Kirkstall container site plans: Local objections were ‘misreported’

16 October 2015

Share this post:

Revised plans to house 48 shipping containers at the St Ann’s Mills site in Kirkstall will finally be considered by councillors next week – after a number of objections had been accidentally left out of a council report.

The initial application was due to be discussed at last month’s south and west plans panel meeting but a final decision on the proposals, by Big MC’s Container Storage, was deferred due to the omission of ten local objections.

A new report ahead of next Thursday’s plans meeting admits the number of objections had been ‘misreported’ after Kirkstall councillor John Illingworth had queried the numbers. The report stresses the missing objections raised no new issues and also states that the ‘ownership of the site was not as originally advised by the applicant’ and advises of a change to the boundary of the site.

As previously reported, Big MC’s Container Storage, off Kirkstall Road, has already sited 48 small (half-size) blue steel shipping containers on the northern, predominantly open part of the site, without the necessary planning permission.

The company is seeking retrospective application to gain formal approval for the change of use of the land which hosts the containers, which are rented to members of the public for storage of personal items such as furniture.

Residents have raised issues over the obstruction of the public access to the mills by a gate on council land, loss of employment land, impact on future plans to incorporate the site into a larger Kirkstall Valley Park masterplan and screening issues.

Planning officers are recommending that the proposals are approved by councillors, claiming most of the issues raised have been resolved.

Check out the report in full below:

St Anns Mills, Commercial Road, Kirkstall by John Baron

The south and west plans panel meets at Leeds Civic Hall next Thursday, 1.30pm. Members of the public can attend.


Share this post:

Article tags

Share this article

Comment on this article