Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 3No business units within the business park with additional vehicle parking and ancillary works.

Applicant: Winkworth

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 309 to 344.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarification that the application had been listed by Councillor Stuart Munro due to the impact of the development on the countryside and the increased level of activity on the site having further adverse effects on traffic levels and highway safety.

Ian Fullerton, Swallowfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Ian stated that there had been an increase in intensity on the site over the past years, and whilst the Parish Council supports the applicants contribution to the rural economy and local employment, there comes a point when the growing intensity of this otherwise beneficial development became unsustainable for the local community whilst being a threat to the safety of neighbouring residents. The Parish Council’s primary concern related to the proximity of the site to Lamb’s Lane Primary School, which was situated a short distance from the entry to the site. The school felt that existing traffic levels were already excessive, and there was already anxiety amongst parents with regards to the risks to their children. Ian stated that the school operated from the morning till early evening, and the catchment area for the school meant that many pupils and parents used pavements immediately opposite the site entrance to walk children to and from school. In addition, there were two houses directly opposite the site entrance which had been misrepresented within the original application. With the risk of accident a real possibility, the Parish Council felt that traffic levels needed to be reduced on Back Lane, and not increased even marginally. Ian queried when incremental growth of the site would end, and stated that the Parish Council strongly opposed the application.

Roderic Vaughan, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Roderic stated that the business park was established in 1998, and 35 subsequent planning applications had since been submitted. Over this time, the site had expanded by eight-hundred percent from 0.5 hectares to 8 hectares, with the site operating 24/7 and 365 days per year. Roderic added that the entrance to the business park was situated just 50m from the junction on Back Lane and a similar distance to Lambs Lane primary school, with two residential properties located directly opposite the site entrance which had been ignored in this planning application. The business park was located within the rural parish of Swallowfield and was not located within a designated area for major development. Roderic stated that expansion in this sensitive area had continued despite Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) stating in 2012 that there was only scope for limited further development. In 2016 it was stated that development was fully developed when a proposal to build towards Lambs Lane to the west was refused at appeal. Roderic was of the opinion that expansion under the pretext of limited further development had become deeply flawed, and the cumulative negative impacts on the environment, highway safety, the local amenity and on need for any development to be sustainable were now being ignored. Roderic added that the proposal conflicted with a number of WBC policies, including sustainable development as there was no contribution to net zero carbon. Roderic stated that residents had objected to this application on the grounds of high building density, whilst attempts to previously list the site as a core employment area had failed which would have allowed for planned future development. Roderic concluded by stating that any development needed to be sustainable and not negatively impact its surrounding area, and on this basis the application should be refused.

Chris Hough, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Chris stated that the applicant was a private family-owned business which had owned and managed the business park for over 20 years. Chris added that the site met the needs of a variety of small businesses through the provision of flexible space, whilst the site was predominantly occupied by local businesses. The site was meticulously managed and maintained and enjoyed a high level of security, with close access to the motorway and a spacious layout. Chris stated that there was a continued strong demand for space on the site which operated at a one-hundred percent occupancy level with any vacancies usually filled very quickly through local advertisement. The business park had grown incrementally over time in accordance with planning policies, whilst this proposal was for 3 additional small commercial units. The site was previously developed land and needed to be viewed in the context of the existing large adjacent buildings. Chris stated that no objections had been received from highways officers, and he urged the Committee to approve the application which was of small scale and was in accordance with planning policies and guidance.

Stuart Munro, ward member, spoke in objection to the application. Stuart stated that he had lived near the site for 36 years and had seen the site change from a small farm building to a very large site through incremental development. Stuart commented that he did not list applications lightly, however there was so much local resistance to this application and the previous inspectors decisions citing the lack of need for additional development needed to be considered. Stuart stated that there was so much concern in relation to the school that there was a project underway within the highways department to consider restricting traffic from the north to the builders’ merchants only and from the south to the business park only, not allowing it to traverse to the schools. Stuart noted that this evidenced that the highways departments did have some concerns regarding this site. Stuart stated that the site had increased in size by eight-hundred percent, and urged the Committee to be consistent with previous appeal decisions and refuse further development within this countryside area.

Stephen Conway stated that a lot of concerns had been raised with regards to highways, and the Committee had been given professional advice from highways officers stating that this application had been assessed and no objection had been raised. With regards to further expansion within the countryside, the officer opinion was that this application constituted an appropriate rural enterprise within the countryside. Stephen queried why this application did not represent excessive encroachment significantly away from the original buildings. Marcus Watts, case officer, stated that the three proposed units represented further limited development of the site within the constraints of the site. The planning history indicated that the east of the site was considered as being in close proximity to the original farm buildings, which was referenced in the appeal decision in 2016. Towards the west of the site was far more open than the southeast corner. The NPPF was clear that previously developed land needed to be considered, including the curtilage of the developed land, and the officer opinion was that the proposed development sat comfortably amongst the existing buildings and were within the curtilage of the site.

Stephen Conway queried whether there would come a point where further applications to expand the site to the western boundary and the open countryside would become unacceptable. Marcus Watts stated that any future application would need to be determined on its own merits, however the inspector had indicated that the west was moving towards open countryside whilst the east had already been identified as acceptable for these business units.

Gary Cowan stated that the site had grown over time and was located next to a local primary school. Gary felt that what was being proposed was in all likelihood a limit to the possible development on the site, and he would be comfortable to approve this application if further expansion to the west was deemed inappropriate.

John Kaiser queried whether this additional proposed development would force vehicles to park off-site and on the road. Marcus Watts stated that highways officers had assessed the scheme and were content that it was very unlikely for off-road parking to occur as a result of this application. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and Compliance, stated that there was already a fair section of double yellow lines and zig-zag zones outside of the school and very near to the application site. Only one slight accident had been recorded on this road over the last 5 years involving only 1 vehicle, whilst the school had a good pick up and drop off zone which kept the road clear.

David Cornish queried whether the speed limit on Back Lane was 20mph already, and if not whether this could be a consideration, as many schools in the Borough had this arrangement. Chris Easton stated that physical measures were usually required to restrict an area to 20mph at all times, and required enforcement from the police. Marcus Watts confirmed that 20mph advisory flashing signs during school drop of and collection times were in place along Back Lane.

RESOLVED That application number 220034 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 310 to 313.