Company's expansion plan provokes backlash from residents
A COMPANY wants to extend a warehouse in Rotherham, before the original building is even finished - and has run into opposition from residents as a result.
Councillors will have to decide on the proposal when they meet on April 10, which their professional planners are suggesting should be granted, but with conditions in place.
The company involved is called MTL, with the site at Grange Lane in Brinsworth.
It borders the boundary with Sheffield and the closest homes, around 140 metres away, are in Ferrars Road, Sheffield, with the Phoenix golf course also nearby.
The site had previously been an area of hardstanding and the extension would be added to the rear and side of the warehouse recently approved at the site.
At the rear, the extension would be enclosed, though the side would be open with a canopy, for storage.
If approved, it would increase the building’s ‘footprint’ by 1,237 square metres, extending out almost 15 metres at the rear, with a maximum roof height of 11 metres.
However, the application has brought a string of criticisms, contained in six letters to the council.
They accuse MTL of abusing the planning process by submitting “high volumes of perceived smaller applications in order to create the impression of reduced impacts.”
MTL is also accused being “in continued breach of other planning applications which have been issued conditionally, so on that basis alone, until their breaches have been fully investigated and dealt with then this application should be put on hold.”
In addition concerns have been raised about noise generated from the extension.
Another states: “Residents think the council seems to continue to wave through these applications regardless of impacts and reinforces my opinion that they are being advised to put applications in this way in order to get them approved.”
Planners have advised councillors “the principle of the development on this allocated employment site is acceptable.”
The proposal is to use the extension for storage, though the planners acknowledge that if fabrication equipment was used in that area, it would create “the potential for disturbance” and suggests a planning condition to prevent that.
They also state that the objections “mainly relate to matters which are not material planning considerations”.