Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of 5 no. buildings for commercial development to provide flexible light industrial, general industrial, and storage and distribution uses, with ancillary offices, associated car parking, formation of new accesses, and landscape planting, following demolition of existing buildings.

Applicant: HE2 Reading 1 GP Limited

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 51 to 134.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Correction to paragraph 11 to state that the scheme would produce 222 to 433 jobs;

·         Clarification that Members had received an email from a resident at Lily May Court, located to the west of the site, however the concerns raised related to existing impacts which occurred outside of the red line boundary of the site.  Therefore, it was not considered materially relevant to the scheme as the planning application was only required to resolve impacts caused by the proposed development;

·         Confirmation that an increase of 3 HGV movements per hour was expected as a result of the proposals, which was considered a minor increase which would not result in harm in planning terms to the extent as a reason for refusal.

Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Keith stated that officers had often repeated that applications must focus on the red line boundary and could not be expected to rectify existing issues outside of this area, which was correct up to a point. Keith added that the cumulative effect of this application on the immediate area must be considered, and there had been no response from officers with regards to this. Keith stated that an additional 3 HGV movements per hour had been identified within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, however no justification had been provided for this, and Keith queried how many HGV movements were currently carried out on site. Keith stated that the access for HGVs was via a very narrow strip of land, which restricted the number of HGVs that could access the site currently, which gave an artificially low basepoint for the suggested increase of 3 HGVs per hour. Keith added that there was in practice one company operating on site, and the narrow access suggested that the nature of their work did not require many HGV movements, whilst the contrasting proposals included 10 new units each with their own HGV parking slots with many having 3 slots for HGVs. Keith stated that assumptions had been made in relation to the suggested increase of 3 HGV movements per hour, however this information had not been made public. Keith asked that the application be refused.

Kai Meade, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Kai stated that with regards to the letter received from Lily May Court, one of the core NPPF objectives was to ensure that planning decisions were made to provide appropriate development for its location including the cumulative effect of pollution on health. Kai felt that the Committee was being asked to consider this application under the caveat that the development was not new, when in reality the development would have a much larger industrial footprint than the existing development. Kai felt that the fact that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) environmental health officers had not raised an objection to this application was beyond belief. Kai questioned how an additional 20 individual HGV loading bays had been calculated to increase HGV movements by only 3 per hour, whilst the previously requested thorough detailed assessment of additional HGV movements had not been provided. Planning and environmental health officers had stated that the applicant had agreed to only allow access to the site from Headley Road East except for a short section of Viscount Way required to access units 9 and 10, whilst the impact of the assessment report stated that there would be an adverse impact by day and a significant adverse impact by night on residents due to units 9 and 10. Kai questioned how this application could be approved when it was going to hurt people.

Julian Temple, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Julian stated that his comments were made on behalf of local residents and subject specific experts within Aviation Heritage UK and the wider Miles Aircraft community, whilst he had over 40 years of experience with historic aviation buildings. Having carried out consultancy works for Historic England, Julian felt that their own specialist knowledge of aviation was limited. Julian added that his own site visit last week found much more additional historic fabric surviving inside the main offices than was reported, suggesting that Historic England inspectors unfamiliarity with buildings of this type. As a non-designated heritage asset the offices were inherently locally important, and how far the later use and the loss of the airfield setting diminished their importance was debatable. Julian stated that the exterior of the building was relatively unaltered, and it was easy to imagine its former aviation use, especially within the context of local aviation related road names. Julian was disappointed to see nothing noticeably new in relation to heritage issues within the planning officers report, and he had also expected a longer deferral to properly address the issues previously raised.

Andy Ryley, agent, spoke in support of the application. Andy stated that the site was within a core employment area, with intensification of employment use required by policy. Andy added that the determination of any application must focus on the red line boundary, and the application could not be used to fix wider issues outside of this area beyond the applicant’s control. Andy stated that the cumulative impact issue raised at the previous Committee could only be material if the scheme was for new employment development, and not redevelopment of previous employment development as proposed. With regards to air quality, Andy stated that the current uncontrolled heavy industrial use was more harmful than the proposed light industrial use, whilst the neighbouring residents would have been aware that they were moving next to an industrial site and HGV movements at the adjacent site moved within 3 metres of Lily May Court whereas there be no movements closer than 63 metres from the building at the proposed development. Andy stated that the proposals would not exacerbate the existing levels of particulates, which were at low levels as identified within the TRL report as commissioned by WBC. As such, Andy stated that there would be no decrease to the air quality and any noise impacts could be successfully mitigated. Andy added that the site had been fully assessed by Historic England and the Secretary of State, whilst the site was not locally or statutory listed or within a conservation area of an area of local character. Andy stated that it was recognised that the site was of local interest due to its former use at Woodley airfield, and as such it was regarded as a non-heritage asset where a balanced judgement was required. In assessing this balance the significance and site context were important, however little historic fabric remained and there was no understanding or experience that aircraft manufacturing or repair occurred there. Andy stated that the airfield was long gone, and the buildings had been significantly altered and used for non-aviation commercial uses for a significant period of time. Andy stated that the benefits of the scheme included between 222 and 433 new jobs, both skilled and unskilled, in addition to the existing occupier remaining within Wokingham whilst relocating to the Suttons business park, whilst 20 vehicle movements would be removed from Viscount Way per day, in addition to around 2700m² of additional commercial floorspace within modern energy efficient buildings. Andy added that other benefits included increased separation distances to homes on the eastern side by at least 7.5m with enhanced landscaping, reduced noise from the current use due through improved design and orientation of buildings, 100 trees being planted, new wildlife habitats created, a contribution to WBC’s employment skills plan, whilst the applicant was also willing to provide a small memorial or plaque at the front of the site to recognise the previous use of the site. Andy agreed with the planning officer’s judgement that the balanced judgement weighed heavily in favour of the benefits of the scheme whilst according with national and local planning policy, and asked that the application be approved.

Shirley Boyt, ward member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that she was disappointed to see that whilst some of the concerns raised by members and residents at the last meeting had been listened to, others had been discounted or ignored. Shirley stated that nothing new had been presented by officers in terms of the heritage aspects of the building, and queried what steps had been taken to evaluate whether the façade of the building could be maintained, or whether alternative protections such as local listing had been explored. Shirley stated that existing HGV movements on the site were between 7 and 10 per day, whilst the additional information received showed an additional increase of 3 HGV movements per hour, or over 100 movements per week. Shirley noted that if one or more of the units were to become a distribution centre this number would significantly increase, and asked for modelling on this and the worst case scenario for HGV movements. Shirley felt that signage alone would not stop drivers using a navigation system from turning into Viscount Way using Miles Way. Shirley queried how vehicles turning onto Viscount Way in error would be prevented from using Gemini Road, a residential road, to access Headley Road East. Shirley felt that the splay would have to be redesigned so that no vehicles could turn right into that service road. Shirley raised concern that if enforcement of the access condition and implementation of the delivery and service plan was left to the site owner or the tenant, it would not be carried out. Shirley queried what power WBC would retain to ensure that good practice was maintained at all times. Shirley questioned why the cumulative impact of pollution was not material, as it was material to residents who were in despair at the prospect of additional noise and pollution. Shirley stated that unit 10 would be far too close to dwellings at Bakers Place and felt that the proposed mitigation was inadequate, and queried why an environmental impact assessment was not needed. Shirley stated that the cumulative impact of noise and airborne pollution from this development must be considered within the context of the wider area as per paragraph 185 of the NPPF. Shirley acknowledged that the new application could not be expected to resolve existing problems, but equally it should not be allowed to make things worse. Shirley stated that the health and wellbeing of residents should outweigh all other considerations, and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Stephen Conway stated that there were three main concerns with this application, being noise, air quality and the design and heritage aspect of the proposals. Stephen added that the expert professional advice presented in relation to highways including HGV movements and environmental health concerns including noise and air pollution would require the Committee to evidence convincing data to be able to challenge this advice, as otherwise this would be difficult to defend at appeal. Stephen stated that the air quality survey carried out at Lily May Court was undertaken during the winter months when air particulate levels were lower, and noted that a deferral could allow for a further survey to be undertaken over the summer to assess whether the situation was any different. Stephen noted that in the event of a further deferral, the applicant would be very likely to go straight to appeal on non-determination, which would be unfortunate as residents wanted to find a way to retain the heritage asset. Whilst Historic England did not feel the site was worth of listing, the NPPF stated that a balanced judgement was required when assessing non-designated heritage assets. The officer judgement was that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the significance of the building, whereas the alternate view of a significant amount of local residents was that the building was of significant historic value and should be preserved. Stephen was of the opinion that the only ground to refuse the application at present was as it failed to preserve the non-designated heritage asset, as the NPPF allowed for a balanced view to be taken on this particular ground, whereas issues such as highways and environmental health would require specific data and evidence to go against the expert professional advice given.

Gary Cowan stated that there was a balanced view to be taken with regards to the non-designated heritage asset. Gary added that paragraph nine of the report outlined benefits including reduced noise from the current use through improved design and orientation of the buildings, which could not be quantified as information had not been provided as to what would be present within the buildings, for example a distribution centre. With reference to not making existing problems outside of the red line worse, Gary stated that the red line could be seen as inconsequential as at the Arborfield Garrison SDL a portion of land outside of the red line was granted development due to the proximity to facilities within the red line boundary. Gary felt that until the specific details of vehicle movements and use of the site were provided, he could not support the application. Gary added that you could not stop drivers using the road with a sign unless there were barriers in place. Gary commented that the trees planted on the site should be monitored to ensure that they survived and grew. Graham Vaughan, case officer, stated that any reference to a distribution centre was incorrect as the scheme was not for a large scale warehouse but instead was an application for mixed use B2,B8 and E(g)iii, within relatively small units. The current site had no restrictions on the amount of hours worked or on delivery times, whilst proposed units 1 to 8 were deliberately placed to allow all activity to occur within two buildings. Graham stated that the officer recommendation, supported by technical consultees, was that the impacts in terms of noise and pollution would be no worse than at present, and it was important to understand the red line boundary and what development surrounded it. Graham noted that whilst it did fall to WBC to monitor tree planting, the resources required to monitor all trees relating to planning applications in the Borough was unrealistic. Graham stated that the delivery and service plan would assist in stopping HGV vehicles using the wrong roads, whilst signage would also be included and the applicant would write this into the lease of the units, though this specific aspect was not materially relevant to the scheme. Gary raised concerns that the site could be allowed to operate at all times, creating considerable issues for residents, whilst it was disappointing that trees were not surveyed during the 5-year plan which went against the declared climate emergency.

Chris Bowring stated that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application on highways or environmental health grounds, this would go against the professional technical advice given. Chris queried how members might consider the additional HGV movements as a reason for refusal when this was currently unrestricted. Graham Vaughan stated that determination needed to be made of the harm in planning terms of additional HGV movements as a result of the proposals whilst considering the existing situation. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and Compliance, commented that the existing floorspace was approximately 14,000m², and the proposals did not show a significant increase, whilst officers had assessed the trip rates on the floorspace of the existing buildings and added the increase in floorspace, giving and additional 3 HGV movements per hour. The parking management plan was conditioned, and additional details could be worked up with the Parish Council and local members, whilst a lot of buildings would not facilitate HGVs due to their smaller size.

Chris Bowring commented that should the application be approved, environmental health officers could get involved with the site should the situation be worse than anticipated.

John Kaiser felt that very little information had been provided with regards to the future use of the site, whilst it was known that residents would be living next door to it 24/7. John stated that he could not support the application in the absence of these details. John felt that a residential and industrial mix was not the best use of the land.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried what the NPPF said in terms of cumulative impact, sought details as to what investigation had taken place to retain the façade of the building, queried what the main sources of noise and air pollution were currently on the site and the reasoning for an expected reduction based on the proposals, and queried whether the secretary of state had responded to Historic England’s decision to not list the building. Graham Vaughan stated that no discussions had been undertaken in relation to the façade as this was not a requirement of the planning process, and the Committee were here to determine the planning application in front of them and officers had made a balanced judgement which was that the benefits of the proposals were deemed to outweigh the local impact. However, the Committee was perfectly at liberty to overturn this recommendation if they felt the balance went the other way. Historic England had visited the site and had considered local evidence and had decided not to list it, whilst the Secretary of State had confirmed this decision.

David Cornish stated that the site appeared in need of work during the recent site visit, and noted that if the site remained as industrial use, then this would attract additional HGV movements. Whilst highways officers could come up with measures to restrict vehicle movements, air pollution would not respect the red line boundary. David questioned whether the heritage concern was with the fabric of the building or with the historic use of the building, in which case a monument could represent the previous use. David added that there had been a significant amount of comments and concerns raised by residents, and felt that deferral would be an appropriate option to allow an updated proposal from the applicant, an updated air quality assessment carried out during the summer months, and additional details relating to vehicle movements. Graham Vaughan stated that deferral of the application would increase the risk of an appeal, and the application needed to deferred or refused on the right grounds to avoid costs being awarded at an appeal. In addition, an inspector may not necessarily concur with the recommended conditions which may result in the same development with less conditions and costs being awarded.

Stephen Conway stated that the Committee was faced with a difficult decision, as a deferral would very likely result in an appeal, whilst the only solid ground for refusal was that the NPPF allowed local planning authorities to take a balanced view on non-designated heritage assets. Stephen stated that he placed very significant weight on the views of a vast number of local residents, who saw this building as a vital part of the built heritage of Woodley.

Chris Bowring commented that the petition of 4,500 residents in favour of retaining this building carried weight.

Gary Cowan felt that the report was flawed as it did not provide sufficient information regarding HGV movements, whilst he was disheartened to hear about costs being awarded as that was not a material consideration. Stephen Conway stated that a refusal based solely on failure to retain a non-designated heritage asset did not prejudice interested parties addressing a future planning inspector on issues such as air quality.

Stephen Conway proposed to refuse the application based on the failure to preserve the Miles Aircraft Factory Headquarters building or façade. Stephen sought officer guidance on this reason for refusal.

Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that this was a complex application with lots of competing issues, and the officer balance was not a binary decision with some aspects being more quantifiable and others, such as future occupancy, less so. If the Committee were minded to defer the application, clear reasons needed to be given as to what differences were present at this point compared to when the application was previously deferred. With regards to the proposed wording for a potential refusal motion, Brian stated that reference to the façade was not necessarily as strong as the proposal was to remove the building and therefore that removal was the harm in planning terms.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be refused as it failed to preserve the Miles Aircraft Factory Headquarters building. This was seconded by John Kaiser, and upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED That application number 213106 be refused as it failed to preserve the Miles Aircraft Factory Headquarters building.