Agenda item

Installation of two portacabins and retention of entrance gates and proposed change of use for Use Class Sui Generis including container storage; open and closed storage of building and scaffolding materials; storage of aggregate materials; vehicle storage and sales for a period of 36 months (part retrospective application)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1.    That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to amend the wording of refusal reason 1 to read ‘users’ rather than ‘user’ and to amend reason for refusal 2 to include the phrase ‘users of the Canalside Moorings and Towpath’;

2.    That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to word an informative highlighting the need for a weight restriction on the bridge;

3.    That the lack of planning permission on site be followed up by planning enforcement officers; and

4.    That the application be refused subject to the agreed amendments to reasons for refusal 1 and 2 and the addition of an informative.

Installation of two portacabins and retention of entrance gates and proposed change of use for Use Class Sui Generis including container storage; open and closed storage of building and scaffolding materials; storage of aggregate materials; vehicle storage and sales for a period of 36 months (part retrospective application).

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. Members heard that this was a retrospective application and there was a chequered history at the site. It was confirmed that the applicant was unwilling to accept the proposed Conditions. It was noted that an additional objection had been received from a neighbour regarding antisocial behaviour, noise and harm at the site. Officers presented a verbal update in relation to corrections to reasons for refusal 1) and 2). It was noted that reason for refusal 1) should read ‘users’ rather than ‘user’ and refusal reason 2) should include the phrase ‘users of the Canalside Moorings and Towpath’. Informative 1) on page 6 of the agenda pack was highlighted which indicated that the lack of planning permission on site was to be considered by planning enforcement.

Ward Councillor Ahmad-Wallana was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents setting out his reasons for objection to the proposed scheme. Councillor Ahmad-Wallana stated that the application site was in the town centre and in a residential area therefore was not suitable for the proposed use. Members were informed that Trout Road was unsuited to heavy goods vehicles. Moreover, the agreed operating hours were being ignored with work commencing before 07:00 hours and finishing at 22:00 on occasion. One resident had reported that materials had recently been dumped during the night at 02:00 a.m. creating a disturbance while people were trying to sleep. Issues regarding health and safety around the junction were raised noting that there were a school and a nursery in the vicinity of the application site. Additionally, damage to the local environment was cited as a matter of concern – there had been a significant increase in dust in the air which resembled a fog at times.

With regards to Highways, the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration informed Members that, given the previous industrial use of the site, it would not be advisable to include highways concerns as a reason for refusal as this would be difficult to defend should the application go to appeal.

Members enquired whether it would be possible to amend Informative 1) to include a stop trading notice but were advised by the Legal Advisor that this would be a Part II matter and could not be considered as part of the current meeting.

Members commented that this was a key site for redevelopment which could potentially enhance life in Yiewsley Town Centre if put to good use. The Committee expressed concern regarding the narrow hump-back bridge in the area. Although it was noted that high levels of HGVs were unlikely to use the bridge at peak times, Members enquired whether a weight restriction could be imposed on the bridge for safety reasons. At the request of the Committee, it was agreed that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to add an informative highlighting the need for a weight restriction on the bridge.

Members noted that there were three good reasons for refusal and therefore supported the officer’s recommendation. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to amend the wording of refusal reason 1 to read ‘users’ rather than ‘user’ and to amend reason for refusal 2 to include the phrase ‘users of the Canalside Moorings and Towpath’;

2.    That authority be delegated to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to word an informative highlighting the need for a weight restriction on the bridge;

3.    That the lack of planning permission on site be followed up by planning enforcement officers; and

4.    That the application be refused subject to the agreed amendments to reasons for refusal 1 and 2 and the addition of an informative regarding a weight restriction on the bridge.