Agenda item

(Note: Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, arrived in the meeting before consideration of the planning application)

Comments made by the Committee and the responses of officers included:-

·         There was a need to emphasise to the applicant the importance of abiding by the conditions to avoid a fire like that which had occurred at Barkston Heath as detailed in minute 27. Officers stated that there had been issues in the past at the applicant's site in connection with the storage height of plastics but the applicant had taken the necessary action to reduce the height to the conditioned height of 3m. Also, the site was being inspected by the Council's Enforcement Officers to ensure the applicant was complying with the conditions.

·         What were the accumulative traffic movements on the South Fen Road as there was only a modest increase in traffic arising from the applicant's site? Officers stated that they had not got this information available as the adjacent scrap yard had been in existence for many years prior to planning controls coming in.

·         It was noted that the Fire Prevention Management Plan was a requirement of the Environment Agency permit for the site and a condition of an earlier planning permission for the site but to date it had not been formally approved by the Agency or Planning Authority. Agencies should be working together to prevent fires. Officers stated that the issue of Conditions attached to Environment Agency Permits and planning conditions was a grey area as they should not duplicate each other. It was not known why the Agency had not taken any action to secure the submission of the Fire Prevention Management Plan. Officers stated that they were working with the applicant to confirm the current level of tonnage and this was the reason for Condition 2(a) in the recommendations.

·         Did the applicant have the storage capacity to store the increase in plastics and electrical waste as they posed a significant fire risk? Officers stated that the applicant was confident that this could be achieved without increasing the areas of permitted storage or exceeding the permitted heights of the stockpiles. This would be subject to checks when the site was inspected.

·         Could the applicant be asked to make a contribution towards for the cost of maintaining the South Fen Road due to the increase in traffic to and from his site? Officers drew the Committee's attention to the comments of the Highway's Officer detailed in the report which stated that the proposed small increase in traffic movements arising from this application could not be considered severe as required in the National Planning and Policy Framework.

·         Was there sufficient capacity at the site to cope with a doubling of capacity at the site? Officers stated that the applicant was content that he had sufficient capacity at the site and proposed to operate in the existing permitted area. Officers again emphasised that if there were problems with throughput then they had the ability to take enforcement action.

A motion moved by Councillor P A Skinner, seconded by Councillor N H Pepper, that the application should be deferred until such time as the receipt of the Fire Prevention Management Plan and that when it was received the application should be brought to the Committee for reconsideration, was defeated on the casting vote of the Chairman by 5 votes, 6 votes against and 2 abstentions.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was –

RESOLVED (7 votes for, 5 votes against and 1 abstention)

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