Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application for a new business park development, including: 1. Full permission for the provision of a new site access off the B4063, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure; and 2. Outline permission for a mixed use development comprising of Class B1, B2 and B8 employment use on 5.9 hectares of land.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Minded to Permit.

57.2          This was a hybrid planning application for a new business park development, including 1) full permission for the provision of a new site access off the B4063, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure; and 2) outline permission for a mixed use development comprising of Class B1, B2 and B8 employment use on 5.9 hectares of land.

57.3          The Planning Officer explained that the application site comprised of a 5.9 hectare parcel of land which fell within Gloucestershire airport and currently formed part of the northern side of the airfield. The application site was located predominantly in the Green Belt and within the ‘essential operational area’ of the airport. 3.8 hectares of the application site was proposed to be allocated as a major employment site in the emerging local plan and the Borough Council had sought to work positively with the applicant to explore the inclusion of the remaining western 2.1 hectares of land as a major employment site through the examination process and the local plan inspector would be asked to consider the western parcel of land as part of the examination. The application had been revised during the planning application process and the size of the application site had been reduced from 8.5 hectares to 5.9 hectares further to objections received from existing businesses operating at the airport. The amended application had been submitted as a hybrid application and sought full permission for the provision of a new site access, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure and outline permission with all matters reserved, besides access, for a mixed-use development comprising of employment uses. The design and access statement confirmed that the total gross internal floor area generated through the development would be up to 30,000sqm. Planning permission was being sought ahead of the adoption of the emerging local plan to release an initial £1.885 million of grant funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership for Gloucestershire through the Local Growth Deal 3, which would facilitate the essential infrastructure enabling works necessary to deliver the employment location. A number of objections had also been received to the application raising concerns about potential impacts on existing operators as a result of the development. The applicant had made amendments to the proposal by reducing the site area to alleviate some of those concerns which had resulted in the removal of objections from some tenants. However, objections did remain from some existing tenants at the airport that the proposal would impact on operations. Members were advised that air safety issues were a matter for the airport and it was not the role of the planning authority to regulate those matters, however, Officers considered that the revised site boundary, together with the revised operating procedures for helicopter flying, had alleviated some of those concerns. Further to the completion of the Committee report, a consultation response had been received from the County Highways Authority, advising that it had undertaken a full assessment of the planning application and had no objection subject to conditions and planning obligations. This response was summarised in the additional representations sheet and the applicant had advised that it was willing to enter into the requested planning obligations. It was concluded by Officers that the proposed development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be approved except in very special circumstances - the application would permanently harm the openness of the Green Belt on the application site. It was also concluded that the harm arising from the proposed development would be moderate in regard to the purposes of the Green Belt. However, there were economic and job creation benefits arising from the proposal as the proposed development would contribute to economic growth generally, and attract businesses which required an airport location, and would allow for the retention and expansion of existing businesses that had outgrown their current premises. As such it was considered that very special circumstances existed in this case which clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and other identified harms and it was therefore recommended that permission be delegated to the Development Manager

57.4          The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. The objector indicated that he was speaking on behalf of a number of the airport’s own users and tenants who had strong opposition to the application as submitted. He explained that he was a former Operations Director at the airport and now ran a business based on Meteor Business Park. He fully understood the airport’s need to develop its property portfolio and he was familiar with its planning status as he had worked on its Joint Core Strategy submissions identifying areas of the airport that would be suitable for development. However, there were three key areas which he wished the Committee to consider: safety and operations – the airport acknowledged that reducing the amount of space available for flying training had a negative impact. The land areas identified in the original Joint Core Strategy submission acknowledged this, but the recent proposed amendments described the area earmarked for this development as ‘redundant’. That was categorically not the case and, as a resident of Meteor Business Park, he could confirm that it was in daily use. In addition, helicopters, in particular those undertaking initial and advanced emergency training, required more space than during normal operations. The airport had proposed to trial new procedures, moving them closer to the main runway but COVID had prevented them from doing so and, as such, they had not been rigorously safety tested. Based on his previous professional experience as an air traffic controller, having personally been involved in developing the previous procedures, and as a private pilot, he did not believe the trial would work so the only viable option for air traffic control to safely integrate air traffic within the new constraints would be to limit and reduce the number of both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft flying; noise - when the applications for the Runway Safety Project were submitted in 2006, the airport was required to undertake extensive noise modelling to demonstrate that the proposals would not impact on the local communities. By taking the north-south runway out of operation permanently, airport flight paths would be fundamentally altered yet no such analysis appeared to have been undertaken this time. The new flight paths would result in increased air traffic over Churchdown, the new developments at Innsworth, Longford, Twigworth, Elmbridge Court and Springbank. As a tenant on Meteor Business Park, his business was affected by helicopter noise on a daily basis and, whilst not an issue for him, his visitors and telephone callers did sometimes find the noise levels and disruption surprising. Any future tenants on the proposed development would definitely encounter the same problems; and in terms of aviation business impacts - the hastily revised submission the airport had made, significantly reducing the size of the development, was indicative that the aircraft operators had not been fully or adequately consulted and appeared to be driven by a deadline to obtain Local Enterprise Partnership funding. Furthermore, the wider airport and neighbouring local communities had not been consulted via the normal mechanism of the Gloucestershire Airport Consultative Committee. In summary, he felt the reduction in available space and limitations on air traffic capacity would directly affect some operators from going about their routine business and, whilst the new Business Park may be seen as a catalyst for new jobs, it could be at the expense of high-value, technical jobs associated with current aircraft operations at a time when the aviation industry, already severely affected by COVID, needed support more than ever before.

57.5          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He explained that, through the Joint Core Strategy, the Borough Plan and the Strategic Economic Plan, the airport had been identified as one of the county’s prime locations for economic growth. Furthermore, the airport was acknowledged to be a key regional asset and critical to the existence of many businesses in the county. It was also recognised that the airport needed to develop in order to secure its future. As such, the GFirst LEP had committed nearly £2 million of grant funding to the airport to help deliver employment in this location. With that in mind, the emerging local plan proposed to allocate the land subject of this application for B-Class employment purposes. Upon its adoption, this land would be removed from the Green Belt. The applicant had intended to wait until the local plan’s adoption to advance the application but, due to the local plan delays, and the strict deadline for the use of the Local Enterprise Partnership funding, there was no choice but to bring this forward now. This meant that Very Special Circumstances were required to justify it in the Green Belt. There were a number of such circumstances that supported a decision to grant permission now and those included: meeting the growth strategy of the Joint Core Strategy and Strategic Economic Plan through delivering aviation, cyber tech and engineering development at Staverton, known as the key growth sectors; facilitating the release of £1.85 million of Local Enterprise Partnership funding; leveraging £46 million through private investment over 10-years and a further £45.5 million per year in gross added value; delivering around 1,500 new jobs; attracting high profile businesses to the Borough, which required an airport location; funding the repair of the main runway, which was critical to the airport’s continued operation; and complying with emerging local plan strategy - withholding permission now would only prevent the benefits identified. It was noted that a very small minority of helicopter operators had cited operational limitations. However, the applicant was pleased to see that the majority of the airport tenants were in support. Following amendments to the plans, the two largest helicopter operators, Babcock and Special Aviation Services, had confirmed their support. The airport was fully committed to its tenants and had undertaken to accommodate their operations. It was, first and foremost, a place of aviation and that would remain the case. All other technical planning matters had been fully addressed to the satisfaction of Officers and technical consultees and, through extensive transport modelling, both Highways England and the County Highways supported the application. The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority were satisfied over drainage and the Council’s Environmental Health, Urban Design and Landscape Officers were also in support. It was considered that this was without doubt the most important development the Agent been involved with in Tewkesbury Borough in 18 years and, in line with the emerging local plan aspirations, delivering this now presented massive economic and job creation benefits at a time it was needed most and had the potential to kickstart the county’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as finally securing the long-term viability of the airport, through financial stability and essential runway repairs. He hoped the Committee would feel able to support the application, which needed a positive outcome in order to benefit from the essential Local Enterprise Partnership funding.

57.6          The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was “delegated minded to permit” as it was necessary for the proposals to be referred to the Secretary of State to determine whether to “call-in” the application. The Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded following which a Member questioned the position in relation to County Highways as the Committee report indicated that the County Highways Authority had requested that the application be deferred for additional information to be submitted and, although the applicant had submitted the information, a response was still awaited from County Highways; the Member also questioned whether this would be new information in terms of an updated traffic impact assessment for the whole area or whether reliance would be placed on DS7 which was now out of date. The Planning Officer advised that, as detailed in the additional representations sheet and his presentation, a consultation response had been received from County Highways indicating that a full assessment of the application had now been undertaken and there were no objections subject to conditions and planning obligations; the applicant had advised a willingness to enter into the requested planning obligations. The Development Manager indicated that in relation to highway matters the applicant had submitted specific information based on all the available evidence and DS7 or any other design solutions played no part in this; the County Highways Authority was satisfied with the evidence provided. Another Member questioned the need for this development when the Business Park in her area was applying for change of use to housing as there was no demand for the business units. In response to a question about the meaning of delegated minded to permit, the Legal Adviser clarified that the application had to be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether he wished to “call in” the application for his own determination or whether the application would be left to the Planning Authority to determine which was why it was a “minded” delegated permit until it was known what the Secretary of State wished to do in respect of the application. Should the Local Planning Authority ultimately be left to determine the application then the delegation to the Development Manager would enable the planning obligations requested by the County Highways, and agreed by the applicant, to be included in a S106 agreement prior to the issue of the permission. The Development Manager stated that as the highway conditions had only just been received it may be necessary to tweak other conditions which would also be covered under the delegation but there would be no change to the main substance of the conditions just possibly some minor changes. In respect of the question concerning need he stated that, as mentioned by the applicant’s agent, the Joint Core Strategy had a particular target of 192 hectares of employment land that needed to be delivered over the plan period and this development would contribute to that planned need which was the basis on which the application was submitted and the Borough Council was promoting part if not all as part of the plan process.

57.7          Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to be MINDED TO PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to any minor amendments to the conditions required as a result of the additional conditions requested by the Local Highways Authority and the completion of a s106 agreement to secure the requested highway planning obligations.