Melton DC Planning response to matters of concern
Reply to Cllr Alan Hewson regarding development - Branston Road, Eaton
I will address all the points raised –
No permission for the access –this forms part of the breach of planning control to which our Enforcement procedures are being applied and also the matter has already been referred to LCC highways as they are the lead enforcement for that particular matter.
No permission for the occupancy of the land – again correct and the person in question has already been informed of that. The enforcement process, though it can be long winded, has been initiated since learning of its presence on Friday and occupation only yesterday.
Fuel tank and generator – that isn’t an enforcement matter for MBC – and I don’t believe any other form of licence or permit is required. the environment agency will be unlikely to take issue unless there has been pollution to the land/river.
The person in question also mentioned that to me during our initial conversation. Again he was told that he doesn’t have permission to do so.
Retrospective permission is far from guaranteed, though we cannot prevent an application for such. You will be familiar with the case at Waltham Lane , Branston where a retrospective application was submitted and refused and Enforcement Notices have now followed. Failure to comply with these notices can and will result in court enforcement. This case has already taken a year to get to. That isn’t due to MBC – it is all about the required notice periods and appeals that the individual can and usually does make – which can make it a very drawn out affair.
Retrospective planning permission is not a “get around”: such applications are required to be determined on exactly the same basis as those submitted in the correct manner. As you have mentioned. Permission has already been refused on this site, and an appeal was lost. Retrospective planning permission has the same principles applied to it as regular planning permission. It is only used in cases where the planning officer /Committee concludes permission should be granted just as if they had they followed the prescribed route in the first place. It is not a method to be used by those thinking that it will succeed.
The Council has already responded. I have been travelling to and from the site since the initial complaint was made, and inspections have been made by other colleagues also. I only found the person in question on the site yesterday. The matter is in hand. I will keep yourself, the other complainants and the PC informed as and when further steps are taken in this matter. The powers available to us are to “remedy” breaches of planning control and as such we are not able to take preventative measures against occurrences before they take place.
I hope you find this information useful and I look forward to hearing from you with any further questions you may have.
Chris Millward Enforcement Officer T: 01664 504204 M: 07880432782