Agenda item

Since the publication of the report the Planning Manager reported that proposed Condition 6 in the recommendations should be amended as detailed in the update which had been circulated to the Committee and published on the Council's website.

Nick Grace, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·    He described the layout and size of the application site.

·    He quoted support for the application by the National Planning Policy Framework, including helping businesses to invest, expand and integrated with existing businesses.

·    He stated that no objections had been received from the statutory consultees and noted that only North Hykeham Town and South Hykeham Parish Councils had raised concerns.

·    He stated that the proposed development did not seek to increase the overall tonnage per annum being processed through the adjacent Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) but to provide on-site maintenance facilities for the skip lorry fleet and plant machinery associated with the MRF as well as storage area for empty skips, plant and machinery awaiting maintenance.

·    The storage bays would simply receive recycled aggregate for re-sale and imported virgin aggregate for re-sale. It was not proposed to process aggregate at the site.

·    The application in part promoted the re-use of waste and supported the operations of the adjacent MRF.

·    He stated that highways did not have any objections and that the application did not justify a detailed assessment of structure and construction of Boundary Lane as the Parish Councils had suggested.

·    There would no more than an additional 50 two way movements Monday to Saturday (daily).

·    The site was well screened and the building set back from residential properties at the rear of the site.

Nick Grace responded to questions from the Committee, as follows:-

·         He explained the layout of the applicant's site with regard to the location of land set aside for residential development.

·         He explained the increase in additional vehicle movements detailed in the report and stated that these had been assessed and deemed acceptable.

·         He explained that the application would improve the efficiency, management and visual aspects of the site.

·         He explained that it was not proposed to create a retail site but that materials would be brought in, stored efficiently and their sale done by telephone.

With regard the storage of skips and whether they contained material, officers confirmed that the skips would not contain any waste and explained that the material stored on the site was a combination of recycled and imported aggregate. Officers had also considered the use of the same access for this application and the Materials Recycling Facility and had decided that it was more efficient to have an overall condition for both permissions limiting the number of vehicle movements permitted rather than a separate condition for each development as it would be difficult to enforce. This was because it would not be clear when a vehicle enters or leaves the site which permission it was operating under.

Comments by the Committee and responses by officers, where appropriate, included:-

·         The application site was designated employment land and was also surrounded by designated employment land.

·         While noting that the applicant had made improvements to his site Boundary Lane was a country lane with a 60mph speed limit. Had highways considered the effects on traffic movements following the proposed construction of Soper BMW access onto Boundary Lane?

·         Could speed restrictions be installed on Boundary Lane in view of the increase in HGVs? Officers stated that it was not possible to consider a speed limit in the planning procedure.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was –

RESOLVED (8 votes for and 2 votes against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.