Agenda item

The Lead Specialist (Planning) presented his report to members. He explained that he was seeking the view of the Committee as a way forward in ensuring that the enforcement notice would be complied with whilst highlighting the potential consequences for the business which operated on the site.

He summarised the planning history of the site and detailed the agreed land use following a certificate of lawfulness application. He explained that the most recent planning application was refused for highway/access considerations and the lack of flood risk information, as the area is known to flood.  At the same time, an enforcement notice, which required the business use to cease within 3 months, was also issued to the applicant. However, he added that a planning appeal had been submitted, and subsequently dismissed after approximately a year, therefore extending the enforcement period for the business to cease to the later date of February 2018.

He advised that the applicant had been unable to find a suitable site to move the business to, and suggested that he would like the view of Committee in order to progress with compliance of the enforcement notice.

He also summarised some of the written views of the local residents and the Parish Council and confirmed that they had been contacted for their comments on the enforcement appeal and to make them aware that the case would be discussed today.

He summarised the suggested four potential options which were detailed in his report.

Mr T Cavalier, the Vice Chairman of Mudford Parish Council addressed the Committee. It was his view that the three months which the applicant was given to find an alternative site was long enough and that the enforcement notice should be carried out without delay. He explained that the applicant has had closer to a year to find alternative premises. He also explained that, in his view, there were fewer employees than the applicant had specified and questioned the licensing and vehicle insurance validity whilst operating under an enforcement notice.

Ms L Dennett, Mr V Willis and Mr B Mathews spoke in objection to the extension of time to the enforcement notice. Their comments included;

·         The HGV’s are dangerous for walkers that use the lane.

·         The verges are being damaged and there are few places for lorries to pull in along the lane. There are concerns for safety.

·         The Planning Inspector walked along the road and agreed that it was dangerous and refused the application.

·         The road forms part of the Monarch Way.

·         This has been on-going for 16 months.

·         There are not as many employees as specified.

·         The applicant should not have moved his business to the site without gaining planning permission. They took a risk in moving.

·         The residents are looking for commitment from SSDC for closure of this on-going issue.

·         Residents feel let down as they have worked closely with SSDC and the Parish Council.

Mr N Eden, addressed the Committee to offer his support to extending the time limit before enforcement action is implemented. He explained that the applicant has done all that has been possible to look for an alternative site for his business. This has included having help from SSDC and has made numerous visits to potential sites, however none of which have been suitable. He explained that if the business is forced to cease, he will lose his operating licence and re-applying can be a timely process. If this happens, he will be unable to pay his 16 full-time workers, some of which have worked there for over 20 years. He hoped that a moderate extension to the enforcement notice would enable the applicant to find new premises.

Mr P Gunning, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that his original planning application was not heard by the Committee and that he had no opportunity to express his case. He explained that if his business ceases, many of his employees will be out of work. He pointed out to members that once a suitable site is found, applying for operating licenses was another consideration that would take time, often up to six months. The new site must also be close to existing site to allow staff to continue working for the company. He further confirmed that the business and the vehicles were all insured and that his courteous drivers do not damage the verges.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli, Ward Member, explained that he normally offers support to businesses; however this business did not have the necessary planning applications and was in the wrong place. He felt that this had been on-going for too long.

During the discussion, some members commented that it would be unreasonable to close down a business. Another member advised that sympathy should be given for the applicant as it was not the applicant’s fault that the appeal took nearly a year to determine.

The Lead Specialist (Planning) advised that vehicle licensing was not a planning consideration and could not confirm whether there were any licensing issues on the site or not. In response to another question, he explained that should members wish that the enforcement notice be issued without delay, it would not be issued immediately and would take a small amount of time.

Members expressed that they would like assurance that should a time extension be granted for compliance, that the enforcement notice would be issued straight away. The Lead Specialist (Planning) confirmed that some of the work could be carried out in preparation, before the end of the time extension.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members grant a 4 month extension to the enforcement notice for items a – b of the officer report and for 6 months to items c – e of the officer report, from the 3^rd February 2018, which was the initial compliance date set by the Planning Inspector. (Option 1 as detailed in the agenda report)

On being put to the vote, members recommended to the Lead Specialist (Planning) that an extension be granted to the periods for compliance with the served enforcement notice for 4 months for items a – b and for 6 months to items c – e as detailed in the agenda report with 7 votes in support and 2 against. (Option 1 as detailed in the agenda report).

The Enforcement Notice requires: 

a)    cease the use of the site as a vehicle haulage contractor’s yard,

b)    cease the use of the workshop for the manufacture of concrete products,

c)    remove the hard surfacing in the extended area of yard,

d)    restore the extended yard area to its former condition, and

e)    remove all vehicles and associated non-agricultural paraphernalia from the adjacent field. 

(voting: 7 in support and 2 against, with 0 abstentions)