Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 No. (B1 and B8) units and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

64.37         This was an application for the redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 No. (B1 and B8) units and associated works.

64.38         The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located to the west of Stoke Orchard, and was accessed via a single point of access on Stoke Road.  The site formed part of the former farmyard of Manor Farm, which was a Grade II Listed building located to the rear. The application confirmed that the listed farmhouse was in separate ownership. The application site was located outside of the Green Belt and was not subject to any landscape designations. The application confirmed that the site currently comprised a number of outbuildings of varying states of condition and quality.  The Conservation Officer confirmed that none of the existing buildings dated back further than the 1940s and held no substantive historic merit, and the proposed removal of the buildings was considered to be acceptable. The applicant‘s agent had confirmed in writing that their client had owned the site for over 20 years and advised that Google Earth imagery demonstrated that it had been used continuously for a mix of light industrial, storage and car repair type uses (B1 and B8) over that time.The Council had no evidence to counter this claim and, on the balance of probability, it was considered that the site had been used continuously for these purposes for over ten years. The application sought planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site for employment purposes through the erection of three new units in use classes B1 (office and light industry) and B8 (storage and distribution). The proposal would result in a net loss of 379 square metres of floor space but with an additional five employees. Unit 1 would be constructed adjacent to the front site boundary, to the north of the vehicular access. Units 2 and 3 would be attached to one another and would be constructed adjacent to the rear boundary in a u-shaped arrangement, providing a courtyard style of development and a reconfigured parking and manoeuvring area. The existing vehicular access via Stoke Road would be retained. Further to the receipt of consultee comments from the Conservation Officer, raising concerns regarding the originally proposed walling materials of the proposed buildings - new brick and profiled metal cladding - revised elevations were submitted, alternatively proposing extensive cladding of the proposed buildings with horizontal timber weatherboarding and a Northcott brick. The roofs would be covered in dark green sheet cladding. The Conservation Officer had raised no objection to the revised proposals subject to conditions requiring a sample or details of these walling and roofing materials to be agreed prior to their installation. The site comprised previously developed land and was physically well related to existing adjacent built development immediately to the north and west, as well as the vehicular access leading to Manor Farm to the south of the application site. The proposed height, mass and scale of the units would be similar to the existing buildings, as would the proposed u-shaped arrangement of buildings to reflect the current courtyard style, albeit proposed Unit 1 would be located further eastwards than the existing building and in closer proximity of the adjacent public highway to enable the provision of the proposed reconfigured parking and manoeuvring area within the site. The Parish Council objected to the proposed siting of Unit 1 on the grounds that it would appear as an incongruous addition to the site stuck out at the front and far forward of the village building line. Whilst the proposed development would be in closer proximity of the adjacent public highway than existing built development on the site and would likely be more prominent there was no established building line in this part of Stoke Orchard. The proposed development was judged to be of an appropriate size, scale and character, and it was considered that the use of traditional overlapping horizontal weatherboard, as shown in the revised plans, would assimilate the development into its rural context.  In addition, some softening of the frontage, and the boundary to the south and with the listed farmhouse would assist in assimilating the new buildings within the rural setting. It was therefore recommended that any approval of planning permission was subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Tree Protection Plan as well as a landscape scheme for the proposed tree and landscaping planting. The proposed development would not encroach into the adjacent Locally Important Open Space and it was considered that the proposal would protect its open character and appearance. Stoke Orchard and Tredington Parish Council had also objected to the application on highway and access groundsand the objections from the Parish Council had been forwarded to the Local Highways Authority for information and response. The Local Highways Authority acknowledged that the site currently comprised a number of outbuildings which were occupied by a mix of light industrial, storage and car repair type uses, and that there would be minimal or no differences on the land use and square footage. The Local Highways Authority also advised that the visibility splay requirements on Manual for Streets for an access on a 30mph road could be accommodated. Accordingly, the Local Highways Authority considered that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe impact on highway congestion, and advised that there were no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained, subject to any approval of planning permission being subject to the conditions referred to within the Committee report. Highways England also commented that it did not expect this to result in an unacceptable or severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network and therefore raised no objection. Having regard to the policies of the Development Plan and the responses of technical consultees, subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions, there were no objections from Officers. However the recommendation of the Planning Officer had been amended to a delegated permit to ensure that the wording of Condition 16 was sufficiently precise in the light of amendments which had been made to the Use Class Order since the application was submitted. In light of the implications of the new Class E it had been suggested that some amendments be made to the wording of Condition 16 to ensure that that the condition could not, for example, allow a change of use to retail which would not be appropriate in this location. The site comprised previously developed land, and it was considered that the proposal would encourage and support the development of small and medium sized enterprises, and would be of an appropriate size, scale and character. For these reasons, the principle of the proposed development was considered to be acceptable. It was therefore recommended that planning permission be delegated to the Development Manager to ensure that the wording of Condition 16 was sufficiently precise.

64.39         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He indicated that the report was both precise and clear but that he wished to reiterate a number of points. The site comprised previously developed land and was physically well related to adjacent built development. The existing buildings were tired and unsightly and comprised a much-altered mix of height and materials and their replacement with appropriately designed, functional and purpose-built employment space was a much more appropriate solution in design and landscape terms, as well as a more effective use of the site. The proposed height, mass, scale and layout was similar to the existing and there would be no significant adverse effect on adjoining occupiers, many of which were employment related, nor harm to the Listed Farmhouse. Moreover, adjustments to the scheme to address the Officer’s concerns, including changes to the design and materials, meant no objection from any technical consultees. Bearing in mind the existing uses, there would be no material change in the number of vehicle trips nor an intensification of the access and the Local Highways Authority and Highways England had no concerns in this regard. The proposal accorded with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. It represented an excellent opportunity to support the retention and growth of small enterprises in a way that respected the local context, all at an identified service village. In conclusion he indicated that that the recommendation was clear and he asked that the Committee support it.

64.40         A delegated permit was proposed and in seconding the motion, the Member stated that this was a vast visual improvement on the current site and he was pleased to see that in these times where the Council was looking to increase employment opportunities this site was going to provide the opportunity for an additional five jobs. Another Member indicated that although he supported the recommendation he was disappointed not to see more information with regards to the employment use policy which he understood came into effect in the middle of last year and the new Class E category which he understood enveloped quite a lot of B Use Classes. The Development Manager stated that, whilst the changes had come in through the course of last year, there was a sunset clause in the legislation but all of the historic B1 Use Classes were now contained within an E Class which had flexible uses so there were permitted changes to things like shops etc. He felt it would be useful to do a training session for Members on those changes so that Members were familiar with that new terminology and he would arrange a session in the near future. On the motion being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT subject to ensuring that the wording of Condition 16 was sufficiently precise.

64.41         The meeting adjourned at 1.20pm for lunch.

64.42         The meeting reconvened at 1.50pm with the Vice Chair, Councillor East, in the Chair and Councillors Evetts (Chair), Gerrard and Williams not present. Councillor Bird had indicated that he would be re-joining the meeting shortly.