Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application in relation to Plots 3 and 4 for the erection of employment development of 16,481sqm (GIA), access arrangements, servicing, parking including cycle provisions, electric vehicle charging and landscape provision comprising of Class B2 and B8 development with ancillary offices, alongside discharge of pre-commencement conditions 8 and 11 to planning permission reference 11/01155/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approve.

73.10        This was a reserved matters application in relation to Plots 3 and 4 for the erection of employment development of 16,481sqm (GIA), access arrangements, servicing, parking including cycle provisions, electric vehicle charging and landscape provision comprising of Class B2 and B8 development with ancillary offices, alongside discharge of pre-commencement conditions 8 to 11 to planning permission reference 11/01155/FUL.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 20 February 2024 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the size and scale of the proposal and the impact on residential amenity.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.  Members were advised that, although the Committee report stated the application site was within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward, it was actually in Brockworth West Ward; previous applications had been within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward but there had been a boundary change at some point which meant that it was now within Brockworth West Ward.

73.11        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application related to Plots 3 and 4 to the southern part of Gloucester Business Park.  The site benefited from outline planning permission for business and industrial uses and this application sought the approval of reserved matters and proposed three separate buildings.  Since the Planning Committee meeting in February, the applicant had reviewed the proposal and submitted revised drawings to reduce the height of some of the buildings: building 3.1 had been reduced in height by 2m to an overall height of 13.5m; building 4.1 had been reduced in height by 1m to an overall height of 14.5m; and building 4.2 had been reduced in height by 1m an overall height of 14.87m.  The amendments also proposed the relocation of the site access to building 4.2 further south from the signalised junction.  It was considered that the proposed buildings would have an acceptable appearance and layout and additional landscaping would provide enhancements to the site.  A number of concerns had been raised by nearby residents in respect of the impacts of the proposed development and use; however, it should be noted that the site benefited from planning permission and business and industrial uses were already established.  The impact of the buildings in terms of loss of light had been independently assessed and concluded that the scheme would not result in unacceptable harms.  It was considered that the relationship had further improved with the more recent amendments to the scheme to reduce the height of the buildings.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which confirmed that County Highways was satisfied with the proposal subject to the conditions listed.  One additional letter of objection had been received since the Committee report was written and the observations maintained an objection to the revised scheme, advising that the existing trees did not provide 100% screening, especially when not in leaf, and raised concern regarding risks of flooding, drainage, traffic, parking and noise – this reflected the concerns which had been assessed in the Committee report.  On balance, and for the reasons set out in the Committee report, the proposal was considered to be acceptable and the Officer recommendation remained delegated approve as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet.

73.12        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that the revised plans submitted by Gloucester Business Park failed to address any of the significant concerns that had been raised at the previous Planning Committee meeting and the objections submitted in relation to the application.   The major concern was in respect of the use of the plots as warehouses, the height of the units, the size of the footprint of the units and the location within the plot as well as the associated impact on traffic and noise and the utilitarian, overbearing design.  The largest unit would be 14.87m high with a footprint of 6,700sqm and composed of generic utilitarian materials with a section of glazed office area and no buffer space to the border of the plot.  The total area of the plots was 16,400sqm, offering a bleak and depressing outlook with the complete oppression of skyline apart front from the slither of spacing between units 4.1 and 4.2.  He compared these units with three existing buildings which bordered Cooper’s Edge residential area: Elite Extrusion Die Ltd had an asymmetrical roof which was 10.5m at its tallest roof pitch and 7.3m at its lowest roof pitch and 10m buffer space from the boundary with a footprint of 730sqm; Benefact/Ecclesiastical House had a 12.5m height to the roof with 17m height of roof service level - however, this was largely obscured on approach to the building - and the footprint was 1400sqm; and, Javelin House had a 13m height to the roof with a 17m height of roof service level - again largely obscured on approach to the building – and the footprint was 2,688sqm.  Both Benefact/Ecclesiastical House and Javelin House were constructed in higher quality materials more sympathetic to a residential style and buffer space of 40-50m.  If planning permission was to be granted, he urged Members to consider including conditions in relation to the building services placement including air conditioning units, generators and ventilation such that these could not be placed facing the residential area and to secure the use of higher quality materials.  In conclusion, the local resident expressed the view that the proposed units provided no transition from the residential development to the existing business park.  The units were over double the size of the footprint of existing units bordering the residential area and the height of 14.8m over this size of unit provided a monstrous scale with an imposing view that would be detrimental to the streetscene and main entrance to Cooper’s Edge. 

73.13         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that, since this application was deferred by the Planning Committee on 20 February 2024 to allow Members to visit the site, the applicant had reviewed the proposals and amended the scheme to address comments raised at that meeting.  In terms of the building heights, the applicant had reduced the three buildings across Plots 3 and 4 by up to 2m; building 3.1 had been reduced by 2m resulting in a height of 12.5m to the top of the parapet, and buildings 4.1 and 4.2 had been reduced by 1m resulting in a height of 13.5m to the top of the parapet.  These were the minimum heights that could be achieved at the site to enable the effective delivery of B2 / B8 units that was attractive to occupiers to meet the standards and requirements of modern employment development, whilst also addressing Members’ concerns.  It should also be noted that each of the buildings had an office element located in the areas fronting the roads into the residential areas at around 9m in height which was broadly equivalent of the height of a two storey house; this was significantly lower than the main element of the buildings. The design of the office elements assisted in breaking up the massing of each building and providing a transition between the business park and residential area.  In terms of separation distances, a minimum distance of 28.5m had been achieved between building 3.1 and dwellings along Rodmarton Close. A further separation distance of 40m and 72m had been achieved for buildings 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. Given the retained, existing natural screening along the western boundary of the site, and the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment, it was considered this development would not result in an unreasonable loss of light to the principal rooms of the adjacent neighbouring dwellings. This separation distance was also in excess of the buffer requirement of the outline permission for Coopers’ Edge.  At the previous Committee, highway concerns had been raised by Members in relation to the access at building 4.2 and pavements around building 4. These matters had been discussed with County Highways and solutions agreed - access to building 4.2 had been relocated further away from the signalised junction and a pedestrian footway had been provided along the south of Lobley’s Drive between buildings 4.1 and 4.2 to improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the business park.  In terms of job creation, it had been calculated using the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Employment Densities Guide that 70-126 jobs would be created at Plot 3, and a further 211–378 jobs at Plot 4 depending on whether the buildings were occupied by a B2 or a B8 user.  The applicant had listened to the community and stakeholders as they developed the final employment plots and continued to manage the success of the Business Park and trusted that the proposed amendments to the scheme would satisfy Members and enable the application to be approved.

73.14         Having noted that he had not registered to speak in accordance with the requirements of the Scheme of Public Participation as set out in the Council Constitution, the Chair exercised his discretion to allow a local Ward Councillor for the area to speak in relation to the application.  The local Ward Councillor expressed the view that B8 use in the area would have a direct impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties resulting in their properties being overshadowed.  The original planning permission was for small scale B1, B2 and B8 units which would be more in keeping with the character of this predominantly residential area.  The area of landscaping was outside of the application site and could not be secured as part of this application and did not compensate for the effect of the B8 development.  In his view, the industrial buildings would have an overbearing presence which was not the intention of the outline application and there was nothing within the current proposal that would mitigate the negative impact on existing residential properties.

73.15         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to approve the application, subject to no adverse observations from the Drainage Adviser, conditions as set out in the Committee report and Additional Representations Sheet and any additional/amended conditions following advice from the Drainage Adviser, and he sought a motion from the floor.   A Member sought clarification as to who owned the land where the current screening was shown for buildings 4.1 and 4.2.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) understood it was in the ownership of the company who developed or owned the residential development; the Council was seeking to adopt the land containing the watercourse to the south side but a sliver would remain in third party ownership.  A Member noted that the original site design had included smaller houses and industrial units around residential areas yet this proposal was for much larger buildings which would have an impact on the existing residential properties and he asked if this was policy compliant.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the outline planning permission had not included a condition in relation to a masterplan, parameters plan or any other plan which may show smaller buildings.  The grant of planning permission set a precedent for development on this site and each application must be assessed on its own merits.  A Member noted the Committee report referenced the southern strip being retained but this area was obviously outside of the Council’s control which was frustrating.  She asked whether showers were required along with the proposed cycle storage and parking within the facility and the County Highways representative confirmed there was a proposal for showers which would be secured through condition 15, as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet.  Another Member had been surprised at how good the screening was when Members had visited the application site but she had noted the trees were not evergreen and asked if a condition could be included to secure planting of evergreen trees to bulk out screening in winter.  She noted the local resident had raised concern regarding the materials used and asked if this could be reviewed as part of the delegated approval.  She also sought clarification as to the location of the air conditioning units as she was concerned about the potential impact on residential areas. The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised there would be insufficient land to allow trees to properly establish and the land beyond was outside of the applicant’s control so it was not possible to insist on requiring any other planting along the southern boundary.  The application was recommended for delegated approval to resolve outstanding matters in respect of drainage and Officers considered the materials were acceptable as submitted.  He did not have the precise location of the air conditioning units but the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the noise impact assessment and it was something which could potentially be secured by an additional details condition. 

73.16         A Member recognised the original concept was to have smaller units buffering larger units in the business park and she pointed out that all other units had a gap between them.  There should be 20% green infrastructure on the business park and she did not think there was enough to mitigate what was now being proposed.  As such, she asked why it was acceptable for this area at the end of the plot to be so built up when other areas were not.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) indicated that he did not have an assessment as to why the applicant had chosen to build tight to the boundary but the relationship between the industrial units and residential properties was not an unusual one.  A Member questioned what process was required if the Council was to insist on a tree screening boundary within the applicant’s control and was advised that, if Members considered the absence of tree screening would have an adverse impact on residential properties, they could refuse or defer the application to raise this with the applicant; however, given the absence of meaningful space to the rear of the building, he could not see an obvious solution to resolve the issue.  

73.17         It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it was inappropriate given its proximity to the residential area and would have a significant adverse visual impact and due to the landscaping area being outside of the application site.  The proposer of the motion expressed the view that the buildings were far too large for the location and too close to residential properties; the original proposal for B1, B2 and B8 units would be more appropriate in the location.  The Legal Adviser explained that the employment use had already been approved under the outline planning permission so that could not be used as a reason for refusing the reserved matters application.  During the debate which ensued, a Member raised concern there were very few planning grounds on which to refuse the application and it would be difficult to insist on additional screening to address the amenity impact given that the land was not within the applicant’s control.  Another Member noted the earlier comment that there was no evidence of an original masterplan showing the size of buildings therefore she assumed it was the principle of the site being used as employment land which had been approved.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) confirmed that was the case and explained that, typically, if a masterplan was presented for a development which set certain parameters - in this case that might stipulate that no building could extend beyond a certain height - that would be included as a condition but there was no such condition on the outline planning permission.  A Member had sympathy with local residents but, given there was no masterplan, she did not feel this was a reason to refuse the application; however, her view was that a deferral would be better to establish if there was a solution to the screening issue.  Another Member shared the view there would be no grounds to refuse the application given the history of the site and its designation.  Screening could not be insisted upon due to the proximity of the buildings to the boundary but he noted there was potential to include some on land to the south which was intended to come into the possession of the Council so he suggested a financial contribution could be sought from the developer for that.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised it would be difficult to seek a financial contribution towards planting as the Council did not control that land until it was adopted; should Members be minded to defer the application, this could be investigated further.  A Member acknowledged the reasons for suggesting a deferral but she was wary of the timescales for determination, particularly as the application had already been deferred once.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that Officers considered the proposal to accord with Policy EMP5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and he referred to the reasoned justification set out at Paragraph 4.28 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which stated that determining an appropriate scale and design of development should have regard to the context of the site, for example, the major employment sites would generally be suitable for large scale office, industrial and warehousing uses with large car parking and servicing requirements, whereas the rural business centres – which this was not – would be more suited to smaller scale, low profile units that could be easily assimilated into the rural landscape. Paragraph 4.29 of the reasoned justification of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan stated that environmental and amenity impacts were an important consideration when assessing proposals for new employment development, particularly where proposals were located in close proximity to residential uses and that harm to residential amenity and the local environment could result from noise, odour, vibration, air pollution and light pollution and careful consideration would be required in relation to such impacts.  Officers’ interpretation was that the application was in accordance with Policy EMP5 and the technical consultees had raised no objection in relation to size and impact on light; the daylight and sunlight report submitted by the applicant had been assessed by an independent specialist on behalf of the Council who had confirmed there would be no significant impact on adjoining residential properties that would warrant refusal of the application.  A Member noted that the south boundary screening was cited within the application as a reason for granting approval which he found difficult on the basis that land was in the control of a third party – he assumed this would be adopted by the Council in due course and therefore that adequate screening would continue to be provided going forward but nevertheless, it was a material consideration and he felt it should be recognised that the applicant had no control over the screening.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

73.18         It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion understood the concerns of local residents but felt there was no planning reason to refuse the application – it was a business park which was there to provide employment land and, in terms of height, these would be some of the lowest buildings within the park.  The seconder of the motion expressed the view that the site visit had been invaluable in demonstrating how the nature corridor worked in that area and she hoped that could be maintained and enhanced when the Council adopted the land.  A Member indicated that he was happy to support the motion subject to the inclusion of three conditions to secure retention of the hedgerow along the eastern site boundary, as referenced at Page No. 53, Paragraph 8.39 of the Committee report; to ensure there was no light pollution at night; and to situate the air conditioning units and generators at the north of the buildings as opposed to the south.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that landscaping and external lighting had been assessed as part of the scheme and condition 1 listed the documents with which the development would be required to accord and included landscaping and tree plans and the external impact lighting assessment.  It was possible to add a further condition requiring details of any external plant and associated noise to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, should Members so wish.  The Member drew attention to Page No. 53, Paragraph 8.42 of the Committee report which stated that the Council’s Ecological Adviser had confirmed the proposed bat box locations were now suitable and the works could be secured by condition and he asked if that condition had been included.  The Legal Adviser explained that the list of documents in condition 1 included the Ecology Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy report which altered the proposed bat box locations to ensure they were not illuminated and had been confirmed by the Council’s Ecological Adviser as acceptable so the development would need to be carried out in accordance with that.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they would be happy to include an additional condition requiring details of any external plant and associated noise to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development and, upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to APPROVE the application, subject to no adverse observations from the Drainage Adviser, conditions as set out in the Committee report and Additional Representations Sheet and an additional condition requiring details of any external plant and associated noise to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development, and any additional/amended conditions following advice from the Drainage Adviser.