Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site for an industrial and storage use (Use Class B2/B8) retail use (Use of class A1 now E(a)) and change of use of the existing dwelling to office use (Use class B1 now E(g)(i)) with associated works, infrastructure and improvements to the existing access onto the A38 with all matters relating to appearance and landscaping reserved.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the proposal and explained it was for the re-development of an existing site. They further explained that it included three units for industrial storage use, one unit for retail use and a change of use from the existing house into offices. They informed the Committee that it was an outline application therefore, Members would be considering the access, layout and scale of the development.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager explained the access had been amended since the previous application which came to DCC on 15 June 2021. They further explained that it was proposed to be located on the existing access and included a filter lane and a right turn only lane which Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways were now satisfied with. However, GCC Highways were still objecting based on sustainability criteria.

The Head of Development Management read some written comments submitted from the following Ward Members.

Councillor Craig:

• The site was in a very rural area, with the exception of the SDC’s recycling facility, the land was largely undeveloped.
• The build on the current site was relatively small and this application would urbanise the area in contrary to Policy CP of the local plan.
• GCC Highways had safety and transport concerns regarding the application being in contradiction of policies SO4, CP11, CP13 and EL12 of the Local Plan and PD01, PD03 & PD04 of the local transport plan.
• Concerns over the appearance of the access. Cutting back the growth would improve safety however it would highlight the development of the area.

 Councillor Green:

• The green space of the rear of the shop area has not been used for growing to her knowledge and would therefore set a precedent for building in a field.
• Concerns regarding the access. Trying to pull out of the site heading south on a very fast road was dangerous.
• Not many supporting businesses in the locality to compliment the site.
• No bus stops therefore no public transport links.

Councillor Stayte spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. He explained that since the demise of the garden centre it had become an unused brown-field site. He then touched upon the affect the recycling centre has had on the current occupiers of the property. He expressed the Parish Councils support of the application and backed this up with the following reasons:

• The majority of the site previously had been for commercial use.

• The existing house would be retained as offices.
• The existing road access would be improved.
• Traffic using the site wouldn’t be much more than the traffic currently utilising the recycling centre.

Mrs McNally, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. She asked the Committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• The previous application was only refused due to the highways safety concerns which had now been addressed and accepted by GCC Highways.
• They had support from both the Parish Council and SDC Officer recommendation.
• They had received interest from investors looking to invest in the site and the surrounding area.
• The proposal would bring economic and employment benefits to the area particularly in the challenging post Covid environment.
• They felt that this proposal could encourage the reinstatement of public transport in the area.
• Paragraphs 2.3.7 through to 2.3.10 of the draft local plan encouraged employment growth along the A38 corridor where this application was proposed.
• The recycling centre was in such a close proximity that the site could no longer be viable as a residential dwelling.

Councillor Jones questioned what the increase in the departure from the local plan was. The Majors and Environment Team Manager explained that there hadn’t been sufficient evidence to show the paddocks areas commercial use. Therefore, the extra bit of land to the rear and the small pond were both classed as being outside the original site which led to a greater departure from the local plan.

Councillor Jones further questioned if that changed the Officer advice. The Majors and Environment Team Manager confirmed the advice remained to approve and the committee needed to decide if the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager gave the following responses to questions asked:

• This wasn’t an ideal site (therefore not recognised for employment in part of the local plan) however, it was an existing employment site in the countryside.
• It was unknown how much employment would be provided on the site.

The Chair confirmed that the officer advice was to permit and in the event that this was agreed it would be delegated to the Head of Development Management to make the final decision having regard to the ongoing consultation.

Councillor Jones questioned the discrepancies between the report and the comments made by highways regarding the use of splitter islands. The Majors and Environment Team Manager explained that the decision would be delegated to Highways to discuss directly with the applicant.

Councillor Patrick Proposed and Councillor Hall Seconded the officer’s advice.

Councillor Brine thanked the applicants for listening to the objections made at the previous meeting regarding the highway safety issues, he also noted the rural area had already been urbanised due to the recycling facility situated next to the site. For those reasons he expressed his support for the application.

Councillor Patrick debated access and explained there were many sites whose access stemmed from the A38. She echoed Councillor Brines support.

Councillors Jones, Schoemaker, Hall, Brown and Fenton all expressed their support for the application with the amended access. They noted the concerns regarding the departure from the local plan and the lack of local transport links. They also noted the close proximity of the recycling facility and the issues that this had caused to the applicant.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.