Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for proposed change of use to provide light industrial (Use Class B1) and internal and external storage and distribution (Use Class B8) on the site with associated parking

Applicant: Palmarium Properties Limited

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 56.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification that the first sentence of paragraph 1 on page 33 should refer to there being three existing buildings on site;

·           Further clarification relating to Policy CP15;

·           Additional submissions received since the publication of the agenda, and associated officer comments.

Chris Bowring stated that the Committee had been on a site visit to the subject application site. Pauline Jorgensen stated that she had not been able to visit the site. Justin Turvey, Team Manager (Development & Regeneration), clarified that not attending the site visit did not preclude a Member from voting on an application.

Gareth Rees, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Gareth stated that he was speaking on behalf of a number of Reading Road residents. Gareth was of the opinion that the proposed development was contrary to Policy CP11 as it was an inappropriate increase in size. Gareth stated that the B usage of the site only extended to building 2, with the remainder of the site being classified for agricultural usage. Gareth was of the opinion that the proposals did not meet the requirements of Policy CP11, being neither diverse nor rural. Gareth stated that the site would have an inadequate turning circle for heavy goods vehicle (HGVs) and that it had not taken account of the provision for waste storage. Gareth added that the transport statement had inaccurate access vehicle tracking and the visibility splays were inadequate being 60m rather than 120m. Gareth asked that should this application be approved, additional conditions be added regarding enforcement action, hard fencing, limiting vehicle weight to 3.5 tonnes and limiting the on-site businesses to diverse and rural enterprises.

Robin Henderson, agent, spoke in favour of the application. Robin stated that the site was well contained and was currently in a neglected and redundant state, and was in need of meaningful use. Robin added that the applicant had engaged in consultation with officers throughout the planning process, and the applicant had received expressions of interest from businesses for usage of the site. Robin stated that B1 usage was suitable for a residential environment, and it was unlikely that there would be increased vehicle movements than would have resulted from previous planning approval on the site. Robin added that the proposals would improve the sight lines on Reading Road, and the requested planning permission would not facilitate a Collards Waste operation. Robin stated that the proposals were necessary to provide local employment, generate a much needed improvement to the site whilst having a low impact on the surrounding area.

Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the site had been tracked for large HGVs, and an adequate and maintained turning space was conditioned. Visibility splays had been deemed acceptable after assessing data from the speed survey, and the proposals would result in an improvement to the current situation on Reading Road. Judy stated that the ‘left in and left out’ turns were the tightest manoeuvres and that was the reason why these had been assessed.

Simon Taylor, Case Officer, stated that Condition 4 required additional detail regarding boundary treatment, including additional fencing and landscaping.

Abdul Loyes asked for additional clarification regarding Policy CP11. Simon Taylor stated that although the proposals breached Policy CP11 as it referred to a rural enterprise, the existing lawful business use was a strong material consideration. The NPPF gave provision for expansion of an existing business within reason, and the proposals were deemed to be an appropriate expansion of the existing site.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether it could be conditioned to prevent a Collards operation on site, whether the visibility splays were impacted by the size of the vehicles, whether the shared pedestrian and vehicular access could be improved by condition, and asked for confirmation that the existing buildings would be retained with no new building construction planned. Simon Taylor stated that there was nothing to stop a Collards operation, however a skip hire business would require a suis generis use classification and would also be restricted by the limited Class B8 external storage given the required turning circle on site. In addition, it would unfairly restrict the applicant to not be allowed to operate on site. Simon stated that no new buildings would be constructed as part of this application, and the existing buildings would be reused. Judy Kelly stated that the visibility splays were based on the recorded speed of traffic, with a speed survey having been completed.  Judy added that the visibility splays met standards, and the shared access was already existing and was not deemed to be a highways concern.

Stephen Conway queried why the trip rate was calculated to be lower than the existing vehicle movements, and whether a condition stating a reasonable vehicle weight was necessary to reassure residents. Judy Kelly stated that the trip rate was based on a national database, specifically looking at the standard trip rates for B use classes for the site. Simon Taylor stated that the access was proposed to be widened, and the previous restriction to 3.5 tonnes was related to a 17 person minibus, and not conditioning a weight limit was not deemed to cause significant harm to the road network or neighbour amenity.

Gary Cowan queried the fencing proposals, queried why not having a vehicle weight limit was deemed to not cause harm when a 3.5 tonne limit was previously imposed, queried why the northbound traffic exiting the access road was not covered within the transport statement, and requested that the hours should be limited to an 8am start as was standard for other sites. Simon Taylor stated that the fencing was conditioned, with fencing between building 2 and the northern boundary to be constructed with additional landscaping. The 7.30am start time was based on previous conditions. Judy Kelly stated that vehicle access was due to be widened, and the left turn was the tightest manoeuvre and was therefore tracked. It was confirmed that the northbound access was deemed acceptable in highways terms.

Carl Doran queried why the existing 3.5 tonne vehicle weight limit should not remain considering the whole access road was not due to be widened, and whether a gate would be constructed to allow pedestrian access to the other site. Simon Taylor stated that beyond number 80A Reading Road the access was only for the subject application site and there would therefore be no other pedestrians on this stretch other than those entering the application site. Resultantly, there would be low conflict between vehicles and pedestrians on this stretch of road. Simon stated that a gate would be subject to details.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried what weight limit was imposed on vehicles associated with the sawmill. Simon Taylor stated that the mill was a historic usage, and had no planning permission. In addition, there were no traffic number datasets related to the mill, however the proposed widening of the access road would benefit any vehicles travelling to or from the mill.

Pauline Jorgensen queried what percentage of the road would be made into two-way access. Simon Taylor stated that approximately 60 percent of the road would be made into a two-way access, which would reduce the potential for traffic conflict on 60 percent of the road. Judy Kelly stated that a maximum of 19 vehicle movements per hour were expected, and the part of the road that was not due to be widened had good visibility to allow vehicles to wait for an oncoming vehicle. Two 2.6m wide vehicles could pass by side by side on the widened stretch of road.

Angus Ross was of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to impose a vehicle weight restriction for this site if there was no such restriction for the BT site or mill which both used the access road.

Angus Ross queried whether the site levels, as stated, were correct. Simon Taylor stated that there were no proposed changes to the site levels.

Malcolm Richards queried what would be the maximum weight of vehicle that could travel down this access road should the weight limit be unrestricted. Judy Kelly stated that a vehicle of 44 tonnes, the same permitted on other highways, could use this access road. The maximum vehicle length would be approximately 16.5m.

Pauline Jorgensen queried why a 3.5 tonne vehicle weight limit was felt acceptable to impose before, but not considered acceptable to impose now. Simon Taylor stated that the previous vehicle weight limit was due to the access road width, and to provide certainty on the types of buses (minibuses) accessing the site. Simon added that the proposals were acceptable on traffic access grounds with the proposed widening.

Gary Cowan was of the opinion that there needed to be conditions regarding vehicle weight restriction, a substantial boundary fence and, an 8am start time. Chris Bowring queried whether a vehicle weight restriction condition was necessary and reasonable. Justin Turvey stated that a restriction to this site would still allow unrestricted vehicle weights for the mill and the BT site.

Gary Cowan proposed an additional condition, delegating officers to assess a reasonable vehicle weight limit and condition it to the subject application site. This proposal was seconded by Pauline Jorgensen, passed, and added to the list of conditions as set out in the officer recommendation.

Gary Cowan proposed that a 2m boundary fence be conditioned, and an 8am opening time be conditioned. This was seconded, passed, and added to the list of conditions as set out in the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED That application number 193059 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 16 to 22, and additional three conditions as resolved by the Committee.