Agenda item

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 Environment Team Manager confirmed as part of condition 8 there was a request for a landscape ecological management plan where the maximum hedge height could be included.

Councillors debated the colour of the building and whether it was the best choice to blend in with its surroundings. The Majors and Environment Team Manager confirmed they had originally chosen a neutral non-descript colour in order for the building to not stand out.

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns over the number of electric vehicle spaces as in the previous application. The Head of Development Management confirmed that the conditions they discussed on the previous application were also relevant to this one therefore they were hoping for the flexibility to amend these at the discharge of the condition stage.

In response to Councillor Schoemaker the Majors and Environment Team Manager confirmed that the site had always been a mixed use residential and employment site.

Councillor Brine proposed and Councillor Ryder seconded the Officers recommendation with the addition of the informative as above in the previous application, the amendment to condition 13 to include construction hours and the amendment to condition 8 to include the hedge height maintenance and maximise the bicycle and EV charging spaces.

Councillor Brine reminded Councillors that this was a mixed use site and therefore would always be difficult however, they could try to mitigate the noise and the views as best as they could. He further reminded them that if there were noise or other issues after the build then there were other ways to manage those such as Environmental Health.

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 amendment to condition 8 to include the hedge maintenance and the added informative to maximise the bicycle and EV charging provisions.