Agenda item


Change of use to industrial storage.


Land North Of Jubilee Estate, Lennep Way, Jubilee Industrial Estate, Ashington, Northumberland.



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

Supporting documents: