Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 1 and remove condition 2 of appeal decision 3149762 (25/10/2016) to allow unrestricted B8 use (storage / distribution)

The Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the history of the site.  He noted the building was granted permission on appeal by the planning inspector for a self-storage business use only.  The appeal was allowed using TRICS vehicle movement data which predicted 16 vehicle movements per day to and from the site and 1 HGV movement.  A sensitivity test conducted by the applicants for the unrestricted B8 use had predicted an additional 6 vehicle movements per day which would be 22 in total.  Taking this into account, with the NPPF approach to Highway Safety and the Planning Inspectors evidence at that time, officers concluded the additional vehicle movements generated would not be so severe and so recommended approval of the application with conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and the Highway Consultant advised:-

·         The building had been 80% complete when the owners appealed the enforcement notice requiring demolition of the building. 

·         The Highway definition of severe impact upon traffic was not defined but there were a number of planning appeals where it was cited.  16 vehicle movements during a whole day was not an intensive use.

·         There were one or two places where vehicles could pass in Mill Lane and visibility was deficient which the planning inspector had acknowledged.

·         It was difficult to control a set number vehicle movements if this was a condition of approval.  The applicants had stated the traffic would be no greater than that of the earlier application/appeal decision.

·         There was a self-storage business in the business park but the subject building had not been used for self-storage.

The Committee were addressed by one Lopen resident in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         There was a disappointing history of non-compliance at the site.

·         The appeal had been allowed for self storage only and only two years later they were seeking to change this.

·         There was a good reason why there was a 7.5 tonne weight limit through Lopen. 

·         Lopen Parish Council argued clearly that there were breaches of planning conditions.

The Committee were addressed by the Agent for the applicant.  Their comments included:-

·         Conditions had been imposed by the appeal inspector but since then circumstances had changed.

·         The building was on an established park and pre-application advice had been sought.

·         There would be no severe highways impact and the applicants had no issue with the conditions proposed by officers.

In response to further questions from Members, the Highway Consultant advised:-

·         The 7.5 tonne weight limit did not apply to vehicles requiring access.

·         The TRICS traffic assessment before the planning inspector was based upon self-storage use and it was assessed at 16 vehicle movements per day.  A TRICS assessment on B8 business use was also assessed at the same 16 vehicle movements per day.

During discussion, Members expressed concern at the number of vehicle movements along a narrow access lane and the limited visibility when turning onto the main road. 

The Senior Planning Adviser stressed that the business was already operating from the site and there was no evidence of greater traffic problems and no reported accidents to date.  He suggested the imposition of an additional condition to monitor vehicle movements for a 3 year period to allay Members concerns and to ensure highway safety.  The monitoring would be done by the applicant and it would give them the opportunity to gather proof their business did not cause traffic accidents or cause highway safety issues. 

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application with the additional condition to monitor vehicle movements and on being put to the vote, was carried (voting: 6 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions).

(Voting: 6 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)