Agenda item

Continued use of workshop for use in repairing onsite plant, machinery and lorries without compliance with Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: WA11/0009 dated 7 April 2011 (as amended by planning application ref: WA/2020/1753 dated 11 December 2020) to extend the period of development.

The Chairman agreed to consider Item 7 and Item 8 under one item.

Officers:

Jessica Darvill, Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Helen Forbes, Senior Solicitor

Joss Butler, Committee Manager

Speakers:

None.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Officers introduced the items and noted that Item 7 proposed the continued use of the workshop for use in repairing onsite plant, machinery and lorries without compliance with Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: WA11/0009 dated 7 April 2011 (as amended by planning application ref: WA/2020/1753 dated 11 December 2020) to extend the period of development. Furthermore, Members noted Item 8 proposed continued use of two storey extension to side of workshop to provide welfare facilities without compliance with Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: WA10/2109 dated 17 February 2011 (as amended by planning application ref: WA/2020/1754 dated 14 December 2020) to extend the period of development. Members went on to note details related to the location and planning history of the site.

2.    A Member of the Committee stated that the original planning consent was granted on the basis that the facilities were ancillary and fundamental to the ongoing work of the site but there had been little evidence on site that this was the case. Further to this, The Member stated that there was some evidence that the inert waste recycling facility and the ancillary facilities were preventing and reversing the restoration which had already occurred. The Member then asked officers to undertake additional work to understand whether the facilities outlined were fundamental to the site’s restoration. Officers explained that officers had taken these points into account when monitoring the site however the applications before committee were not concerning the restoration of the site. The Member went on to request that that a condition was in place to ensure the facilities outlined in the application were fundamental to the filling and restoration of the site. The officer stated that it was their opinion that the workshop was an appropriate facility to be had on site to ensure the maintenance of machinery was undertaken without causing further impact to the surrounding area. 

3.    A Member asked whether officers were clear that the site was no longer used for sand extractions and waste recycling. Officers confirmed that they had visited the site for routine site monitoring and that there was evidence that the activities had ceased. There was however a Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP) application in progress which would consider the restoration process and whether it could be completed in a shorted time period.

4.    A Member requested that a condition be included to ensure an annual report was created to detail what maintenance was undertaken in the facility and why it was essential to the restoration of the site. Officers confirmed that the conditions were already clear that the workshop would only be used in connection to activities on the site and for no other purpose.

5.    A Member stated that the local community had requested a Community Liaison Group (CLG) to allow detail of the monitoring of the site to be shared. Officers confirmed they would support a Liaison Group and would approach the site’s operator with the suggestion. Following discussion, Members agreed to include the following informative:

The Planning and Regulatory Committee strongly recommend that the operator engage with the local community via a liaison group.

6.    Members noted that there were six total applications on the site for Members to consider.

7.    Members stated that they were concerned with the history of incompliance with planning rules on the site and asked whether Condition 3 could be strengthened to ensure the machinery was used only for landfilling and restoration. Officers stated that it would be unfair to the applicant to amend conditions without proper consultation.

8.    Members noted that the hours of operations outlined in Condition 5 had been carried over from a previous application.

Actions / further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed to PERMIT planning permission WA/2021/0004 subject to the conditions from page 29 of the agenda.