Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of a grain storage building to B8 use class.
Location:	The Grain Store, Wyld Court Farm
Applicant:	Empire State Land Company
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to  APPROVE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions

 

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/02772/FULC in respect of change of use of a grain storage building to B8 use class at the Grain Store, Wyld Court Farm.

2.         In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Mr Alexander Dick, adjacent Parish Council representative, Mr George Greenham, objector, Mr Peter Danks, agent and Councillor Virginia von Celsing, speaking as Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.         Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations.  He advised that the planning application had been called in to the Committee as 97 objections had been received from residents in relation to traffic congestion.  However, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.

4.         Paul Goddard was invited to make a comment on the highways matters.  He advised that the facility was currently being used as a grain store that could accommodate one thousand tonnes, with access to the site from the B4009.  The sight lines to the left of the site were substandard, but whether this was an issue depended on vehicle movements.  Highways officers had had difficulty in calculating the traffic that the change in usage would generate.

5.         The applicant had advised that the grain store with dryer could be used twice a year, with some 130 fifteen tonne tractor and trailers delivering the grain to the store and larger 29 tonne vehicles removing the grain.  With other movements such as monitoring, there could be up to 470 vehicle movements per annum.  Consequently there were periods when there was a considerable amount of activity and others when there was no activity.  However this averaged out at one traffic movement in and out per day.  While this was much disputed by residents, there was no evidence to cast doubt on the information provided by the applicant.

6.         It was difficult to project the vehicle movements following a change to B8 usage, as it would depend what type of B8 the facilities were used for.  For example, if they were used for self-storage there would be a low level of vehicle activity.  A B8 use, similar to that of the joinery workshop already operating with B8 usage, would also be low.  On the other hand, the facilities could be used for parcel distribution with up to four heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) coming in and out of the site per day.

7.         However, the latter use was considered unlikely as such uses were usually located near the strategic road network.  It was also stressed that the size of the storage facilities should be taken into account, as they comprised two units with a total floor area of 510 square metres.  Consequently any HGVs accessing the site would not be large and frequent.

8.         Paul Goddard referred the Committee to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which stated that a planning application should only be refused on transport grounds unless the impact on the area was severe.  Having considered the likely B8 uses, the Council could have some difficulty in defending a refusal at Appeal.  He also referred the Committee to page 65 of the report, which provided the results of a five day traffic survey undertaken in March 2016 that showed only some 3% of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.  In conclusion, he stated that Highways officers recommended planning consent was granted.

9.         Mr Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           It was a rural parish and the change to B8 usage would set a precedent.

·           Concerns had been expressed by residents about the increase in traffic in the area, which would put cyclists and pedestrians at risk of harm.

·           The B4009 did not provide suitable access to the site as its layout would result in HGVs and large goods vehicles (LGVs) having to drive in the middle of the road in places.  In addition, when turning left into the site, it would be necessary to turn into the centre of the road.

·           The B4009 was susceptible to flash flooding, resulting in vehicles heading south having to cross onto the north-bound carriageway.

·           The traffic would have to pass through a conservation area that was valued for its distinctive appearance and character, which would be negatively impacted as a result.

·           There was nowhere for HGVs and LGVs to pass easily on the road that accessed the site.

·           There were existing proposals for a further 140 properties in Compton, which would lead to more traffic, as would the changes to the school catchment areas for Hampstead Norreys Primary School and the Downs School.

·           Hampstead Norreys Parish Council was not averse to development but they did not feel this was an appropriate site, due to the existing road infrastructure.

10.      Councillor Garth Simpson asked Mr Barlow if he had had some reservations when the planning permission for the B8 usage for the joinery workshop was submitted.  Mr Barlow responded that he had not been on the Parish Council at the time.

11.      Mr Dick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Ashampstead Parish Council was objecting to the planning application because the road network would be better suited to B1 usage than B8.

·           He urged the Committee to consider the photographs he had provided, which showed the existing problems that residents had to contend with.

·           There would be no point in forcing HGVs to approach the site from the west as drivers use satnavs to navigate, which would not take them this way.

·           He agreed that the adjacent joinery workshop already had B8 usage but this was utilised for light industrial use, which was more appropriate to the area.

·           The existing traffic movement data provided by the applicant for the grain store were a fallacy, as this had never been a large scale operation.  In addition the traffic would only have used local roads and would not have used the wider road network.

·           A common sense approach would result in the planning application being refused, as there were more appropriate places to site a unit with B8 usage.

12.      Councillor James Cole noted that the case officer’s report stated there were currently a total of 470 vehicle movements per annum and he asked what a realistic estimate would be.  Mr Dick responded that these traffic movements would only have been along the roads that link the grain store to the farm and would not have included the highway. 

13.      Mr Greenham in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He was representing the 850 residents of the parish.

·           They were not objecting to the change to the grain store; however B1 usage was more appropriate for the location than B8 and this would still provide employment for the village.

·           Even though the adjacent joinery workshop had been granted permission for B8 usage, the facility was smaller than the grain store and it was only operating with B1 usage.

·           The objections were in relation to the generation of traffic from the change in usage and the estimates provided by the applicant for current usage were misleading, as they were grossly understated.

·           Traffic through Hampstead Norreys was already well above that predicted by the Council.

·           The extension to the catchment areas for Hampstead Norreys Primary School and the Downs School would lead to an increase in traffic.

·           The increase in HGVs would pose a risk to residents and children who were encouraged to walk and cycle.

·           It was a rural community in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and it was not an industrial estate.

·           Therefore enough was enough and this needed to be said before there was a fatality.

14.      Councillor Hilary Cole asked how the extension to the catchment area for the Downs School would affect traffic travelling through Hampstead Norreys.  Mr Dick advised that it was necessary for traffic from Hermitage to travel through Hampstead Norreys to get to Compton.

15.      Mr Danks in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The proposal was for change of use from agricultural storage to general storage.

·           It would not result in large numbers of HGVs accessing the site but was more likely to be frequented by white vans using the storage facilities.

·           The units would provide opportunities for local builders and carpenters or for the storage of classic vehicles and would help make a contribution to the local economy.

·           The applicant recognised the potential for the change in usage to cause disturbance to neighbours and they were willing to work with the Council to prevent this from occurring.

16.      Councillor Jeff Beck asked what type of business the applicant hoped to attract, if the intention was not to provide large scale warehousing.  Mr Danks responded that the applicant had already been approached by someone holding a large collection of classic cars.

17.      Councillor Anthony Pick questioned the need to change the usage from B1 to B8.  However Mr Danks advised that this was necessary to enable the units to be used for storage purposes.

18.      Councillor Paul Bryant noted that there had been an application for B8 usage in 2007 and enquired whether this was for the grain store or the joinery workshop.  It was confirmed that it had been for the latter.

19.      Councillor Virginia von Celsing asked how many jobs would be generated by the change in usage and Mr Danks informed her that there would be 8-10 parking spaces for employees or visitors.  He added that if the facility was used as a builder’s yard, it would be possible to employ a store person and other staff, but a restriction on vehicle movements would make this difficult.

20.      Councillor James Cole reflected that if the facility was used for the storage of vehicles, the movements would be low.  However he wondered what the vehicle movements would be like if it was used as a builder’s yard.  Mr Danks speculated that it could include the delivery of vehicles once a week and that the movements would be undertaken by light vehicles.

21.      Councillor Pick enquired whether the classic cars would be delivered or driven to the facility and he was advised that it was likely they would be driven there by their owners.

22.      Councillor von Celsing in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           She was representing the three parishes of Hampstead Norreys, Ashampstead and Hermitage.

·           None of the parishes were against the creation of employment but wanted the site to be for light industrial usage and were fearful of HGVs travelling through Hampstead Norreys.

·           Hermitage Parish Council had not been consulted on this planning application although they were a neighbouring parish and there was no pavement from Wyld Court.

·           There was a public footpath that went through the site, which was not compatible with pallets and lorries utilising the site.

·           The application might cause a large amount of HGVs to access the site and she urged the Committee to refuse the application.

23.      Councillor Bryant asked for clarification with regard to Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment (BREEAM).  Derek Carnegie replied that they had not included a condition requiring it, as the Council was not in a position to do so.

24.      Councillor Bryant further enquired whether it would be appropriate to introduce a weight restriction on the road to the west of the site.  Paul Goddard advised that this would need to be taken up separately by the Parish Council as it would be difficult to enforce, because it was often difficult to distinguish between vehicles that were genuinely using the B4009 and those that were not.

25.      Councillor Paul Hewer asked if the facility could end up being used for Amazon style deliveries if the application was approved.  He was advised that this was possible with B8 usage, but it was unlikely due to the poor road network distribution away from roads such as the M4 and the fact that the units were relatively small in size.

26.      Councillor Adrian Edwards enquired as to whether there were any cycle routes in the vicinity and he was advised that there were not.

27.      Councillor James Cole questioned whether it would be possible to restrict usage of the site and Derek Carnegie responded this would not be possible, as the applicant would be able to appeal any conditions imposed with such restrictions.  However, he reiterated that the size of the buildings would restrict their use.  He added that Highways officers had calculated the implications of vehicular movements and any use of HGVs and white vans was likely to be determined by the size of the units.

28.      Councillor Simpson noted that B8 usage enabled the facilities to be used for distribution and storage and queried whether B1 usage could not be used for storage, as the joinery workshop appeared to be operating with B1 usage.  Derek Carnegie answered that it was difficult to be precise about how the joinery workshop was operating and what its usage complied with.  Furthermore if Members were minded to grant the B8 permission there could be elements of manufacturing and storage.

29.      In considering the above application Councillor Beck stated that he shared the concerns of local residents.  However, it was unrealistic from a business perspective, to select this site for a high throughput operation.  Consequently he felt the risk of it being utilised for high volume distribution was extremely low.  Therefore, he proposed that the Committee accepted the officer’s recommendation and granted planning permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole.

30.      Councillor James Cole drew attention to the current vehicular movements provided by the applicant, which he did not believe were correctly described.  As a result, he would have difficulty in supporting the application, which could result in large numbers of HGVs accessing the site.

31.      Councillor von Celsing concurred with Councillor James Cole as her view was that by approving the application the Council would be giving permission for large lorries to access the site and the road network could not support it.

32.      Councillor Hilary Cole advised that she agreed with Councillor Beck’s view as it would not be possible for a large distribution centre to be sited in this location.  In addition, she felt it was necessary to support the local economy and create some employment through the use of a redundant building.  In addition, in order to enable people to carry on living and working in rural areas, it was necessary to accept some vehicle movements.

33.      Councillor Simpson commented that he was deliberating whether to take the risk and grant permission for B8 usage or restrict it to B1 usage.

34.      Councillor James Cole stated that he would support B1 usage on the site, as he was definitely in favour of providing places of employment in rural areas.

35.      Councillor Bryant conjectured that the Planning Inspector would not turn down the application for B8 usage.  However he added that he was worried about the references made by officers to their inability to carry out enforcement, as he considered that the Council should be looking at what was right and not what was expedient.

36.      Councillor Edwards offered the view that having seen the restrictions with the road network, he could not see HGVs utilising the facility and therefore, he could not see any reason not to approve the application.

37.      The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck as seconded by Councillor Hilary Cole to approve planning permission.  At the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.            The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:   To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and supporting documentation:

Drawings:

-        RAC/7000/01 (location plan)

-        RAC/7000/02 (proposed site plan)

-        RAC/7000/05 (proposed layout)

-        RAC/7000/06 (proposed internal layout plan)

-        RAC/7000/07 (proposed elevations)

-        RAC/7000/09 (parking plan)

-        8170470/6101 rev.B (visibility splay plan attached to Transport Statement).

Documentation:

-        Transport Statement prepared by Glanville

-        Structural Survey prepared by Graham Smith Associates

-        Arboricultural Report prepared by GHA Trees Arboricultural Consultancy

Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.            The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the visibility splays at the approved access have been provided in accordance with drawing number 8170470/6101 rev.B.  The land within these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 1.05 metres above the carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4.            The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans listed under 2.  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the free flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

5.            Prior to their installation, details of the colour and finish of the roller shutters doors and new pedestrian/fire exit doors on the building, and the specification of the hard surfacing areas and details of the post and rail fence adjacent to the Public Right of Way hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development harmonises with the surroundings and responds to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and SPD ‘Quality Design’ (June 2006).

6.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Arboricultural Method Statement ref: GHA/DS/15560:17 prepared by GHA Trees Arboricultural Consultancy received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 October 2017. The method statement shall be carried out in full, including the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection and any special construction works within any defined tree protection area.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

7.            Prior to their installation, details of any external lighting on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall thereafter be installed, maintained and operated strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of this rural area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and to protect neighbouring residential amenity from excessive light pollution in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies ENV19, OVS5, OVS6 of The West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (saved policies), SPD ‘Quality Design’, SPG ‘House Extensions’ and the NPPF.

8.            No works, in association with the use hereby permitted, shall take place outside the following hours:

·           7:00am to 19:00 Mondays to Fridays;

·           7.00am to 13:00pm Saturdays;

·           There shall be no working on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason:   To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policies ENV19, OVS5, OVS6 of The West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies), SPD ‘Quality Design’, SPG ‘House Extensions’ and the NPPF.

9.            With the exception of the storage of motor vehicles under condition 4 above, there shall be no external storage of material, equipment, vehicles or any other items associated with the use of the building hereby permitted.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of this rural area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and to protect neighbouring residential amenity from excessive noise and disturbance in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies ENV19, OVS5, OVS6 of The West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies), SPD ‘Quality Design’, SPG ‘House Extensions’ and the NPPF.

10.         The development hereby permitted shall be used for B8 use only and for no other purposes including any other purposes in Class B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and reacting that order with or without modification.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).