A BURTON-in-Kendal family want a judicial review after South Lakeland councillors approved a new industrial building and car park opposite their home.

Catherine Betley, of Moss Lane, has slammed the ‘undemocratic’ decision, which saw the application rejected after one vote, but granted after a second.

The second vote was taken after South Lakeland District Council’s Planning Committee failed to come up with adequate reasons for refusal.

Slurry handling manufacturers Storth Ltd want to build a 90m by 16m building to the west of its current Moss Lane site, as well as a new service yard and car parking area.

A similar scheme was rejected in 2013, with the reason given as: “The proposed building would appear overbearing and visually intrusive and the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupants of Burtlands would be significantly harmed.”

Speaking at the committee meeting on Thursday, Mrs Betley pleaded with councillors to do the same again.

“The revised plans are now less than 10m to the south of our property, where we are expected to endure a fully lit carpark and a floodlit turning circle for articulated lorries,” she said.

The new application was recommended for approval by planning officers, with a report saying: “Storth Limited is a locally important employer and has become well-established on this site.”

The report acknowledged the potential for harm to the family’s living conditions, but said: “It is considered that the use and robust enforcement of appropriate landscaping, time, lighting, control of activity on the car-parking area and drainage conditions that neighbouring amenity could be protected.”

MORE TOP STORIES: At the meeting, Cllr Sylvia Emmott proposed a deferral to allow for a proper transport assessment and formal consultation with Holme Parish Council, but was voted down.

A proposal to refuse the application was passed, but when councillors failed to come up with valid reasons for turning the plans down, a second vote was taken, which saw them approved by one vote.

Mrs Betley called the result “the very worst case of injustice in terms of planning decisions.”

“There seems to have been no good reason to have a re-vote - the first vote was clear, as were the reasons for refusal, but it clearly suited the planning department to take another vote until they got a different result,” she said.

But the committee’s chair, Cllr Mary Wilson, said: “It was an application members didn’t favour but you have to act within the constraints of the planning process.

“This means having valid reasons to refuse an application, and members just couldn’t find one.”