         Local Plan promotes health and wellbeing

·         Employs 2/3 people

·         Fulfils 1 aim of the Local Plan

 

A Cllr had concerns that the application is a breach of the local plan and this may set precedent. Not convinced there is a surplus of B1 units.

 

Cllr Cumbers proposed to permit the application and stated that other industrial estates should perhaps include something like this as it services the people in the estate. There is a lot of new housing in the area and this will be an asset.

 

Cllr Higgins seconded the proposal to permit and asked if the COU could be just for this business and the unit go back to its original use if sold on.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that is could be personalised to specific use of a gym.

 

The Solicitor to the Council stated that there could be a limit to narrow the use and attach a condition to narrow to gym. This can be temporary and come up for reconsideration at the end of the lease; however it is rare to impose this.

 

A Cllr asked if it could be limited to 6 years.

 

A Cllr suggested it could be B1 and a gym.

 

A Cllr asked what constitutes as industrial activity as there is currently a café, offices and a kitchen showroom on the estate.

 

A vote was taken. 9 Members voted in favour of permit. 1 Member abstained. Cllr Chandler wished for her abstention to be recorded.

 

DETERMINATION : PERMIT, subject to conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition limiting the use to a gym only and allowing reversion to B” should it become vacated

 

REASONS: Use as a gym is not strictly compliant with Local Plan Policy EC3 as this policy seeks to retain the units for industrial purposes on this site. However, the gym has been operating from this estate in a different, smaller, unit for some considerable time. It is in an estate of 100 or more units and would not therefore compromise the intended use of the overall site.

 

The unit from which this business has relocated has been re-let for its industrial purposes and as such there is no ‘net loss’ of available industrial units. The proposal would otherwise comply in terms of its visual, sustainable and highway requirements. Employment opportunities would be retained while promoting health and well being close to where people work in accordance with Policy C9