Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Full planning application proposing the development of seven units providing 11,421.1 M2 (GEA) of floorspace for use as industrial, workshop, warehouse, storage and distribution (use class B2, B8 and E(G)(III)) with ancillary office accommodation, new access, parking and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

19.11        This was a full planning application proposing the development of seven units providing 11,421.1 M2 (GEA) of floorspace for use as industrial, workshop, warehouse, storage and distribution (use class B2, B8 and E(G)(III)) with ancillary office accommodation, new access, parking and landscaping.

19.12        The Senior Planning Officer advised that, with regard to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the ecology conditions had now been provided following agreement with the applicant.  An updated objection had been received from the Parish Council which raised no new concerns and the Council’s position on each point had been addressed in the Committee report.  He explained that the application site was located on the western edge of Bishops Cleeve with residential development to the north, commercial units to the east at Malvern View Business Park, a rugby club and waste management centre to the south and one residential unit and an agricultural field to the west.  In terms of planning history, which was a material consideration, outline planning permission had been granted at appeal by the Inspector who had considered this an appropriate location for development of up to 215 residential dwellings and up to 2.24 hectares of B1 and B8 commercial use.  Reserved matters applications had been submitted and approved for the residential element of the permission but no further applications had come forward for the commercial element and the time period for submitting a reserved matters application for the outline permission had now expired.  The main objection from the Parish Council was that the proposed scheme went above and beyond the conditions attached to the outline scheme in relation to height, scale and floorspace.  Condition 6 of the appeal scheme restricted the total amount of Use Class B1/B8 floorspace to 6,880sqm and condition 7 of the appeal scheme required the industrial buildings to have a maximum height of 9m above ground level whereas the proposed scheme would provide an additional circa 4,500sqm of floorspace and each unit would be above 9m as set out by the appeal scheme.  The industrial element of the appeal scheme had been granted at outline stage, therefore limited information was provided to the Inspector as shown on the outline masterplan. The proposed application provided full details in relation to scale through the submission of detailed plans, elevations, sections, landscaping details with boundary treatment plans, CGI’s, local marketing letters, a Design and Access Statement and a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal.  The site was located within the settlement boundary of Bishops Cleeve and was allocated Employment Land under Policy EMP1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The proposal was for seven units, which could be sub-divided to allow for flexibility for end users.  Access was via the approved access for the outline scheme and was currently awaiting technical approval from County Highways.  Significant boundary treatment was proposed around the site perimeter and the majority of the site had a 1.1m high post and rail fence with an acoustic barrier to the north and west to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties to the north.  The original proposal included a 3m acoustic fence but, following comments from the Environmental Health Officer, this had been increased to 4m along the western boundary.  Planning Officers had worked with the applicant to secure a suitable scheme following comments from neighbours and consultees and amendments had been made, for example, the roof of Unit 1 had been flipped to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property and Unit 6 had been flipped to allow for more landscaping to southeast corner and to reduce the impact when travelling along Stoke Road from Bishops Cleeve.  County Highways had reviewed the proposal and raised no objection subject to financial obligations to provide £10,000 towards amending the Weight Limit Order and £28,000 towards an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Camera to enforce the Traffic Regulation Order.  In conclusion, the proposal was likely to generate 70-80 jobs through the operation of the development, provide over 11,000sqm of commercial floorspace, and 1.38 Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) units off-site as well as ecological enhancements on site.  Therefore, the site was on allocated employment land within the settlement boundary of Bishops Cleeve and, given significant weight should be attributed to the need to support economic growth in accordance with Paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework, on balance, Officers considered the proposed scheme to be of an acceptable scale in accordance with Policy SD1 of the Joint Core Strategy, Policy EMP1 and EMP5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  As such, the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to amended/additional conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

19.13        The Chair invited the Parish Council representative to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative advised that the Parish Council supported the development of this site for employment use in principle, but objected to the current application due to its total disregard for the constraints laid down by the Planning Inspector at appeal.  The conditions were imposed to mitigate the effects of a commercial development upon nearby residential housing and without them the development would cause more harm than benefit.  In respect of the size and use of the development, the Inspector had recommended a floor area of 6,880sqm to be used for office and light industry but the current application was for 11,421sqm, plus mezzanine flooring, to be used for industrial workshops, storage, warehousing and distribution with no evidence of need.  With regard to the height of buildings, the Inspector recommended a maximum height of 9m whereas the current application had a maximum height of 13m which would be vastly overbearing.  In terms of operating times, the Inspector’s recommended restrictions were 0700-1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 hours on Saturday yet the current application had no restrictions on operating times whatsoever.  For this application, County Highways estimated an extra 200 oversized goods vehicles per 12 hour day which contravened Policy EMP5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan; County Highways also wanted to reduce the weight limit for Stoke Orchard from 17.5 to 7.5 tonnes so all oversized goods vehicles would need to travel via Bishops Cleeve.  In relation to noise mitigation, the Inspector had recommended a height of 4m for acoustic boards but the current application proposed a height of 3 metres despite the buildings being 1.5 times higher with no restrictions on operating hours.  For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly objected to this application due to the detrimental impact on the lives of nearby residents and asked Members to reject it.

19.14        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the application before Members was a full planning application seeking approval for just over 10,600sqm of new employment floorspace gross internal area including mezzanines.  The site was granted outline planning permission in 2019 as part of Spitfire’s mixed use residential and commercial scheme. Prior to that, in 2016 the Council’s Employment Land and Economic Development Strategy Review had identified Bishops Cleeve as an important and deliverable area for new commercial sites – the application site was described in that review as one of the best employment sites in the borough.  Following the 2019 appeal decision, the site was allocated as a major employment site under Policy EMP1 of the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The policy referred to a 2.2 hectare extension of Malvern View Business Park and did not restrict the height of buildings or the amount of floorspace allowed.  The proposed scheme had been designed to deliver high quality commercial floor space to meet the demands of the market and make efficient use of the land.  They had worked proactively with Officers throughout the course of the application to respond to all comments received and were aware that concerns had been raised by the local Parish Councils about Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements through Stoke Orchard and Bishops Cleeve.  To address these concerns, they had agreed to pay a contribution to facilitate a change to the weight limit order for HGVs, as well as a contribution towards the provision of an ANPR camera to help enforce this weight restriction; County Highways had no objection to the application.  Concerns had also been raised over noise protection which had been addressed by working with Environmental Health Officers.  The acoustic barrier along the western boundary had been raised from 3m to 4m and conditions had been agreed which would control vehicle movement and noise restrictions during the night.  With regards to scale and height, the applicant’s agent stressed the site was a major employment allocation for the borough which would contribute to employment land supply. The height of the buildings was typical of modern employment sites and they had worked closely with the Landscape Officer and changed the layout to provide further planting along the eastern and western boundaries. The Landscape Officer was satisfied these amendments would provide an acceptable level of screening.  In conclusion, this scheme would deliver new high quality commercial floorspace, allowing existing businesses to expand and remain in the area, as well as attracting new inward investment.  All technical matters had been addressed or appropriate conditions agreed.  As such she respectfully requested that Members support the grant of planning permission.

19.15        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to amended/additional conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked if there were any restrictions in terms of hours of operation on the existing Malvern View site and the Senior Planning Officer indicated that he did not have that information; however, in terms of this site, the application was based on a worst case scenario with the Noise Impact Assessment based on operation of the proposed development being 24 hours a day, seven days per week in order to allow flexibility for the occupiers of the site which were not known at this stage.  The Member presumed the houses had not been there when the Malvern View site was built but she was unclear why that had not been looked at as a comparator.  The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the intention was that the site would always be for employment use as an extension to the existing business park.  The Member asked if it was correct that the Inspector had suggested there should be restrictions on times of use and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that was the case for the outline application with the limited information provided; however, this was a new, full application which included a Noise Impact Assessment, mitigation measures and highway works which Officers considered would overcome the concerns in respect of residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings.  A Member noted that one of the Parish Council’s objections was that acoustic barriers were only positioned on the north side of the development and, at 4m, would sit below the mezzanine level, therefore offering little noise protection; she sought clarification as to whether that was correct and, if so, what could be done about it.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the acoustic fence along the northern boundary would be 3m with the acoustic barrier adjacent to Unit 1 having been increased to 4m; however, the main noise would come from the yard areas, e.g. vehicles unloading, which would take place at ground level which was why the fence had been set at 3m.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) explained there was an expectation that modern buildings would be constructed in a way which contained noise within the buildings and that would be checked by Building Control so any noise would predominantly be from the yards. 

19.16        A Member noted that the applicant proposed to enter into an agreement with a third party to provide an off-site BNG contribution which would be outside of the Council’s control and she asked if this would be conditioned to ensure it happened.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that BNG had become mandatory in April 2024 and this was the first application providing an off-site contribution which was considered to be fair given it was employment land.  The applicant had been working with the Environment Bank and had provided a draft agreement.  Ecology conditions were set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, the first of which was that no development would take place until evidence had been provided that 1.38 habitat units had been secured – by the Environment Bank or an alternative habitat bank provider – and that would include a management and monitoring plan that specified how the habitat units would be created, managed and monitored for the 30 year period; therefore, it would still need to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before development could commence.  Another Member drew attention to Page No. 94, Paragraph 8.86 of the Committee report which set out there was currently a 17 tonne weight limit restriction, except for access, through Stoke Orchard but that the wording of the order made it practically impossible to enforce and, in any case, the Police would find enforcement difficult due to lack of resources, and that a contribution of £28,000 was being sought towards provision of an ANPR camera.  He asked what that contribution would cover in terms of maintenance and support and who would be responsible for paying for it once the money had run out.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that ANPR enforcement was relatively new to local authorities, although the Police had used it for speed enforcement for many years.  This would be the first one County Highways had introduced so it would be a learning experience but would provide the ability to enforce where it was not possible for someone to physically stand by the side of the road which was considered to be a positive impact.  It was noted that the wording of the current Traffic Order was woolly to the extent that vehicles could stop in the zone and then proceed through it but this would be amended to ensure it was very thoroughly defined that vehicles must have an address they were stopped at within the zone.  The £28,000 contribution was for the establishment of the camera and a maintenance period and it was intended that it would be self-funding through the process of enforcement.  In terms of renewable energy, the Member asked whether anything could be done to insist upon use of the roof space and the Senior Planning Officer advised there was no requirement within the building regulations so it was not possible to condition; however, it had been discussed with the applicant and the intention was that each unit would incorporate some sort of solar panel which would be the responsibility of the eventual occupiers.  A Member noted this site was right opposite a processing plant and asked if a test in relation to odour had been carried out as it had been for the connected site where residential properties were currently being built out.  The Member noted there was another site in Bishops Cleeve where the electric vehicle charging points had still not been provided 12 months down the line and she asked what could be done to ensure these were available from the outset for use by employees and visitors.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the application was supported by an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) which had been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer who raised no objection.  The AQA had indicated that, during the operational phase, the impacts associated with the proposed development would not be significant with concentrations remaining within the relevant air quality standards.   The installation of electrical vehicle charging points would be dealt with under building regulations.

19.17        It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member welcomed the inclusion of the CGI images which had been provided as part of the application which gave an insight into what the development would look like in the context of the site.  The seconder of the motion expressed the view that, given the amount of growth being sustained within the borough, it was vital to deliver employment land alongside housing.  This whole site would have been earmarked for commercial use had the Inspector not allowed some houses there due to the concerns with the processing plant and he felt this was a good development.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to PERMIT the application, subject to amended/additional conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.