Agenda item

Unit 1 Parcel E4 Land West of Stonehouse, Grove Lane, Westend, Stonehouse (S.21/2758/REM)

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)

Minutes:

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 an additional two points if they were required.

 

The Head of Development Management confirmed in response to Councillor Jones that the decision to request solar panels on the roof would need to have been made in the outline application stage. She further informed the committee that the emerging local plan did not carry any weight at that point in time as it still needed to pass through the examination in public stage. The policies in the draft plan would need to have received no objections in order to begin to carry weight at an earlier stage, if objections were received then the policies still would carry little weight until the inspectors written views were received.

 

Further questions were asked and the following responses were given by the Majors and Environment Team Manager:

  • The Officer recommendation was to approve based on the evidence provided which included consideration of the comprehensive objections from the Town Council.
  • The outline permission had a longer period of time between the approval date and the commencement of work which explained the length of time between the outline application and this application.
  • The late pages included comments from Highways for the gate to be set back 15m from the highway. It was believed that this had been updated in the plans where the gate could be seen to be set back from the dotted line of the highway. It was agreed to get this checked outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor Fenton questioned the 8 bicycle spaces provided and asked how many employees were likely to be using the unit in order to ascertain what proportion of bicycle spaces were available. The Majors and Environment Team Manager explained that the use of the building was currently unknown, it was likely to be either office use or warehouse use which would vary in the number of employees.

 

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns with the unknown use of the building and questioned whether they could get any more detail. The Head of Development Management drew attention to condition 11 on page 38 of the document pack which stated that the development would not be brought into use until details of the bicycle parking and changing facilities had been submitted. They explained that at this time they should know more information regarding the use of the building which would allow some flexibility to request further bicycle parking should there be a larger workforce. It was confirmed that this was the same case with the EV charging which was covered by condition 12.

 

In response to Councillor Brown the Head of Development Management explained that the discharge of a condition wouldn’t normally come back to Committee, the exception to this was made when outline planning permission was granted however, this discharge of condition would not fall under that exception.

 

The Head of Development Management recommended the use of an informative for the Committee to show their views on maximising both the bicycle parking and the EV charging points.

 

In response to Councillor Jones, the Principal Planning Lawyer confirmed that the conditions were based on an assessment of the site from a Highways Authority and would require approval from the Local Planning Authority before the buildings could be used. He further mentioned that should the Committee feel strongly enough, they would need to provide justification in order to go against the Officers recommendations.

 

Councillor Ryder questioned condition 13 and the fact that there was no mention of construction working hours. The Majors and Environment Manager confirmed that they could add that the construction hours needed to be agreed  as part of the Construction Management Plan under condition 13.

 

Councillor Ryder proposed the Officer recommendation with the amendment to condition 13 and an added informative relating to maximising the bicycle and EV charging spaces. Councillor Schoemaker seconded.

 

Councillor Schoemaker expressed support for the development.

 

Councillor Jones expressed concerns with the energy supplier contract and frustrations with the limited powers they had available to them due to the outline approval.

 

Councillor Brine expressed his wish to support the Town Council with their objections however, due to the outline approval he would be supporting this application. He debated how they could assist with changing people behaviours to cycle and walk to work and that they should try a soft approach and ask developers to consider their comments rather than trying to condition to a level that was outside their control. 

 

Councillor Schoemaker debated setting up a charter for developers to sign up for minimum standards of sustainability.

 

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

 

RESOLVED   To PERMIT the application subject to the updates included in the late pages, the amendment to condition 13 to include the construction hours and the added informative to maximise the bicycle and EV charging provisions.

Supporting documents:

 

We use cookies to improve user experience. If you continue, we will assume you are happy to accept cookies from this website. Continue