The 14 August decision is to grant a 427 m² extension; a final grant was not established. July infiltration evidence did not remove the requirement for agreed drainage and additional SuDS details.
427 m² secure-storage extension has a decision to grant
Council decision, not verified final grant
What the evidence says
The west and north extension provides secure storage at the existing industrial building. The order was signed on 14 August after further information received on 21 July. Its grant recommendation is conditional on no appeal; a final grant was not established.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Industrial suppliers can separate new storage from existing workshop and office space while confirming permission before mobilisation.
What is not established
Final grant, appeal outcome, commencement and supplier appointments were not established.
Inspect the evidence
Planner assessment and signed decision · p.1
Application Received 11 March; FI 21 July · Issued 2026-08-14 · PR/0930/26 signed 14 August; FI received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Application Received 11 March; FI 21 July
Planner assessment and signed decision · p.16
Recommendation; subject to no appeal · Issued 2026-08-14 · PR/0930/26 signed 14 August; FI received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Recommendation; subject to no appeal
Planner assessment and signed decision · p.21
PR/0930/26; signature · Issued 2026-08-14 · PR/0930/26 signed 14 August; FI received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
PR/0930/26; signature
Proposed extension plan and elevations · p.1
FLOOR AREA; proposed extension 427 m² · Issued 2026-03-10 · PH-26-09-004; revision table blank; planning issue; received 11 March · Checked 2026-09-07
FLOOR AREA; proposed extension 427 m²
Drawing separates the new enclosure from existing buildings
March proposal read with August decision
What the evidence says
PH-26-09-004 outlines the west and north storage enclosure in orange, with low-level concrete, vertical cladding and roller doors. Existing walls, offices and external container storage are separately identified. This is a March planning issue, not a construction specification.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Envelope and steelwork teams can scope interfaces instead of pricing the entire existing premises as new work.
What is not established
Structural connections, final products and installed equipment were not verified. The printed total-area arithmetic is not adopted as a headline.
Inspect the evidence
Proposed extension plan and elevations · p.1
KEY; proposed extension outlined in orange; elevations and sections · Issued 2026-03-10 · PH-26-09-004; revision table blank; planning issue; received 11 March · Checked 2026-09-07
KEY; proposed extension outlined in orange; elevations and sections
July soakaway sizing still needs drainage agreement
Submitted July design subject to August condition
What the evidence says
The FI drawing specifies at least 24.55 m³ free storage and depicts a 33 m by 1 m by 0.80 m effective-depth soakaway with a silt trap. Condition 2 nevertheless requires pre-commencement written agreement of the surface-water layout and cross-sections, connections, soakaway overflow and additional SuDS with overflow.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Civil teams need the complete overflow and public-sewer interface, not only the storage volume.
What is not established
Agreed final drainage, as-built infiltration performance and a purchased crate system were not established.
Inspect the evidence
FI site and soakaway plan · p.1
SOAKAWAY; min 24.55 m³; cross section · Issued 2026-07-21 · PH-26-09-002; FI revision 21 July; base 10 March · Checked 2026-09-07
SOAKAWAY; min 24.55 m³; cross section
Planner assessment and signed decision · p.16
Condition 2; Surface Water Plan · Issued 2026-08-14 · PR/0930/26 signed 14 August; FI received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Condition 2; Surface Water Plan
Conditions prioritise above-ground SuDS and permeable surfacing
Drainage hierarchy in the council decision
What the evidence says
Condition 3 separates foul and surface water, prioritises above-ground SuDS, and requires certified BRE365 soakaways or demonstrated and agreed alternatives where the preceding options are infeasible. Altered hardstanding must use permeable surfacing. These are design requirements, not installed measures.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Drainage and paving teams need feasibility evidence and an agreed discharge route before selecting the system.
What is not established
Later compliance, certification and completed works were not reviewed.
Inspect the evidence
Planner assessment and signed decision · p.17
Condition 3; above ground SuDS; BRE365; permeable surface · Issued 2026-08-14 · PR/0930/26 signed 14 August; FI received 21 July · Checked 2026-09-07
Condition 3; above ground SuDS; BRE365; permeable surface
The declared pages of these government-published PDFs were visually inspected. Other catalogue files, later compliance, procurement and installed specifications were not established. Historical weekly membership is retained separately from these document dates.