Martial arts training facility at Unit 5, 9 Atherton Way, Brigg

What was proposed

The application sought to change an existing storage and distribution unit into a martial arts and fitness training facility without external changes.

“Planning permission is sought to change the use of Unit 4B, now known as Unit 5, from Class B8 storage and distribution to Class E use as a martial arts and fitness training facility. The application relates to the existing unit only, with no external or structural alterations proposed. Internally, the unit would be laid out to provide a matted training area, reception/seating area, office, storage and toilet facilities.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is an existing unit in an established commercial area, with shared access and parking, and twelve parking spaces would remain.

“PA/1998/1533: Planning permission to erect four industrial units with associated access, parking and turning area – approved with conditions 05/01/2001 CONSTRAINTS The site is within the defined development limits of Brigg shown within Inset 10 of the Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD, although outside Brigg town centre shown within Inset 50. The site lies within flood zone 3, as per the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found insufficient evidence to justify losing the existing employment use and insufficient evidence that the public-facing activity could operate safely beside commercial vehicles.

“However, limited formal evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the unit has been actively marketed for its existing or other suitable employment uses. It is acknowledged that the local plan supports the provision of leisure and recreational facilities, with policy R3 supporting proposals which increase the provision of indoor sports facilities.”

“Conclusion The proposal is unacceptable for two reasons; firstly, insufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the loss of the existing B8 use within an established employment area; and secondly, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed public-facing use would operate safely within the shared private yard, having regard to existing HGV, forklift and commercial vehicle movements.”

Officer report

Consultees and public views

Most public comments supported community and wellbeing benefits, while objections focused on safety, vehicle conflicts, parking, operating hours and lighting.

“TOWN COUNCIL No objection, noting the community support for the proposal. However, requests that highway safety concerns are addressed, including consideration of a site visit during the proposed operating hours. PUBLICITY The proposal has been advertised by site notice and a total of 40 public comments have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant supported the proposal, saying it could operate safely, retain a commercial unit, provide jobs and support local activity.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the busy site and possible conditions, with a suggestion that they visit the site to assess whether risks could be reduced.

“Cllr Ross stated that they were familiar with the site, and that it was in a very busy area, with a range of HGVs, forklifts etc. in constant operation.”

“Cllr Southern suggested a site visit to ascertain whether additional conditions…”

Minutes

The vote

Members rejected a motion to defer the application for a site visit, then carried the substantive motion to refuse permission.

“That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was refused in accordance with the officer report’s recommendations.

“It was moved by Cllr C Ross and seconded by Cllr D Wells –”

“That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.”

Minutes