Issue - meetings
Meeting: 03/12/2024 - Planning Committee (Item 35)
PDF 556 KBChange of use of land for the siting of 2 no. containers, hardstanding, car parking area (retrospective planning consent) and retention of 2 no. existing portacabin offices to serve the existing use.
Minutes:
The Committee heard that this application was before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Fairley.
It was reported that the application sought permission for the retention of 2 no. existing portacabin offices to serve the existing roofing company on site. In addition, two further portacabins, a car parking area to the front of the site and the creation of a hardstanding area to the rear had all been implemented without express planning permission. The application therefore also sought retrospective planning consent for all unauthorised elements and other than the works outlined above, no further additions were proposed as part of this application.
Members were told that the proposed works were not considered to be harmful to the current prevailing character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities, and it was satisfactory in terms of highway safety. Accordingly, the application had been recommended by Officers for approval subject to conditions.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (OA) in respect of the application.
There were no updates for Members on this application.
Councillor Zoe Fairley, the Ward Councillor for Ardleigh and Little Bromley and the caller-in of this application, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
The two containers sitting on top of each other, with the height being greater than the building around these, is this acceptable? |
That is a matter for your debate and judgement. Officers would have nothing to warrant refusal on that basis if found to be unacceptable. |
|
Where the Highways Conditions are included with the red lines on the Officer presentation, is making sure that they are adhered to Essex County Council’s responsibility and not Tendring District Council’s? |
The conditions on this application will be imposed and referred to the enforcement team if they were not complied with should the application be granted. In terms of the wider site, the road itself is subject to ECC Highways and their enforcement. |
|
Do we know what has prompted the applicants to apply for planning permission at this point and not considerably earlier? |
It was a referral from our enforcement department, so Officers asked for an application to be submitted. It is not a material consideration. The site is subject to a different application, whilst dealing with that application, Officers can only apply public funding responsibly. With enforcement, there has to be a degree of time before amenity comes into effect. |
|
If the site was not already there, what would be the Officer recommendation? |
Whilst the advantage of a retrospective application is that Officers and Members can see what the application would look like, the requirement is to treat this application as if the site was not there and judge it on ... view the full minutes text for item 35 |