Agenda item

Councillor I Chilvers re-joined the meeting at this point.

Application: 2020/0514/S73

Location:  Brocklesby Building Products

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove condition 06 (HGV Traffic Routes) of approval 2019/1340/FULM Proposed change of use of existing maintenance and vehicle processing building to include block cutting and processing, erection of 6m high CCTV pole, erection of replacement dry dust silo, erect new gates, change existing fencing to concrete fencing and improve HGV parking on site by increasing the areas in which they can park on the existing site granted on 16 April 2020

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as the original decision to impose condition 6 was made via an Urgent Decision Session on 8 April 2020, where the Chief Executive Officer determined to grant the consent. 13 letters of representation had also been received, which raised material planning considerations in objection to the scheme; Officers would otherwise have determined the application contrary to these representations.

The Committee noted that the application was a Section 73 application to remove condition 06 (HGV Traffic Routes) of approval 2019/1340/FULM -  Proposed change of use of existing maintenance and vehicle processing building to include block cutting and processing, erection of 6m high CCTV pole, erection of replacement dry dust silo, erect new gates, change existing fencing to concrete fencing and improve HGV parking on site by increasing the areas in which they can park on the existing site granted on 16 April 2020.

The Officer Update Note set out an additional representation from Cunnane Town Planning on behalf of a local resident, as well as four other letters from local residents, which expressed concerns around the cumulative effect on the area of the proposed changes, in particular around the routes and times of use for HGVs.

The Committee asked Officers if the suggested additional condition in the representation received from Cunnane Town Planning was viable; Officers explained that the applicant had not had sight of the representation. A routing arrangement would be required from the applicant and/or agent, which could prove difficult as the applicant did not want to restrict routing from the site. It was also not usual practice to consult on discharge of condition requests, and as such, local residents may not be able to submit their views on the matter.

The Officer went on to explain that the proposal could be acceptable, may give residents a safeguard that vehicles would not unnecessarily turn right from the site, and would meet the needs of the operator; however, the full implications of the additional condition from Cunnane Town Planning had not been considered by Officers, particularly from a Highways perspective. If Members wished to consider it further, deferment of the application should be moved.

Members asked additional questions about whether the changes in the application consisted of a consolidation or expansion of the business due to Covid-19, the number of vehicle movements associated with the site and the routes for these movements.

Officers explained that the changes amounted to a consolidation, not an expansion. The original application was submitted before Covid-19, and the outputs of the HGVs was not changing. Staff would continue to arrive at and leave the site. The vehicle routes were to be the same and there would be no increase in input or output from the site. The majority of movements, and the sourcing of product for distribution, were towards and from Celcon as suggested. There would continue to be a use of local roads, but Officers did not feel that the changes warranted a new routing agreement; the current use of the site was a lawful, unrestricted and historical in a residential setting. The stretch of road about which concerns had been raised was unrestricted for a number of industries. Members asked further questions about the surrounding road network and noted the various routes by which vehicles could access and leave the site, and in particular how difficult it would be to enforce vehicle movements that did not follow preferred routes.

Mark Simmonds, agent, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke in support of the application.

Mr John Hunter, Parish Council representative, was invited remotely into the meeting and spoke in objection to the application.

Members acknowledged that HGVs in rural villages was a common issue, but that representations in the report from the Environmental Health Officer did not contain concerns on potential noise or air quality grounds.

The Committee felt that Condition 6 was unsound, unenforceable and open to challenge and agreed that the Officer’s report was detailed and set out all the relevant issues clearly. Members also expressed some concerns about the consistency of measurements of the bridge, which Officers confirmed had been taken at face value.

It was accordingly proposed and seconded that the application be GRANTED.

RESOLVED:

To GRANT the application subject to the conditions set out at paragraph 7 of the report.