Agenda item

Proposed permanent siting of 4 no. storage containers to rear of property to be used as storage.

 Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 72 above, Councillor Fowler (Chairman) had declared a personal interest. She therefore withdrew from the meeting and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application. The Chair was thereupon occupied by the Vice-Chairman (Councillor White).

The Head of Planning and Building Control announced:

“In respect of the proposal before you, just before this meeting we had an update about the ownership of the site. Obviously, we have to ensure that the application form is correct, and it usually has a certificate of ownership so that we ensure that relevant owners are notified of the application. Most often we see certificate A as the owner and the applicant are generally the same. Sometimes we have certificate B, which is that they’re looking at lands, if I wanted to put an application in to do something with this building (Town Hall), even though it has nothing to do with me, I’d be serving a certificate B on the Council. There are others that are C and D where you don’t know the owners. In this case, it has been drawn to our attention that there may be owners unknown and owners that maybe haven’t been served with a notice and therefore we need to provide time for that to happen. So, the current applicant is, as I understand, looking at serving a certificate C in order to reconcile that point. So, whatever recommendation we move forward today with either seeking to approve or refuse the application – we have to allow a time for that ownership notification to take place, generally around 21 days, before we can release that decision correctly. It is not an issue you need to concern yourself with as we have picked it up but it does mean that any decision you make today may not be released for a period of at least 3 weeks while the ownership issue is resolved.”

Members were told that this application sought permission to change the use of part of the Parkeston Railway Club car park to site four containers for use by the charity NEST for storage purposes.

The Committee was made aware that volunteers would access the containers to facilitate deliveries and maintain stock during the day. Local residents/families in need would also be invited to the site by prior arrangement to collect specific items to assist their day-to-day living.

Officers informed Members that the proposal was not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, it would not result in any significant impact to neighbouring amenities, and it was acceptable in terms of highway impacts and flood risk.

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 (AP) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting with an update of:

“The ownership of the land occupied by the Parkeston Railway Club is not straightforward and therefore the applicant/agent is publishing a notice in a local newspaper under the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. A decision on the application will be issued 21 days from the date the notice is published.

The Council’s Environmental Protection team have provided the following response:

I can confirm the EP Team have reviewed the proposal and have no adverse comments to make; however, it was noted from the site pictures submitted by the applicant and those of the Planner, and from information gleaned from the Planner, that one of the current units appears to be storing asbestos sheeting.  This does not confirm the presence of an immediate concern; however information indicates the material may be damaged.  In light of this the EP Team would strongly suggest the responsible and proper removal of the sheeting, so as to minimise any potential adverse impact to site workers, or nearby residents, should the materials degrade and potentially release fibres to air.  As such we would request the following informative be added to any approval:

Asbestos:  If there is any asbestos present on site then adequate and suitable measures should be carried out for the minimisation of asbestos fibres, so as to prevent airborne fibres from affecting workers carrying out any work and nearby properties. Only contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive should be employed. Any redundant materials removed from the site should be transported by a registered waste carrier and disposed of at an appropriate legal tipping site.

REASON: to protect the health of workers and nearby existing residents.”

Les Nicoll, Chairman of N.E.S.T, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Sarah Stertz, member of the public, spoke in favour of the application.

Eric Bramhill, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Tanya Ferguson, on behalf of Parkeston & Ramsey Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jo Henderson, the “Caller-in” and an adjoining Ward Member, spoke against the application.

It was moved by Councillor Everett, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that the consideration of application 23/01375/FUL be deferred to enable Officers to seek the following information from the applicant:

-       information on how access to neighbouring use/s shall be maintained as a safe;

-       layout redesign considerations available that may enhance the scheme; and,

-       to allow resolution of ownership matters in terms of notification requirement and any result further representations.