Change of use to industrial storage.
Land North Of Jubilee Estate,
Lennep Way, Jubilee Industrial Estate,
Ashington,
Northumberland.
W. Laing, Planning Officer, introduced the planning
application with the aid of PowerPoint presentation. He advised the
committee of the following updates:
- In paragraph 2.2 it stated the site was enclosed
by a palisade fence, however the site was only enclosed on three
sides.
- In paragraph 7.39 there was a typographical
error and it should have read “and
no further” and in condition 3 where it referred to sighting
of industrial storage, it should have read “NO
siting”.
Site videos were shown to the committee. They had been
previously shared with members but to ensure all member’s had
sight of the videos they were shown after the
presentation.
Mr. P. Down, the nominated spokesperson for the residents,
addressed the committee in opposition of the application, his
comments included the following:-
- Mr. Down hoped that all members had had the
opportunity to visit the site.
- The applicants hadn’t fulfilled the
conditions outlined in the first application so how is it expected
that they will follow the conditions outlined in the second
application.
- In paragraph 7.8 of the report, it stated that the
erection of the fence was subject to appropriate enforcement
however no such enforcement had happened, and the fence was still
yet to be erected. Concerns were raised that if the conditions of
the first application weren’t completed why was the second
application being considered.
- In paragraph 7.15 of the report, it states that no
lighting had been proposed however the plans showed a lamppost with
security cameras fitted.
- Residents had concerns regarding the management of
the site from the beginning. The Enforcement Officer had to be
involved in numerous occasions. There was a series of incidents
that were listed that included; cutting
down of protected trees, a fence was erected before planning
application was submitted, containers were already moved onto the
site.
- The containers that were already on site had been
placed between the site and the residential area which meant the
proposed fence could not be erected as per the first application.
It was suggested that if the fence was not erected there could have
been conflict between the residents and the
applicant.
- The site was not going to be manned and there was
a question over who would police the area. The area was already
prone to anti-social behaviour and it was felt that this
application would exacerbate this. Under the Human Rights Act
residents were entitled to a peaceful life this planning
application did not allow residents a peaceful
life.
- It was felt that the tree under the tree
protection order had more rights than the residents
themselves.
- Residents had raised concerned regarding flooding
on the site and these concerns had not been addressed. Also, the
residents had not been told who would be responsible for any
flooding that happened in the future.
- The residents recommended that the application be
refused or put on hold until the first application is dealt with
appropriately through the Enforcement Officer.
The following comments were made in response to
member’s questions:-
- Members were assured that there were enough
Enforcement Officers to effectively enforce planning conditions.
However, it was recognized that enforcement needed to be looked at
for planning application 20/01986/FUL as varied by planning
application 21/00671/VARYCO, which will be looked at regardless of
this application. Discussions could also be had with the applicant
to discuss the position of the fence with a push on them erecting
the fence.
- The Enforcement team were aware of the fencing
issue. The position of the containers could be a condition to be
enforced to allow for the original fence to be erected to comply
with the condition.
- The conditions in the application, including
colour of containers and hours of
operation, would be monitored by the enforcement team. It was
explained that enforcement on an application was usually reactive
rather than proactive however due to the sensitive nature of the
site there could have been a more proactive stance where it could
be monitored on a monthly basis to
ensure it was fully compliant if needed.
- Planning legislation did not allow for planning
applications to be put on hold or stopped until the fence from
planning application 20/01986/FUL was erected. It was explained
that the applicant cannot be stopped from carrying out work but
could only be advised that they shouldn’t have done anything
until they had a planning permission in place. The Planning
department will work with the applicant to ensure that everything
is compliant.
- It was suggested that the Planning Officers could
take contact details from the public speaker to have a direct
liaison with him to ensure he feels engaged about what was going on
and give him feedback and give him updates.
- There was an Enforcement Officer assigned to the
site. They were waiting for the determination of the application
before starting enforcement proceedings but regardless of the
determination of this application there would be enforcement
in regard to the planning application
20/01986/FUL and the failure to erect the fence.
- It was confirmed that there was no ability to
control anything outside of the red line boundary in reference to
parking outside of the site. The matter would have had to be raised
with Highways.
- The application does not meet the thresholds to
invite any section 106 contributions, members had asked whether
coastal service mitigation was applicable and planning officers
confirmed it was not.
- There was a suggestion that condition 4 was
amended in the application to explicitly prevent the double
stacking of containers within the site. The was a suggestion that
the wording was amended to include any other type of storage on top
of the shipping containers. It was suggested tthat the wording be delegated to the Director of
Planning on consultation with the Chair of the Planning
Committee.
Councillor K. Parry proposed acceptance of the
Officer’s recommendations with the conditions as listed with
one condition amended as per the update, with a further amendment
to condition 4 in relation to restricting further that no objects
shall be stacked or placed upon the top of the shipping containers
with wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning in
consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, which was
seconded by Councillor M.
Purvis.
Members acknowledged the resident’s concerns as the
planning application was retrospective and the applicant had
already undertaken a number of actions
before the application was submitted. It was reiterated that
planning legislation does not allow a planning application not to
be considered until conditions
relating to a different planning application had been complied
with. Members stressed the importance of monitoring the site to
ensure all conditions were met and if not then enforcement action was
taken.
A
vote was taken on Officer’s recommendation to grant the
planning application with the conditions outlined in the report and
the amendment outlined by the officer, as well as a further
amendment to condition 4 with the wording delegated to the Director
of Planning in consuktation with the
Chair of Planning Committee, as follows; FOR; 8, AGAINST; 5,
ABSTENTIONS; 2.
RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED