PLANS for a car auctions company to use a yard for around 30 vehicles on two nights a week to allow in-person car auctions in the main yard have been refused due to noise and disturbance concerns.
The application related to Merthyr Motor Auctions, Red Barrel House in Pant Road, Dowlais and aimed to change a condition in order to allow access to the lower yard after 6.30pm for around 30 vehicles on Mondays and Thursdays.
The original condition was that no activity shall take place on the site before 8am or after 6.30pm on weekdays and Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or public holidays unless there’s a transporter arriving while auctions are happening in the upper yard.
The reason given for this condition was in the interest of the residential amenity of nearby houses and the planning application to change this condition was refused by Merthyr Tydfil Council in October 2023.
The reason given for the application to change the condition was that it would allow in-person auctions to take place in the main yard as they did before Covid and before the loss of parts of the main yard to compulsory purchase order (CPO) as part of the works to the A465.
But planning inspector Helen Smith has now dismissed an appeal against the council’s refusal of the application.
She said the main issue was the effect that changing the disputed condition would have on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
The inspector said that the change of condition would result in intense use of the site with vehicle movements and associated disturbance taking place at an estimated every two minutes.
The proposed change of condition would allow the use of the yard and buildings up until 10.30pm even though the applicant most vehicle movements would be between 7pm and 8pm.
Although the proposed change relates to two nights of the week the inspector said that the general activity of the movement of such a large amount of vehicles and the associated sudden and random opening and closing of vehicle doors, engines idling and revving, reversing alarms and potential for staff coming and going, would result in a level of noise and disturbance that would be noticeable and disturbing to the occupiers of the surrounding homes.
She said it would be particularly so given the close proximity of the back of the nearby homes and because the activities would be taking place at a time when the surrounding area would likely be quieter when it is reasonable for residents to expect to enjoy a degree of peace and quiet.
She said such impacts would be particularly noticeable in the summer when residents would likely be relaxing in their gardens or have their windows open.
The inspector said: “The proposal would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.”
The inspector also mentioned a successful appeal for the award of compensation to neighbours for damages for nuisances including noise in 2013 and she said that this along with the representation of residents clearly shows operations in the rear yard in connection to the motor auction business had caused noise and disturbance to residents in the past even when operating within permitted hours.
The inspector said she does not doubt that there has been disruption to the operation of the business and that there are operational difficulties for the reintroduction of in-person auctions.
But although the applicant said this has had a dramatic effect on the business and despite it operating without in-person auctions for some time she said no compelling evidence has been submitted in relation to the effects on the business as a consequence of not being able to reintroduce in-person auctions.
She also said no justification had been submitted in relation to why i- person auctions could not take place within the permitted operating times of the lower yard.
And the inspector said the need for the proposal does not outweigh the harm she had identified to the living conditions of those who live nearby which would be “significant and overriding” so she considered the disputed condition necessary in the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents.
