Agenda item

Change of use of part of land for the siting of storage container units (Use Class B8) and a machinery and maintenance building, vehicular access, screen wall and screen planting

Late items:

Introduction:-

Since the publication of the committee report, the owner of the site, Benjamin Smith, has submitted a statutory declaration with the application in which he declares that should the application be successful he would not subsequently be making any further applications to the Council for planning permission for the property for use as a gypsy site. Mr Smith has also declared that he would on disposal of the property impose a restrictive covenant on any future owner prohibiting the use of the land for a gypsy site.

The statutory declaration was duly sworn before a solicitor but it does not comply in its format with the requirements of section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and cannot therefore bind the land the subject of the planning application

The means by which a restriction can be placed on the land in these circumstances is through an agreement or a unilateral undertaking pursuant to section 106

To that end Mr Smith has submitted a unilateral undertaking pursuant to section 106 in which he covenants that he will not apply for planning permission for a caravan site provided that the application has been approved by the Council and if the application is successful he would impose a restrictive covenant on any future owner prohibiting its use as a caravan site

The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 are relevant here. Regulation 122 states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is

a)            Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,

b)            Directly related to the development

c)            Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

All three tests must be met

It is clear that the undertaking is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It has no relevance to the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development. Members are therefore advised that it should not be taken into account in the consideration of this application, which should be considered on its own merits

The applicant has been notified that this is the advice that will be given to committee in relation to the undertaking and the planning application.

It has also been drawn to the Council's attention that the committee report includes reference to Wood Road having a speed restriction of 60 mph. It is accepted that this speed limit has only recently been reduced to 50 mph. The speed survey submitted with the planning application detailed 85% speeds of 51mph in a northerly direction and 50mph in a southerly direction. It is confirmed that the evidence used in the highway section of the report and in the consultation response received from LCC as Highway Authority was based on vehicular speeds of between 50-51mph along Wood Road.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation in the committee report remains unaltered in that planning permission should be refused for the proposal.

Application for change of use of part of land for the siting of storage container units (use class B8) and a machinery and maintenance building, vehicular access, screen wall and screen planting

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be refused, some members felt that the application should be approved as it would bring the land back into use.

At this juncture, it having reached almost 8.30pm, it was moved by Councillor J Crooks, seconded by Councillor Findlay and

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue past 8.30pm.

It was moved by Councillor W Crooks and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted with final detail of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with ward councillors but to include conditions relating to time restrictions, plans, restriction to storage containers and landscaping.

It was subsequently moved by Councillor Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Roberts that permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report.

Being the first motion received, the vote was taken on Councillor W Crooks’ motion. The motion was CARRIED and it was therefore

RESOLVED – permission be granted with the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with ward councillors.