Logo

Plans for storage container site rejected

PUBLISHED: 08:00 27 June 2020

The storage facility would have covered 2400 square metres of land to the west of Addison Road on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury. Picture: GOOGLE MAPS

The storage facility would have covered 2400 square metres of land to the west of Addison Road on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury. Picture: GOOGLE MAPS

Archant

A proposed storage site housing 87 containers on a Sudbury industrial estate has been refused despite insistence that the site would have minimal impact to the area.

The land situated on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury has seen an application refused for a storage facility. Picture: NICK PEASLAND ARCHITECTURAL /BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCILThe land situated on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury has seen an application refused for a storage facility. Picture: NICK PEASLAND ARCHITECTURAL /BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Chilton Industrial Estate is already home to many businesses including a gym and an engineering company, but plans for a new storage site to occupy an unused area on the site have been rejected due to the impact it would have on neighbouring residents in Highfield Road.

Hoping to provide storage space for the companies already on site as well as members of the nearby community, the application emphasised that it would cause minimal disruption to the already busy and built up area.

However, the application received 26 objections from the community as well as Sudbury Town Council, who said: “We refuse on the grounds of the detrimental impact the height of the containers against the boundary fences would have on the residents of Highfield Road, especially at the bottom end.

“Sudbury Town Council also refuse on the grounds of over-development and a concern with the increase of traffic using the Addison Road junction.”

The land situated on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury which had an application for a storage facility rejected by Babergh District Council. Picture: NICK PEASLAND ARCHITECTURAL /BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCILThe land situated on Chilton Industrial Estate in Sudbury which had an application for a storage facility rejected by Babergh District Council. Picture: NICK PEASLAND ARCHITECTURAL /BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

The plans suggested that the storage facility would cover 2,400 square metres of land to the west of Addison Road and would be operational between 7am and 8pm on weekdays and between 8am and 9am on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

MORE: New homes get go-ahead despite concerns over bats

But the proposals were met with many criticisms from nearby residents including Jean Quirk who said: “My property immediately backs onto the land that you are proposing to install 87 self-contained storages.

“As I am sure you are aware the residents of Highfield Road along with many surrounding roads are people who are elderly and have moved to this estate to retire in peace and quiet. It is a quiet estate where residents can feel safe and secure in their homes and this was one of the reasons I chose this location to live.

“The noise will be unbearable on the residents most of which I have already stated are elderly will cause severe anxiety and stress.”

Garry Brewer, of Highfield Road said: “We are residents in Highfield Road which is a quiet residential area with a predominantly elderly population.

“We live directly opposite the proposed site for this development and as such feel this would impact on our quality of life with increased noise at unsociable hours of the day early in the morning and at weekends.

“It would also cause a visual eyesore as we look directly on to the proposed site.”

MORE: Farm development looks set to go ahead

In his report Philip Isbell, chief planning officer at Babergh District Council, said: “The proposed development, by reason of its close proximity to existing residential properties in Highfield Road which are afforded limited depth of rear gardens, would give rise to a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity and living conditions of the occupiers of those properties by virtue of the potential for noise and general disturbance engendered by the use adjacent to the boundary.

“This would be exacerbated by the hours of operation applied for which, given the intermittent and unpredictable nature of the use, would create uncertainty for neighbouring properties over a protracted period of the day that offers limited opportunity for respite. Furthermore, the siting of an almost uninterrupted row of painted metal containers adjacent to the boundary and visible above existing boundary enclosures would appear as a visually oppressive and discordant feature, incongruous with the domestic context as currently experienced by its residential neighbours.”

Latest Articles