Agenda item

Hallmark, Melton Mowbray

 

Application:	21/00929/FUL
Location:	Hallmark, Green Bank, Melton Mowbray
Proposal:	Extension to existing Warehouse - Storage & Distribution (Class B8) and refurbishment of existing single storey modular building

 

The Planning Officer (AC) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised that due to the Environment Agency’s concerns relating to being part of a flood plain, the application was recommended for refusal.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Member queries as follows:

 

·       Should the application be approved, the Environment Agency had provided specific condition requirements

·       A Member reported that the last time the area flooded was in 1998 before the Brentingby Dam was completed and Thorpe Brook was not connected to this development

·       The existing building was on stilts and the extension would require this also as well as regular maintenance to clear debris

·       It was considered that should the application be approved, there would be no increased flood risk to other buildings

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·         Chris Hall, Applicant

Mr Hall responded to Member queries as follows:

·     The existing building was built with a grid which stopped debris collecting and natural hygiene cleared any debris

·     He would meet the requirements set out by the Environment Agency should the application be approved

·     The current building was insured

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·       The application brought employment opportunities to Melton and should not be refused as people needed jobs

·       This was a home-grown Melton-based business that Members did not want to lose

·       It was considered the refusal was based on general flood principles and in this case the building design did not increase flood risk

·       The existing building was on stilts and the extension would be built in the same way

·       The Council was trying to promote businesses in Melton and should make an exception to approve this application and the County Council as the flooding authority had no issues with the application

·       The Solicitor advised due to the site being in a floodzone and if minded to permit, the local authority had to give the Secretary of State 21 days to call in the application. If Members were minded to permit a statement of material considerations for departure from the objection was required which must include reasons.

 

·       Members felt the following should be included in the statement:

 

·       There had not been a flooding event since 1998 which predated the building of the Brentingby dam

·       This was an extension to a building that already complied and this development was to be built in the same way

·       Encourage retention of an existing business

·       The growth of the business would bring more employment opportunities for local people and support the local economy

·       The Environment Agency advice was general and related to being on a flood plain rather than being specific to the site or the design

·       The application met policies SS1, EC1, EC3 and EC5

·       The Planning Officer explained the proposed conditions should the application be approved as follows :

o   3 years to implement development

o   Compliance with the plans

o   Specified materials but also request for further details

o   The levels of the development conditioned by the Environment Agency as well as the flood risk assessment and mitigations and maintenance

o   Other conditions from consultees to include parking and access arrangements, construction traffic management plan which was required by the Highway Authority, Environment Agency conditions and any others from the leading flood authority

 

Councillor Illingworth proposed that the Committee was minded to permit the application, subject to submission to the Secretary of State for a 21 day call in period, as it met policies SS1, EC1, EC3 and EC5. Councillor Smith seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That contrary to the officer recommendation, the Committee was minded to permit the application, subject to submission to the Secretary of State for a 21 day call in period, as it met policies SS1, EC1, EC3 and EC5.

 

(Unanimous)