Issue - meetings

Application for change of use of land for the storage, repair, restoration and sale (ancillary) of vehicles, associated shipping containers and area of hardstanding (sui generis) (part retrospective)

Late items received after preparation of agenda:

Consultations:-

Following revision to the application form, re-consultation was sent to all previous consultees.  The date of expiry for these response is 15^th March 2022. 

We are still waiting responses from the Environment Agency, Ramblers Association, Leicestershire Footpaths, Earl Shilton Town Council and LHA. 

We have received responses from Ecology, Environmental Health and Waste.  No additional objections have been raised subject to conditions. 

An additional letter of representation has been received on behalf of a neighbour raising an objection and the following points:

• Concerned about the way in which the application has been carried out and the answers provided in the planning application form
• Conflict with DM4
• Inadequate officer assessment of DM4
• Ancillary sales is not included in the description
• Conflict with DM17
• Conflict with DM7
• No highway assessment
• Impact on highway safety and capacity
• Ecology
• Impact on neighbour amenity/visual impact
• Procedural errors

Appraisal:-

The Officer recommendation remains as previous, to allow delegated powers to approve subject to conditions. These conditions, amongst the standard time and plans conditions, include the following:

• Restriction on the occupancy of the dwelling to the proposed business use. 
• Restriction of ancillary sales
• Restriction on outside storage of vehicles
• Landscape implementation and management
• Restriction on delivery times
• Ecology enhancement
• Waste management
• Noise and dust management plan
• Hours of operation restricted

·         Highway conditions

Application for change of use of land for the storage, repair, restoration and sale (ancillary) of vehicles, associated shipping containers and area of hardstanding (sui generis) (part retrospective)

An objector and the applicant spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the location was unsuitable for the proposed use and therefore contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD as it did not enhance the countryside. It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Furlong and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Authority be delegated to the Director (Environment & Planning) to refuse permission at the conclusion of the consultation period due to the site being unsuitable for the proposed use and therefore contrary to policy DM4 paragraph B of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD;

(ii)          Enforcement action be pursued.