Container storage facility at Flint Acre, Toddington Lane, Toddington

“Additional drainage details were received which proposed discharge to an existing storm water pipe provided for this site within the design by the adjacent developer, if infiltration was found unfeasible. Due to its recent submission, no additional comments have been received from the drainage engineers. Notes: Changes to recommendations, conditions and / or reasons for refusal will always be reflected in the recommendation section of the attached Officer's Report.”

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONRetrospective permission for the change of use from agricultural land to storage container unit (B8). There are 35 storage containers on site which are of a standard rectangular metal box type structure with a height of 2.6m, length of 6m and width of 2.4m.”

“The site has an existing access from an unadopted track which connects to Toddington Lane. TREESThere is hedging to the north west boundary but no trees which will be impacted by the proposal. BOUNDARY TREATMENTThe site has a fence to the northeast and hedging to the north. SITE CHARACTERISTICS35 shipping containers used for storage.”

“Two enforcement notices (EN) have been issued and quashed. The first was issued on 13 September 2024 and required all development be removed and the land returned to its previous condition. The notice was quashed on the 26 August 2025 as the Inspector concluded the EN did not specify with sufficient clarity the alleged breach of planning control and the steps required for compliance.”

“A second EN was issued on 1 October 2025. This notice was quashed on 25 March 2026 as the Inspector identified the appeal site in the EN is not one planning unit and the description is incorrect. This was not an issue in the first notice and its unclear why this was a concern in the second appeal and not the first. The notice referred to the whole site which includes two separate businesses with individual accesses and it could not been considered as one planning unit.”

“The proposal is considered to conflict with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would have unacceptable harm to the visual amenity and character of the area and has not demonstrated that it could drain surface water and not result in an increase in flood risk.”

“(2) in dealing with an application for planning permission the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (aza) a post examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.”

“Members highlighted the importance of supporting local businesses and employment opportunities, noting that economic growth required not only housing but also facilities that enabled businesses to operate and expand locally. However, concerns were raised regarding the drainage implications of the proposal, particularly in light of the information contained within the officer report relating to pollution risks and the management of surface water.”

“In discussing potential conditions should the Committee be minded to approve the application, Members sought clarification regarding the future operation of the site and whether restrictions could be imposed to prevent the stacking of storage containers or the introduction of alternative forms of storage.”

“Following the debate, the Chair put the officer recommendation for refusal to the vote. Upon being put to the vote, the officer recommendation was not carried.”

“Following the vote against the officer recommendation, Members considered the reasons for departing from the recommendation of refusal. Members concluded that the proposal would not result in adverse harm to the visual amenity of the area and that the site's established use, together with the benefits it provided to local residents and businesses, weighed in favour of granting planning permission.”