Agenda item

Proposal:	Outline application for the erection of a new logistics warehouse building (for occupation by Walker Logistics) (Use Class B8) with ancillary office floorspace, an aircraft museum building (Use Class D1), and associated access, car parking and landscaping. Matters to be considered: Scale.
Location:	Land South of Tower Works, Ramsbury Road, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford.
Applicant:	Walker Logistics Limited
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT planning permission subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8 of the report)

 

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a potential personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Greenham Parish Council (GPC), which owned the freehold of Greenham Control Tower. Part of the function of the control tower was to act as a Cold War Museum, though to the best of his knowledge an enterprise similar to that proposed as part of this application had never been discussed by GPC. The management of the control tower was the responsibility of a separate charity Greenham Control Tower Ltd (GCTL). Councillor Vickers had no controlling interest in GCTL, nor did GPC have any say in how its asset was managed. However, he reported that should the decision hinge on the museum aspect, he would declare a disclosable pecuniary or an other registerable interest, and he would leave the meeting during the course of discussion of the matter.)

(Councillor Adrian Abbs and Phil Barnett declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Greenham Parish Council, which was promoting the use of the Greenham Common Control Tower as a Cold War Museum. However, they had not pre-determined the application and would consider it with an open mind. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/02979/OUTMAJ in respect of Outline application for the erection of a new logistics warehouse building (for occupation by Walker Logistics) (Use Class B8) with ancillary office floorspace, an aircraft museum building (Use Class D1), and associated access, car parking and landscaping. Matters to be considered: Scale at Land South of Tower Works, Ramsbury Road, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning), introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that on balance officers accepted the exceptional need for the development. As such, officers recommended that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard highlighted two significant issues: traffic impact, and the sustainability of the location. He confirmed that the site layout and parking levels were acceptable, but those matters were reserved. He noted that transport statements had been submitted including a recent one with updated survey counts, which showed that there would be 160 additional vehicle movements per day from the proposal, including 38 HGVs. These would double the current traffic levels. He stated that he did not consider the impact on the B4000 to be severe. He highlighted historical traffic survey data, which showed an increase in car trips on the B4000, but there was limited evidence for HGV movements. He noted that residents had long been concerned about increased traffic on the B4000, but the evidence and limited increase associated with the development made it difficult to object to the proposal.

4.     He highlighted the personal consent and suggested this was important. He stated that around four times the trips could be expected from a conventional B8 warehouse. Although Highways did not object on increased traffic grounds, they did object on sustainability grounds. He highlighted the lack of public bus services and footways, which meant that the only way to access the site was by car. He noted that officers had long been concerned about development proposals in this area. Although a travel plan and minibus service was proposed, he indicated that these were insufficient to satisfy sustainability concerns. He noted similar arrangements had been proposed for other developments in the vicinity, but these were expensive to run and generally ceased to operate after a few months. He observed that local experience had shown shuttle bus services were not viable, even for larger sites such as the Harrods distribution depot in Thatcham. He suggested that the travel plan for this development was unlikely to be monitored, since the Transport Policy Team only had sufficient resources to monitor the largest commercial and residential developments. He concluded that Highways objected on sustainability grounds and suggested that the proposal was contrary to Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy, the Local Transport Plan and the Council’s Climate Change Emergency Declaration.

Removal of speaking rights

5.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

6.     The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the remote meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

7.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Lambourn Parish Council (Mrs Sue Cocker), Mr Piers Yeld and Mr Tony King, objectors, and Mr Philip Walker (Walker Logistics), Mr Jim Tarzey (Pegasus Group) and Mr Ian Southwell (Vectos). All those who made submission were able to attend the remote meeting.

8.     Individual written submissions were published online with the agenda:
http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5743&Ver=4

Parish Council’s Submission

9.     The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendee as follows:

10.  Councillor James Cole asked how much unemployment there was in the Lambourn area. Mrs Cocker explained there was no ward level data, and the horse racing industry provided transient employment, so numbers fluctuated. She suggested that there may be around 100 unemployed people in the area. Councillor James Cole suggested that some of those people would be interested in employment at the proposed development. Mrs Cocker agreed.

11.  Councillor James Cole noted that a proposed condition would not permit 7-day or external operation, and asked if this would mitigate the Parish Council’s concerns. Mrs Cocker highlighted residents’ experience with HGVs using Ermin Street and Ramsbury Road in the early hours of the morning. These often could not access premises because they were locked, so sat with engines idling. She suggested that if the condition could be enforced, then it may help to alleviate concerns, but local experience suggested that enforcement did not take place.

12.  Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) showed the site to be ‘potentially developable’ and asked the Parish Council about this. Mrs Cocker highlighted a comment, which suggested the site was not considered for the HELAA, because it was not considered sustainable.

13.  Councillor Abbs asked if traffic were to enter and exit the site via Membury Services, whether that would address the Parish Council’s concerns. Mrs Cocker noted that this was prohibited by Highways England. The Chairman indicated that the question was not a matter of clarification of the Parish Council’s submission.

Objectors’ Submission

14.  The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendees as follows:

15.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked about alternative sites considered. Mr Yeld noted that the applicant had considered sites in Swindon and West Berkshire, and had threatened that if permission was not granted, the company would move to the ‘golden triangle’ in Northamptonshire.

16.  Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the objectors referred to 776 vehicle movements. Having visited the site, he was surprised at the number of vehicles. He noted difficulties in vehicles parking and passing. He also noted that the objectors’ traffic figures differed from those supplied by the applicant. Mr King explained that the current transport analysis was based on output from the current Walker’s facility instead of the TRICS database. He understood the proposed personal condition, but asked if a new owner would change the operation and achieve the quoted figures. He noted the applicant had indicated there would be 200 new employees, but the application quoted 45-50. This suggested that traffic could increase by a factor of five. Mr Yeld highlighted that the TRICS database had shown 776 vehicle trips could be expected for a site of this size, which was considerably more than 153 trips stated by the applicant. He indicated that the applicant had not answered the question as to why the TRICS data had not been used, but suggested that it was because of the personal condition. He indicated that he was not satisfied with this.

17.  Councillor Vickers asked if the objectors felt that there were any other key issues not addressed in the committee report. Mr Yeld noted that local residents had engaged a planning consultant, who had highlighted the vulnerability of the personal condition in the event that the site were to change ownership, and had suggested that it would be virtually impossible for the Council to restrict the capacity of future operations. Mr Yeld noted that as part of the applicant’s threat to relocate their business, they had indicated they would be forced to lease their existing site to a high-transport haulage businesses. He suggested that this further supported the use of the substantially increased traffic flows indicated by the TRICS database.

Applicant/Agent’s Submission

18.  The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendees as follows:

19.  Councillor Abbs noted that the applicant was proposing to increase staff, when other logistics companies were investing in automation. He asked Mr Walker how his business was different. Mr Walker stated that his business was a fulfilment company, which was labour-intensive and low on HGV movements, with orders processed within its warehouse. He explained that it was a multi-user site serving small to medium customers with different requirements. He noted that larger operators such as Wincanton tended to operate dedicated sites for their customers, which allowed some automation, because they could predict activity. However, this site had lots of people picking, packing and processing orders.

20.  Councillor Abbs asked if the new jobs would be sustainable in the medium to long term. Mr Walker explained that the data in the application was out of date. He stated that there were currently 168 full-time employees, with 42 temporary staff. He highlighted that there had been enormous growth during the pandemic, and 70 new jobs had been created since 2020. He indicated that the business had been operating for 22 years.

21.  Councillor Barnett asked if the full-time jobs would be permanent. Mr Walker confirmed that they would be.

22.  Councillor Barnett asked if the business would recruit locally as well as from Swindon. Mr Walker confirmed that the business had taken on many local people, and there had been more interest in the last year, with people losing jobs and being furloughed. He stated that there were 2 employees from Downlands, 10 from Lambourn (with two zero-hour contracts), and 6 from Hungerford (with two zero-hour contracts). He noted that the business was close to the county boundary, so it also employ people from nearby villages in Wiltshire. He indicated that jobs were advertised outside the building, and they wanted as many local people as possible.

23.  Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that building should only take place in the AONB in exceptional circumstances. With no guarantee that jobs would go to local people, she asked why West Berkshire Council should permit this proposal. She also noted that the project would not be liable for CIL contributions. Mr Walker conceded that the site was in the AONB, but it was next to their existing site. He suggested that it was of low value in terms of benefits to the AONB. He indicated that he wished to expand the business, which had been in the area for 22 years. He explained that it was not possible to dictate where the workforce would be drawn from, but confirmed that they wanted to attract local people. However, staff would be employed on the basis of their skills sets. He suggested that creating at least 200 new jobs justified the exceptional circumstances.

24.  Mr Tarzey acknowledged that developing in the AONB was a high policy test to pass. He noted the NPPF had set three tests relating to: need; scope to relocate outside the AONB; and environmental impacts. He acknowledged that there would be some impact on the AONB, but this particular site could come forward for development in future. He stressed that the impact would be limited and would be confined to Ramsbury Road, since there were no elevated/long-distance views of the site. Although already well-contained, he noted that there would be additional planting. He stressed the need to look at the proposal on a site-specific basis and suggested that the proposal was justifiable, based on need.

25.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth noted that the development was within the AONB and outside a protected employment area (PEA). He asked how the development would enhance the character and appearance of the area, as required by Policy CS14. Mr Tarzey referred to Policy CS9, which allowed for development outside the PEA, and required consideration of the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding area. He acknowledged that the development would not enhance the site, but stressed the need to look at whether impacts would be harmful and offset. He indicated that the site was part of the former airfield and had a close relationship with existing industrial buildings. He suggested that any impacts could be mitigated with landscaping.

26.  Councillor Vickers noted the proposed World War II (WW2) aircraft museum, and highlighted that other local airfields aspired to have similar museums. He asked how important this was to the applicant, and whether he had considered locating it elsewhere. Mr Walker indicated that he owned the land, and stressed the importance of the proposal in terms of the heritage of the airfield. He was aware of alternative proposals at Greenham and Welford and had cooperated with them. He indicated that he wanted the museum to act as a history lesson, commemorating the people based there who had lost their lives. He noted that Winston Churchill had visited the airfield and suggested that it was a site that ought to be preserved.

27.  Councillor Vickers sought confirmation that this element did not carry much weight in terms of the planning balance. He asked if it was being proposed for sentimental reasons, rather than as a key part of the application. He indicated that it would not be a key factor affecting his vote, but stressed that it accounted for 10 percent of the footprint. Mr Walker noted that the building would need to accommodate an aircraft that had flown from Membury during WW2. He conceded that it was not the most important part of the application, and noted that some people had suggested it was being used as a lure to gain planning consent, but that was not correct.

28.  Councillor Abbs asked about how the proposal would contribute to the Council’s aspiration for net zero emissions. Mr Tarzey noted that the building would need to meet relevant BREEAM standards, but that was different to the sustainability credentials of the location, which had been criticised by Highways Officers.

29.  Councillor Culver wondered why the museum would only be open 28 days per year. Mr Walker explained that he did not have public money to set up and run the museum, and it would be run with support from volunteers. He indicated that 28 days would be the minimum, and it could also be opened by invitation for educational opportunities.

30.  The Chairman asked the planning officer to confirm the operating period. Mr Till confirmed that the proposed condition stated it would be open for a minimum of 28 days.

Ward Member Representation

31.  Councillor Howard Woollaston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had been lobbied on both sides as ward member and had intended to prepare a balanced speech. However, apart from the fact that Walker Logistics was a responsible employer, he could not see any justification for the proposal, so he had stood down from the committee so as to be able to represent residents in his ward.

·         The industrial estate would not have been allowed, but for an anomaly caused by WW2.

·         It was in the middle of the countryside with poor road access, and no public transport.

·         It had been allowed to develop haphazardly over the years, with unsuitable occupiers who had little respect for the countryside, or local residents.

·         There had been unprecedented levels of local opposition to the proposal, with no residents expressing support for it.

·         The Parish Council had objected in the strongest possible way.

·         176 residents had signed a petition objecting to the proposal, and there had been 56 individual letters of opposition.

·         The crux of the decision was whether the policy protecting the AONB could be overridden by extraordinary economic need, but in terms of West Berkshire, it could not.

·         Walker Logistics employed 164 people, of whom 25 percent lived within 10 miles and 18 percent lived within 5 miles.

·         The site was very close to the western boundary of the district, with Swindon just 10 miles away, so the economic benefit to West Berkshire residents was halved.

·         Most staff were bussed in from Reading and Swindon, bringing no economic benefit to West Berkshire.

·         Just 15 of the current staff were from West Berkshire and of the 45 additional staff proposed, just 4 would come the district, which did not represent a major economic benefit.

·         The location was not sustainable for local employment, unless people drove to work.

·         The nearest bus stop was nearly 2 km away, with just two services per day.

·         Ramsbury Road had no pavements or street lights and was very narrow, and people would not walk or cycle down it with so many HGVs going past.

·         The North West Downs AONB submission was damning. It highlighted far better locations in Swindon, and queried why two sites caused so many problems. This had been ignored in the recommendation.

·         Walker Logistics indicated that with few exceptions, they operated 9am-5pm on weekdays only, but they advertised a 24/7 facility to customers and were seeking employees for shifts from 7am to 8pm on Sundays, and from 3pm to midnight on weekdays.

·         Walker Logistics said that they would create few HGV trips, but their customers would create many more trips (e.g. Royal Mail, DPD, etc).

·         While Highway Officers did not object to the proposal, they clearly stated that the location was unsustainable, and had raised concerns about accessibility.

·         The industry standard TRICS database had not been used, which would have shown an additional 776 daily vehicle movements to and from Junction 14 of the M4.

·         He suggested that: the draft Local Plan was not relevant and business rates were not a planning consideration.

·         The plans showing scale and landscaping were deceptive. The building was 40 feet high and the size of two Wembley football pitches. As such, it would not sink into the background as shown in the literature, and it would take decades for the tree cover to be provided.

·         The personal consent was “a nonsense” and a future application to release it would be unlikely to be opposed.

·         The number of new jobs proposed had suddenly increased from 45 to 200, although some explanation for this had been provided at the meeting.

·         If approved, this application would be the thin end of the wedge, as two designated employment areas would be joined and a further site would be brought forward in the future.

·         It was time to draw a line in the sand and say no to environmentally unfriendly industrial development in this protected rural environment.

·         He strongly urged members to reject the officers’ recommendation, to approve the application, which he felt to be contrary to policy.

Members’ Questions to the Ward Member

32.  Councillor Vickers suggested that the ward member’s comments implied people living outside West Berkshire should not have a job in the district. He noted the site was close to the Wiltshire boundary and suggested this was not a sensible argument. Councillor Woollaston responded that people who lived in Swindon did not spend the money they earned in Membury within the local area, so the economic benefit to the area was virtually nil.

33.  Councillor Jeff Cant raised a point of order that this was an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the ward member’s representation rather than entering into debate.

34.  Councillor James Cole asked about the potential for local residents to take up jobs at the site. Councillor Woollaston stated that employment data lacked sufficient granularity and had to be inferred from West Berkshire figures. This suggested around 100 unemployed people in the Lambourn area, but it was a transient population due to the racing industry.

35.  Councillor James Cole suggested that people in the racing industry would not be keen to take up distribution jobs. Councillor Woollaston agreed.

Member’s Questions to Officers

36.  Councillor Abbs asked why access could not be via the M4 services. Mr Goddard confirmed that this was prohibited by Highways England and was national policy.

37.  Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that increasing weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan it as it progressed in its development. She noted that it was scheduled to go to Regulation 19 consultation and be submitted to the planning inspectorate in the summer. She asked what weight had been given to it by officers. Mr Till agreed that the draft Local Plan gathered weight over time and depending on the stage of preparation. He indicated that the Planning Policy Officer’s view was that it should be given limited weight, with a recognised need for industrial development and for that to be accommodated within industrial employment areas. He noted that Membury, as an existing PEA, was under consideration, and may be allocated for further development. He acknowledged that while current policy stated that industrial employment uses should be directed to PEAs, they allowed for consideration of land alongside those areas subject to consideration of location and compatibility with surrounding uses, sustainability, etc. He concluded that the main consideration should be under current policy with limited weight under the new plan, since the site was being considered for allocation for industrial development.

38.  Councillor Hilary Cole sought confirmation that account had been taken of the fact that the HELAA had identified the site as ‘potentially developable’. Mr Till confirmed that it had.

39.  Councillor Vickers noted that the national move towards electric vehicles, which would reduce the carbon footprint of the development. He asked Mr Goddard what weight he attached to this and if it would affect the assessment about the sustainability of the site in 20 years’ time. Mr Goddard agreed that it was UK Government policy that no further fossil fuel powered cars would be built after 2035. However, he highlighted that fossil fuels were still required to generate power to charge electric cars. He did not consider that current policy gave sufficient weight to take account of the impact of electric vehicles, other than to promote their usage.

40.  Councillor James Cole queried the statement in the report, which suggested that the proposed operating hours would not be to the detriment of residents, particularly in relation to traffic noise. Mr Till explained that the site was between two PEAs, where there were uncontrolled industrial uses in the area, operating around the clock, with numerous associated vehicle movements. He indicated that it was standard practice to allow operating hours of 7am to 8pm, and suggested this would not be disruptive, given the context of the site.

41.  Councillor James Cole highlighted traffic flows further along the B4000 in Wickham and asked if the growth could in part be attributed to development at Membury, and also how it would be affected by this application if approved. Mr Goddard agreed that some of the traffic increase was related to Membury, but it may also be due to development in Lambourn. He noted that traffic levels on the B4000 had risen over the last 12 years, but without additional traffic surveys, it was difficult to say where this was coming from.

42.  Councillor Phil Barnett asked if HGVs could be restricted to ‘access only’ on sections of the B4000. Mr Goddard indicated that he was not aware of any such proposals. He explained that it was difficult to prove where HGVs were going, and therefore enforce these restrictions. He suggested that if the local community wished to pursue such a restriction, then they should contact the Traffic and Road Safety Team.

Debate

43.  Councillor Abbs opened the debate. He indicated that he was conflicted about which way to vote. He suggested that the applicant could have done more to improve the application (e.g. build a net zero warehouse). He also suggested that new jobs might not be permanent due to automation within the industry. However, he was comfortable with the location and highlighted the fact that the site had been designated in the HELAA as “potentially developable” for storage and distribution uses. He suggested that an alternative development could come forward at this site in future, which would be consistent with the new Local Plan.

44.  Councillor Cant stated that he had looked for an exceptional reason to support this development within the AONB. He agreed with Councillor Woollaston’s argument about how small the economic benefit would be for West Berkshire. He also indicated that he was looking for the applicant to show respect for the local community, but the range in traffic forecasts did not give confidence that it would bring local benefits. He referred to the emerging planning policy, which he did not think could be assumed to permit further development. He also referred to the fact that the Highways Officer had objected on sustainability grounds, and indicated that he would vote against the proposal.

45.  Councillor Vickers had visited the area on the previous Sunday. He confirmed that he had not seen any moving vehicles, which suggested that local employers did not operate on Sundays. He did not consider the landscape impact to be severe or permanent, since there were already substantial trees present. He noted that there were PEAs to either side of the site, and the site itself might be designated as a PEA in the new Local Plan, so another distribution centre could be proposed for the site in future. He agreed that not all new staff would be from West Berkshire, but suggested that hiring staff from Wiltshire villages still counted as local. He indicated that a PEA in the middle of an AONB would inevitably result in people commuting by car. He acknowledged that the application was finely balanced, but suggested that it would be difficult to refuse it.

46.  Councillor James Cole highlighted the need to protect the AONB and did not consider the economic argument was sufficient to tip the planning balance. He acknowledged that tree planting was proposed, but suggested that they would take many years to be effective in screening the buildings. He indicated that he was uncomfortable with the traffic and sustainability impacts of the proposal.

47.  Councillor Barnett indicated that he had initially been in favour of the site on economic grounds. He suggested that people from local villages might commute by motorbike or bicycle. Also, he noted that employers had located to Membury over the years and found it to be a beneficial location. However, he had reservations due to the strong arguments against the proposal and was undecided about how to vote.

48.  Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that the determination hinged on whether an exceptional need had been demonstrated. She indicated that planning balance was in favour of economic development to aid post-Covid recovery. She noted that half of those employed in the district commuted in from other areas and half of West Berkshire’s residents commuted out, so the issue of where new staff would be drawn from was a ‘red herring’. She referred to the comments from the AONB, which focused on the need to protect the area, but suggested that they did not understand the economic benefits. Also, they had ignored policy in the NPPF, which supported economic growth and productivity. She noted that the site was next to a PEA, and it was shown as “potentially developable” in the HELAA. She acknowledged sustainability concerns, but stressed that the site was next to an established PEA, so people already travelled to the area. She noted that Planning Policy was giving a balanced view on this application.

49.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

50.  Councillor Abbs noted that the application was very finely balanced. The fact that the company was local had swayed him. He asked what conditions could be imposed, such as in relation to achieving a net zero development. Mr Till referred to recommended Conditions 8 and 9 which related to BREEAM and measures to comply with policy CS15 on zero carbon development.

51.  Councillor Abbs indicated that he was also concerned about the operation of the facility. Mr Till noted that this was an outline application and indicated that matters such as parking and EV charge points would be considered at the detailed design stage. He suggested that an informative could be drafted, highlighting the importance of seeking submissions detailing how the building would further the sustainability aims of the district.

52.  The Chairman noted concerns about landscaping and asked if another informative could be used to specify a minimum height for trees. Mr Till explained that the applicant had already made a significant commitment to landscaping, and had a long-term record of maintaining the existing landscaping. He noted that this was a reserved matter, but the supporting documents already showed understanding of the need for a long-term strategy. He acknowledged the need for the landscaping to be sensitively designed.

53.  Councillor Vickers noted that the site would only be visible from Ramsbury Road. He suggested that there should be a fast-growing screen of trees close to the road.

54.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Adrian Abbs to grant 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.    Reserved Matters

Details of the access, appearance, layout and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.    Time Limit

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the approved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

3.    Indicative Plans

The layout of the site shall be in broad accordance with the indicative block plan reference number 03100-00-C. The building hereby approved shall be a maximum of 12.6 metres in height.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, and in the interests of visual amenity in the North Wessex Downs AONB in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

4.    Permitted development restriction

Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country General Permitted Development Order 2015, as amended, or any subsequent revision thereof no addition floors or mezzanines shall be inserted in the building hereby approved.

Reason: In order to prevent the overdevelopment and intensification of use of the site in a manner that might otherwise result in harm to the tranquillity of the AONB, highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS9, CS13, CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

5.    Maximum floor areas

The floor areas for the building hereby approved shall be limited to the maximum following floor areas:

- Museum and military vehicle storage area 2180 sq.m

- Class B8 storage and distribution warehouse 9060 sq.m

- Ancillary office area 1150 sq.m

- Ancillary welfare and security area 180 sq.m

Reason: In order to prevent the overdevelopment and intensification of use of the site in a manner that might otherwise result in harm to the tranquillity of the AONB, highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS9, CS13, CS14, CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

6.    Construction Method Statement

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The statement shall provide for:

(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

(d) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing

(e) Wheel washing facilities

(f)  Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

(g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

The provisions of the Construction Method Statement shall be implemented in full and retained until the development has been occupied. Any deviation from the approved Construction Method Statement shall be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

7.    Noise management plan

A scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. Thereafter, the use shall not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented.

Reason: To protect the occupants of nearby residential properties from noise in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 and Policies OVS5 and OPS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

8.    BREEAM

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a post construction review demonstrating that the approved building has achieved a construction standard of BREEAM Excellent has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application.

Reason: In order to ensure a sustainable development of high quality construction in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

9.    Zero carbon

No development shall take place until a plan demonstrating how the building hereby approved will meet with the requirement for zero carbon development including construction, monitoring and reporting measures has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: In order to secure zero carbon development in accordance with Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

10.Construction environment management plan

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following:

(a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

(b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”.

(c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

(d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.

(e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.

(f)  Responsible persons and lines of communication

(g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.

(h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required because the CEMP will need to be adhered to throughout construction. This condition is imposed in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

11.Landscape Ecological Management Plan

No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) (also referred to as a Habitat or Biodiversity Management Plan) has been submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:

(a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed.

(b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.

(c) Aims and objectives of management.

(d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.

(e) Prescriptions for management actions.

(f)  Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period).

(g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan.

(h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery.

The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required because the LEMP may need to be implemented during construction. This condition is imposed in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

12.Lighting strategy

No external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall:

(a) Identify those areas on the site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance.

(b) Show how and where external lighting will be installed so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species.

(c) Include and isolux diagram of the proposed lighting.

(d) Ensure all lighting levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.

(e) Include a plan of timings for external lighting to minimise external lighting at times when the external areas of the site are not in use.

No external lighting shall be installed on the site except in accordance with the above strategy.

Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site, to conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB and in the interests of the amenity of nearby residential occupants. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, Policies CS14 CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policies OVS5 and OVS 6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

13.SuDS

No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These details shall:

a)    Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and West Berkshire Council local standards, particularly the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018;

b)  Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels;

c)   Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

d)  Include detailed manufacturer’s information to ensure adequate sizing and water cleaning operation of the propose sewage treatment plant and oil interceptor;

e)  Include detailed hydraulic run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

f)   Include flood water exceedance routes, both on and off site;

g)  Include a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This plan shall incorporate arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, management and maintenance by a management company or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime;

h)  Include a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the development as the site area is larger than 1 hectare;

j)    Include a Contamination Risk Assessment for the soil and water environment (assessing the risk of contamination to groundwater, develop any control requirements and a remediation strategy).

The above sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The sustainable drainage measures shall be maintained in the approved condition thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and SuDS Supplementary Planning Document (Dec 2018). A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; sustainable drainage measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

14.Hours of external operation

No external operations (including deliveries and unloading of lorries, but excluding use of the car park by employees for parking of private motor cars and access to and from the logistics warehouse building hereby approved) shall take place except in accordance with the following hours:

7:00am to 8:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

9:00am to 1:00pm on Saturdays;

No external operations on Sundays and Bank holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residential occupants in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

15.Personal permission

The logistics warehouse building and ancillary offices hereby permitted shall be occupied only by Walker Logistics Limited unless planning permission is granted on a planning application made for this purpose.

Reason: The applicant has demonstrated through submissions accompanying this application that the associated vehicle movements and hours of external works relating to the operation of the site for his business are such as to allow for the applicant’s particular business to operate on the site under the restrictions of the conditions of this planning permission without resulting in undue detriment to the amenity of neighbouring residential occupants, highway safety and the amenity of the highway network that might result from the operation of an uncontrolled B8 or other industrial use of the site. This condition is imposed in order that the use of the site by any alternative future occupant can be given details consideration in terms of the associated impacts on highways safety and residential amenity in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS5, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

16.Levels

No development shall commence on the site until full details of ground and floor levels as existing and proposed have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in the North Wessex Downs AONB in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

17.Public access to museum

The museum hereby approved shall not be taken into use until details of arrangements for public access have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such access arrangements shall provide for the public to have visiting access to the museum on no less than 28 days per year, and shall include details of how such arrangements can be booked and will be publicised. The museum shall be made available for public visits in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To secure the public benefit of the museum and its relationship to the wider Membury airfield site as a heritage asset, in the interests of the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their associated public benefits in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026.

18.Travel plan

The building hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved on commencement of the use as a school and its provisions shall continue to be implemented thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the efficient function of the site and to promote sustainable forms of transport. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, 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).

Use restriction (additional condition) Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended, or any subsequent revision thereof, the building hereby approved for a logistics warehouse shall be used only for purposes of use Class B8 storage and distribution and ancillary office accommodation, and the building hereby approved as a museum building shall only be used as a museum unless planning permission is granted on a planning application made for the purpose of changing the use of the buildings hereby approved.

Reason: The acceptability of the approved building in planning terms is dependent on an assessment of the associated level of vehicle movements and external works that relate to the buildings in their approved use. This condition is imposed in the interests of preventing a change of use of the approved buildings that might otherwise result in an intensification of associated vehicle movements and associated activities in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policies CS5, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

Informatives

1.    This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.    Ecology & construction

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the following comments from the ecologist and the AONB officer in respect of detailed design:

Ecologist - We recognise that one of the concerns of this development is that it is in the NWD AONB, the concern relates to the visibility of the new structure(s) we propose that one way that this these concerns could be reduced is the installation of green vegetated walls. This would be best achieved with rainwater harvesting to feed into a reservoir to help maintain the watering of the vegetated green walls around the building. These green walls will; soften the landscape views of the building, improve internal thermal stability lowering energy bills with the associated environmental sustainability benefits, increase carbon capture and slow the peak flows in high rain fall events.

AONB officer - The local area is void of street lights. It must be noted that introducing lighting columns or increased building floodlights into this locality would significantly impact upon the dark sky environment, a special quality of the AONB. The building has a number of windows which will cause light spill into a dark environment. Low transmittance glass should be conditioned if the officer is minded to approve.

The colour of the building will not fade into the landscape, it will appear as a contrast to the natural greens and browns that make up the natural colour system of this landscape character area. Using the natural colour system to identify colours in the landscape which can aid in choosing more appropriate shades of green would have been a more responsible approach within a protected landscape.

The detailed design of the building accompanying the reserved matters application should demonstrate how these matters have been considered in choice of materials.