Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Patrick, Smith and Gray.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2022.

(Note: For access to information purposes, the background papers for the applications listed in the above schedule are the application itself and subsequent papers as listed in the relevant file.)

Representations were received and taken into account by the Committee in respect of Applications:

Reserved Matters Application for a proposed employment development (Class E(g), B2/B8) pursuant to outline planning permission S.14/0810/OUT including details of landscaping, design, scale, and layout. (description updated 13/04 to reflect outline permission)

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was a reserved matters application for employment use. He further informed the committee of the following:

• The site location within the larger Great Oldbury development including residential dwellings.
• This application was to finalise the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the building.
• What the building would look like with a modern appearance and different shades of grey cladding.
• The landscaping plans included a line of oak trees along the highway access and some planting at the frontage of the building near to the roundabout.
• Late pages were circulated which included a revised comment from Highways and updated conditions.

Ms Kambites, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Stonehouse Town Council against the application. She asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• The footpath diversion was unclear although this was in the process of being resolved.
• The number of bike parking and electric vehicle (EV) charging points was inadequate for the size of the development.
• The energy statement to prevent solar panels being put on the roofs was not in line with the emerging local plan policy SO5 – climate change and environmental limits.
• Concerned with the size and height of the unit as it was in close proximity to residential dwellings.
• Unit would obstruct views when looking across from Oldends Lane Playing Field.
• The planting scheme was unimaginative.

Mr Hooper, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• The application related to a 2,192m²  employment building at the southern end of the site.
• This parcel was the first of the employment area to be delivered as part of the wider mixed use allocation.
• The principal of the employment use was established as part of the outline application which also included parameters for the scale and height of the buildings.
• Details of building height, layout and setting were further approved by Members as part of condition number 46 on the outline application.
• Due to the legally binding site wide restriction on energy production, they were unable to put solar panels on the roof of the unit, therefore they had taken a fabric first approach to minimise the demand for electricity and heating.
• The existing Public Rights of Way were involved with an ongoing wider application through Gloucestershire County Council to vary the routes.
• During the course of the application all of the consultee comments had been addressed by the applicant.
• This proposal would deliver important local employment possibilities and would bring growth to the area.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager gave the following answers in response to questions from Councillors:

• The contract the agent had entered into with the energy supplier was not a material planning consideration.
• The outline planning application included maximum heights and size of buildings.
• This application was to look at the layout and the design.
• The layout plan showed two EV charging points with the potential for  ...  view the full minutes text for item DC.057

Reserved Matters Application for a proposed employment development (Class E(g), B2/B8) pursuant to outline planning permission S.14/0810/OUT including details of landscaping, design, scale, and appearance. (description updated 13/4 to reflect outline permission)

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was for the second unit which was next to the first application. He drew the Members attention to the following:

• The site was in close proximity to residential properties.
• The building was facing away from the residential properties with the service yard on the other side of the building to mitigate noise.
• He showed the plans for the site and the proposed building which was similar in style to the previous applications.
• There was a landscape bund with additional planting to the rear of the building which included hedge planting on the top of the bund and tree planting proposed between the residential properties and the hedges.
• The building was larger than the previous application with a height of 14.5 metres.
• Late pages were released which updated the conditions.

Ms Kambites, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of the Stonehouse Town Council against the application. She asked the committee to reject the application for the same reasons as listed in the previous application and the additional reasons listed below:

• This building was bigger than the previous and was a lot closer to residential dwellings.
• Concerned with how much the building and the bund would shelter the houses and deprive them of sunlight.

Mr Hooper, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He asked the committee to support the application for the same reasons as listed in the previous application and the additional reasons listed below:

• The application related to a 5,215m² employment building at the western side of the site.
• The outline application had already established a number of parameters for both the scale and the height of the building as well as its uses.
• The landscaping bund included additional planting which would break up the view of the building and would provide sufficient screening once maturity was reached.
• There was a potential occupier already in talks with the developer which couldn’t be named at the time but was a local business looking for room to expand and grow their business.

The Chair questioned how long ago the bund was planted and what species it included. The Majors and Environment Team Manager confirmed it had been there for longer than 2 years and consisted of a mix of native species such as: Hawthorne, Hazel, Holly, Blackthorne and Wild Privet which all have great biodiversity value.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager gave the following answers in response to questions from Councillors:

• The species were not evergreen however, they were dense hedges which would drop their leaves at different times which meant there would be sufficient coverage.
• There was very little room between the bund and the proposed building, not enough room to plant a row of Leylandii. If it were planted on top of the bund it would be likely that it would kill off the native species.

Councillor Ryder questioned the maintenance of the hedge and what was in place for this. The Majors and  ...  view the full minutes text for item DC.058

The Head of Development Management Advised the Committee that there would be a meeting of the Development Management Advisory Panel (D-MAP) tomorrow where they would be looking into the figures in more detail. 

There were no questions or comments.

RESOLVED To NOTE the report.