Issue - meetings

That condition 1 be varied to allow waste to be stored to a height of 8 metres for a temporary period of two years, and to the other conditions contained within the recommendation.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses detailed in the report.

The Manager (Minerals and Waste) explained that this was a re-submission of application 048496 which had been refused at the Planning Committee meeting held on 7 December 2011 contrary to officer recommendation.  A report then went to the Planning Committee meeting on 11 January 2012 to seek guidance regarding the reasons for refusal and the outcome was to refuse solely on the grounds of visual impact.  Since the issue of the refusal notice, the applicant had engaged with officers and the local Member with the purpose of resolving the issues of visual impact.  A new belt of planting was proposed to be undertaken to the south of the site which would mitigate the visual impact from the main road.  Parking spaces had also been created on site to address previous concerns raised by Members.  Highway issues would be controlled by way of condition including facilities for turning and parking of vehicles and the maintenance of a hard paved area for loading, parking and turning within the site.

It was reported that no change of use was proposed as the only purpose of this application was to increase the height of the storage areas of the scrap material from 4.6 to 8 metres.  This application would regularise the planning status of the site to retain the existing stockpiles at a height of up to 8 metres.  No complaints about the site such as noise or visual impact had been received.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) drew Members’ attention to conditions 4, 7, 9, 11 and 14.  He highlighted paragraph 7.09 which reported on amenity and nuisances but said that the proposed conditions would address the concerns.

Councillor D.I. Mackie proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He read out a statement by the local Member, Councillor F. Gillmore, who was unable to attend this meeting, which indicated that he had spoken with the applicant and with officers and he had now received the assurances that he required to address his concerns; he was  now satisfied that the application could be approved.

Councillor M.J. Peers sought clarification on the increase in the height of the stockpiles and asked at what height the material would be level with the surrounding land.  He proposed an amendment that the application be approved with a two year temporary permission.  He said that concerns had been raised on the site visit held on 5 December 2011 and that there was still uncertainty surrounding the site.  He felt that a two year permission would allow for checks to be undertaken of how the site was progressing.  The amendment was duly seconded.

Councillor R.C. Bithell raised concern about the height and said that there was no indication that it would diminish.  He highlighted paragraph 7.09 where the visual impact due to the increased height had been raised as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 253