PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application in relation to Plot 5 for the erection of employment development of 6,773 sqm (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.

73.19        This was a reserved matters application in relation to Plot 5 for the erection of employment development of 6,773sqm (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.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.  Confirmation was provided that, although the previous application at Agenda Item 5b was in Brockworth West Ward, this application was within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward as correctly stated in the Committee report.

73.20        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application related to Plot 5 to the south western corner 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 in respect of scale, appearance, layout, access and landscaping.  Whilst concerns had been raised by nearby residents, as set out in the Committee report, it was considered that the relationship of the development to those properties was acceptable.  The County Highways Officer was satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report; however, technical discussions in respect of drainage were ongoing therefore the Officer recommendation remained delegated approve as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.

73.21        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that, as with the previous Agenda Item, this unit provided little transition from the residential area to Gloucester Business Park. It was sited on the main access area into Cooper’s Edge and so should complement residential style and better match the neighbouring units Javelin House and Benefact House which were comprised of higher quality traditional brick and mortar which was more sympathetic to a residential setting.  The footprint of this unit was significantly larger than both Javelin House and Benefact House and whilst there had been discussion around ways to mitigate the overbearing design, there had been little discussion about the potentially greater benefit of alternative uses.  If planning permission was to be granted, Members should consider conditions in relation to the building services placement including air conditioning units, generators and ventilation units in order to ensure they could not be placed facing the residential area and for the use of higher quality materials and a design to compliment a traditional and more residential style and enhance and add growth to the border with the neighbouring residential area.  The original intention was to have smaller units on the plot, similar to Javelin House and Benefact House, and this proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring residential properties.

73.22        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that Plot 5 was the final employment application at Gloucester Business Park which was a successful employment destination in a high quality location, acting as a driver for employment opportunities and economic benefit to the area.  They considered the proposed employment uses were the right use and in the right location for Tewkesbury and Gloucestershire.  They had listened to residents and stakeholders throughout the development process, and had provided a comprehensive range of surveys to support the planning application to which there were no technical objections. The surveys had confirmed that the proposed development was compatible with the location and resulted in no demonstrable impact upon neighbours.  The building had been designed to complement the existing buildings within the park and also provide a transition between the employment and residential areas.  A separation distance of over 52m had been achieved between building 5.1 and dwellings along Arlington Road to the west, and 77m to the south.  It was of a scale and height that was suited and attractive to a modern occupier, making an efficient use of land.  The relationship between the proposed buildings and the adjacent residential area had been a key consideration throughout the design process.  Sustainability at the business park was important for the applicant and the proposed buildings had all been designed to achieve BREEAM Excellent demonstrating a commitment to deliver high quality sustainable buildings. They had consulted widely with the community and stakeholders prior to the application being submitted and one of the key “asks” from the community was improved transport links.  They had engaged Stagecoach and, shortly after, a new and improved bus service had been introduced with the intention this would help reduce individual car journeys to and from the park.  They had been made aware of local concerns regards traffic, in particular Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) leaving the business park via Lobleys Drive. Whilst no objection had been raised by Gloucestershire Highways, the applicant had noted the importance of resolving this issue and, as a priority, additional signage had been put up at key locations to direct HGV drivers as soon as they left the service yard, to exit the business park via Hurricane Road or Pioneer Avenue.  The access to the service yard would also be controlled via condition requiring gates to be open between the 0700 hours and 1900 hours to ensure that HGV’s were not waiting in the highway or blocking pedestrian / cycle crossing points.  In terms of job creation, it had been calculated using the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Employment Densities Guide that between 115 and 206 jobs would be created at Plot 5, depending on whether the buildings were occupied by a B2 or a B8 user.  In summary, the development of these final plots would contribute to the economic growth of the area and was considered to be the right use in the right location.

73.23         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to approve the application, subject to no adverse observations from the Drainage Adviser, the conditions set out in the Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet and any additional/amended conditions following advice from the Drainage Adviser, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that part of Lobley’s Drive had flooded a month earlier and he asked if there was any update on the discussions regarding drainage.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised there had been a delay in obtaining a response from the Drainage Adviser but, from initial observations, further information was required to ensure the proposal did not increase flood risk elsewhere and discussions in relation to that were ongoing.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member expressed the view that she was concerned about the reliance on landscaping screening which was located on other plots and did not form part of the application site which she did not feel was acceptable.  Another Member noted that Page No. 87, Paragraph 8.9 of the Committee report stated that the southern part of the building fronting Gambet Way and Lobleys Drive would include a glazed office section which would serve to add visual interest to the building and contrast with the more utilitarian appearance of the main warehouse element of the building and she expressed the view that personally she would not like to look at a ‘utilitarian’ building from her front window so asked if anything could be done regarding the appearance which may help residents to feel as if they were being listened to.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application should be determined on the basis of what was before Members today.  Officers considered the proposed materials and design to be acceptable in the business park and he did not feel there would be grounds to go back to the applicant to request a different material especially given the context of adjoining buildings.

73.24         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, the conditions set out in the Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet and any additional/amended conditions following advice from the Drainage Adviser.