Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/01895/COMIND in respect of a proposed scaffold hire depot, comprising open storage area, modular office building and car parking, together with means of access off Pips Way, drainage and landscaping.

The Planning Officer, Alice Attwood, introduced the report and highlighted the key points.

The reason for referral to Committee by the Development Control Manager was the need to balance economic and environmental considerations in the AONB and the recommendation was for approval of the application.

The site was approximately 1.5 hectares. The proposal was not within the defined settlement boundary and therefore regarded as open countryside for the purposes of planning. The development was within the North Wessex Downs area of AONB which ran along the edge of the A4. The application was located outside of the protected employment area known as the Beenham industrial Site. The site was former landfill which had been restored and in planning terms was considered greenfield land. The site appearance had been left so that some vegetation had reclaimed the land. The majority of the area would be used for storage and there would be an office, 20 car parking spaces for staff, 4 parking spaces for visitors, two electric vehicle charging points and cycle stands for eight bicycles. There were opportunities for sustainable transport with a regular bus route along the A4 and it was near to Aldermaston Railway Station although it was considered that the nature of the use was such that visitors were less likely to make use of public transport. There was also a proposed landscaping on the edge of the site and there was also existing landscaping which would be bolstered up through this proposal.

The modular office building floor area was approximately 250m² and would house a reception, a kitchen for the drivers, a drying room, staff toilets, office spaces, an open plan area and a Comms room. The application would retain the existing landscaping and the boundary to the north of the site would have a 5 metre strip of trees and shrub planting. To the south of the site the boundary would retain the poplar tree row and additional planting of small trees would be added. A landscape visual assessment had been completed which recommended a strategy which would respond to the minor and moderate visual impacts that would be generated from the scheme. The proposed landscaping scheme would mitigate the effects of the hard standing and it was considered that the landscaping scheme would make it capable of absorbing the proposal into the surrounding site.

The neighbouring properties from the southern boundary of the site were approximately 20 metres away from the application site when including front gardens and approximately 41 metres away if not including front gardens.

The most important policies for determining whether the principle of development was acceptable were Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS9 and CS10 of the Core Strategy:

·         ADPP1 found that most development would be within or adjacent to settlements and the majority of development would take place on previously developed land. The scale and density of the development would be related to the site’s accessibility, character and surroundings. 

·         ADPP5 looked at the spatial strategy of the North Wessex Downs recognising that it was a national landscape designation and looked at preserving the special qualities of the North Wessex Downs. In terms of the economy ADPP5 stated that protected employment areas within the AONB would continue to play a vital role in supporting local economy especially those in the edge of centre locations, small businesses and local businesses would be supported and encouraged and protected within the AONB providing local job opportunities and maintaining the local rural economy. 

·         According to Policy CS9, the Council sought to facilitate and promote the growth and forecasted change of business development in the plan period in order to retain a portfolio of sites for B8 uses in suitable locations. Proposals for industry, distribution and storage uses would be directed to the District’s defined Protected Employment Areas, and existing suitably located employment sites and premises. Any proposals for such uses outside these areas/locations would be assessed by the Council against the following: 

­          compatibility with uses in the area surrounding the proposals and potential impacts on those uses; and

­          capacity and impact on the road network and access by sustainable modes of transport.

In terms of managing the scale, type and intensification of business development, Policy CS9 stated a range of types and sizes of employment sites and premises would be encouraged throughout the District to meet the needs of the local economy. The proposals for this development were considered to be in keeping with this policy and did not conflict with existing uses, and promoted sustainable transport.

·         According to Policy CS10, proposals to diversify the rural economy would be encouraged, particularly where they were located in or adjacent to Rural Service Centres and Service Villages. Existing small and medium sized enterprises within the rural areas would be supported in order to provide local job opportunities and maintain the vitality of smaller rural settlements.

There had been an objection from the public and an objection from the Parish Council in regard to noise that would be generated by the development for which the applicant did submit a noise assessment. This had been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and it was felt that this could be mitigated by the submission of a Noise Management Plan.

It was felt that the proposal’s nature and scale would, on balance, be acceptably absorbed into the landscape without any significant harm to the baseline landscape of what was there already considering there were other industrial developments nearby. There was also a considerable economic benefit as the proposal would lead to the creation of 20 employment opportunities and had the full support of the Council’s Economic Development Officer. The Environment Agency and Environmental Health had no objections in terms of contamination on the site as long as agreed conditions were adhered to.

The site was adjacent to the existing Anchor Vans premises to the north-east, and other commercial development to the south-west, including Porsche and vacant land which had permission for B2 and B8 uses.

Mr Dray referred to the update report produced after the agenda pack which addressed two issues:

1.      The delivery start time to be brought forward from 08:00 to 07:00 from Monday to Friday at the request of the applicant which was considered to be a reasonable request.

2.      Referring to the previously approved application for the site – 18/003343/COND1, there were some important changes between that and the current application, notwithstanding of course that the proposed site use was now changed.  The most important of these changes was the proposed off-site discharge into the existing ditch between the site and the A4. Previously the discharge rate was agreed at 3.6llitres/sec whereas it was now proposed to increase that to 5.54l/s or 6.52l/s depending on which scenario was being assessed. One of the LLFA’s concerns with the 2018 Application was the effect off-site discharge would have on the wider drainage system particularly in respect of Oak End Way immediately south of the A4 roundabout which was vulnerable to flooding from surface water. As such the discharge rate from the current proposals should be no greater than the previously agreed figure – 3.6l/s. 

The update report proposed an alternative condition which still required adjustment since the update report had been published but essentially reference to infiltration in that condition needed to be removed because the site was former landfill and infiltration was not acceptable.  If the recommendations were accepted, it was proposed that Members delegate to Officers to make some very minor amendments to that condition.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Peter McEwen, Objector, and Mr Chris Jesson (Agent), addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation:

·         Mr Peter McEwen said he lived in Beenham Village and was a member of the Parish Council.

·         Mr McEwan overlooked the industrial area and did not think the analysis of the application took allowance of the fact that when there was a south wind, sound came straight up the hill into his and neighbouring houses which significantly impacted on the quality of life in Beenham.  

·         Mr McEwan said when he had had a building site near to his property, he had noted that the scaffolding had made an awful banging noise and he felt that the proposed scaffold hire depot would contrast with section 6.38 of the report which stated that ‘one of the protected characteristics on the North Wessex Downs AONB was tranquillity’ even though the report concluded that the site did not have tranquilly as one of the protected characteristics of an AONB due to its proximity to the A4 and existing commercial development. 

·         Mr McEwan said the noise assessment report did not look at this factor but looked at the noise levels in neighbouring areas which were on the same level and did not consider how noise travelled up the hill or look at banging noises but had looked at sawing being the only industrial activity. The assessment had recommended saw work to be undertaken in the north of the site but that would be moving the operation nearer to Beenham Village.  As such, Mr McEwan said he did not feel that the Noise Assessment had addressed his concerns.  Mr McEwan said he hoped the Noise Management Plan would set guidelines for the proposed site which could be measured, which would be a better position than with other sites nearby over which there was no control or measurement. 

·         Mr McEwan said he was opposed to the proposed opening time of 07:00 Monday to Friday as that was the time he was just waking up and opposed Saturday hours of 09:00 to 18:00 which was not in line with other nearby sites which closed at 13:00.  In relation to landscaping, Mr McEwan said that a hedge was not sufficient to change the view overlooking the site and suggested planting tall trees which would, in time, build a visual barrier.

Councillor Pask thanked Mr McEwen for his views and for his time and said he was sure his views would be reflected upon by the Committee.

Agent Representation:

Mr Chris Jesson, Associate Town Planner at Planning & Design Group in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The applicant, Generation (UK) was part of the Altrad Group who were a world leader in the provision of industrial services. Generation (UK) was the UK's largest supplier of access scaffolding, groundworks, hedge protection, safety and training products.

·         Generation (UK) had a nationwide network of branches, none of which were currently within West Berkshire and provided full hire and sales service to the construction, events, industrial and utilities sectors.

·         The application was for a wholesale site which would not be open to the general public, unless by prior appointment, but would serve the whole industry as an integral part of the supply chain with its delivery fleet. Traffic movements would therefore be much lower than had it been a fully public operation. 

·         Generation (UK) sites were professionally managed, neighbourly and considerate operations with permanent on-site management and security. 

·         The proposed site was the only one in West Berkshire that Generation (UK) considered suitable to meet its operational and commercial requirements as it expanded its branch network. 

·         The provision of scaffolding and industrial services was a critical component of the supply chain which was known to be currently capacity-constrained through a shortage of resource and materials. 

·         It was essential that sufficient geographical coverage was provided for the supply of these services to avoid delays further in the sequence. At a time of moving forward out of the pandemic in this context, future investment in the supply chain was critical. 

·         Economic growth was a matter that the National Planning Policy Framework attached great importance to and according to paragraph 80 of the policy, decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses could invest, expand and adapt and significant weight should be given to the need to support economic growth and prosperity. 

·         The proposal was supported by the Council’s Economic Development Team and would deliver 20 full-time jobs and the further reach and implications of the supply chain and jobs within the industry would be in addition to that. 

·         The proposal from Generation (UK) had the support of Grundon Waste Management Facility as the key employer and land owner of the site, allowing the land to have a diversification of uses in the location. 

·         The layout had been holistically designed to respond to the surrounding character and land uses, specifically the scheme had been designed to contain and discharge surface water at a controlled rate, avoiding implications off site.  

·         The submitted Noise Assessment had been scoped throughout to exactly the same requirements specified by the Environmental Health Officer and demonstrated there would be no anticipated harmful impacts and would be controlled by condition. This considered the impacts upon the village of Beenham and also took into account the existing effects of the Beenham Industrial Estate and those effects would take precedence over the likely impacts of noise of the application itself.

·         The Agent had worked with West Berkshire Council and consultees to ensure there were no residual technical situations that existed and prevented the positive determination of this application.

·         The application had the support of Natural England in the context of the AONB as well as the Environment Agency lead of the local authority, the Highways Authority, Parklands Authority and the Environmental Health Officer. 

·         The Officer’s report agreed that the scheme was located in a sustainable location within the context of the adjacent industrial estate so it had responded to the need to protect the North Wessex Downs AONB and included the landscaping buffer by diversity enhancements resulting in the support that had been given. 

·         The economic benefits and policy support were considered to outweigh any residual limited harm as concluded in the report and all of the above attributes delivered a balanced and sensitively considered employment proposal. 

·         There were wider economic benefits to the industry and supply chain beyond that and the report justified that the proposal, on balance, fulfilled the Council’s objectives and met adopted Local Plan policy. It embodied what planning was about – sustainable growth, supporting business in a manner that did not materially create harm and good planning solutions to long-term vacant sites. 

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Woodhams referenced a view of the application site from the earth bund joining Pips Way and looking south, which showed some tall, sparse trees with foliage in between.  Councillor Woodhams asked if consideration could be given to a stronger, higher bund to muffle some of the sound – particularly from lorry reversing-alarms – to help the neighbouring properties across the other side of the A4. Mr Jesson said the application was within the submitted drainage strategy and there was a proposal for a part of a bund structure that would in parts contain surface water so that would have a double impact in being able to create a landscape scheme.  Notwithstanding that, there was a proposal in the conditions to submit a full landscaping and ecology management scheme and the details of how the southern part of the site was addressed would be entirely contained within that.

Councillor Macro said he shared Mr McEwan’s concerns about noise, particularly from scaffold poles which made a loud ringing sound when they banged on the ground or against each other. It was mentioned that the site was wholesale but the description of the site in the report and on the application form described it as a ‘hire’ site. Councillor Macro was unclear as to how the site could be both wholesale and hire and sought reassurance that there would not be the possibility of individual scaffold poles being moved around which might cause significant noise. Mr Jesson said the proposal was supported by a number of conditions that would control the management and manoeuvring of operations on the site and the implications of that on noise and a number of other contexts. The delivery fleet of Generation (UK) would take equipment off-site to the purchaser/consumer so it would be public appointment only as to whether anybody else went to the site. Mr Jesson added that scaffold poles would be put within the storage area on site securely on pallets. The proposed planning conditions in place were very thorough as to what the operational and management implications of this site would be. Councillor Macro asked if scaffolding was hired out on pallets would it be returned in the same way or come back as individual poles, which would raise concerns about the noise that may be generated. Mr Jesson said he believed scaffolding would be returned to site in the manner it left the site but would raise it as a point for clarification. 

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Linden requested to see the photograph of the entrance to the site from the roundabout as he had noticed on the hatching on the road a loose or raised cover which he was concerned was a road-safety issue/hazard. The Highways Officer, Paul Goddard, said he would look into it but it could be a splitter island that would normally be seen on the entrance from a roundabout to separate traffic streams, or perhaps an inspection chamber or the site of a keep-left bollard. Councillor Pask said the question as to whether it was something detrimental to the application would be put to Officers to look at under conditions. 

Councillor Somner said in relation to the issue of noise, he had incorrectly assumed from reviewing the paperwork and from being on site that the biggest issue for noise would be for those properties on the A4. As Mr McEwan’s statement had contradicted that, Councillor Somner sought clarity from Officers with regard to what mitigation could be added, for example, acoustic barriers along the A4 Bath Road in Calcot, and what mitigation could be put in for the affected residents of Beenham. Ms Attwood said the Environmental Health Officer had reviewed the two objections received in relation to noise and had looked at the Noise Assessment report before making their comments and it was their professional opinion that there was limited harm, as there was noise from Bath Road and other industrial processes there and it was therefore felt the site would not add anything substantially more harmful to what was there already. There was also a condition which looked at putting a Noise Management Plan in place which meant there would be extra noise mitigations on top of those already suggested in the report. In addition, there was clear guidance in the PPG in relation to AONB tranquillity as an important characteristic, that you had to look at what was already there and tranquillity was normally relatively undisturbed by noise from human sources that would undermine the intrinsic character of the area. The on-site visit had shown that the area had noise from human sources already and the Noise Assessment found that those would be part of, but not substantially harmful, as supported by the Environmental Health Officer.

Councillor Mayes sought confirmation as to what the site surface would be. The original surface of the fill material was gravel or soil but in one of the drawings was marked as concrete, during the site visit Members had been told it was going to be compacted hardcore and on the update sheet it mentioned tarmac. All of this had an effect on the run-off figures which were also mentioned in the update sheet. Ms Attwood said she believed the surface would be concrete as stated on the plans. Mr Dray said that as part of the materials condition Officers would look to confirm what surface material would be used and added that the critical factor in relation to drainage, according to the drainage engineers, was the discharge rate from the site. Because the site was landfill there was no discharge within the site so it had got to be held and discharged at an acceptable rate which the engineers were happy with. There would be an impervious surface and the water would be collected, stored and released at an acceptable rate; these issues were covered by the materials condition and the drainage condition.

Councillor Mayes asked Mr Dray if he was referring to infiltration rates from the building’s downpipes and sought clarification as to the run-off from the hardstanding area which did not appear to be included in the 3.6 litres/sec that was quoted in the report. Mr Dray said his understanding was that figure related to the discharge rate off the whole site and reiterated the information and figures from the update report. As stated previously, there would need to be an impervious surface layer, water would need to be stored on site in crates and the rate at which it went off-site would need to be managed so that it did not overload those systems. Mr Dray said it had been achieved on the extant consent and all parties involved had been content that it could be dealt with on the current proposals by condition and plan.  Mr Dray asked if the Committee would support the Officer’s recommendation to appropriately adjust that condition. Councillor Pask asked Councillor Mayes if he was in support of that recommendation. Councillor Mayes replied that he had sent an email the previous day about this to Mr Dray and asked if it had been received. Mr Dray confirmed that it had and added that Stuart Clark had agreed the condition.  

Councillor Macro said he was very surprised there had been no objections from any of the residents along the Bath Road and sought confirmation that the original notice had been prominently displayed. Alice Attwood said she believed a notice had been positioned facing the residents as well as a notice placed in the newspaper but she would seek clarification on this point.

Debate:

Councillor Somner said, on balance, he was prepared to accept Officer’s recommendation on the application but thought very careful wording and actions were needed with regard to noise. Councillor Somner said he was content that it appeared the SuDS issue had been addressed. Councillor Somner said A4 Metal Recycling, located nearby, did not open until 08:30 and did not open on Sundays or Bank Holidays and he felt that consistency was required in terms of opening hours at the units in the area. Councillor Somner said he was not content with the proposed opening time of 07:00 and thought 08:00 would be sufficient.

Councillor Macro concurred with Councillor Somner’s view and felt that an opening time of 08:00 would be more acceptable. Councillor Macro said he was still very worried about the noise aspect and felt that ideally Environmental Health Officers would have visited another depot to measure the noise.  Generation (UK) had a depot in Frimley and Councillor Macro proposed deferring a decision until such visit could take place to assure those with concerns that the operation would not cause unacceptable noise.

Councillor Woodhams said he shared the same view as Councillors Somner and Macro in respect of the opening hours and felt 08:00 would be acceptable. He also queried whether Saturday closing time of 18:00 was too late and the necessity of opening hours of 08:00 to 13:00 on Sundays and public holidays and felt this too could be refined in order to reassure the large number of residents across the road and those affected up the hill in Beenham.

Councillor Mackinnon said there was no objections from AONB or Natural England and he understood why having visited the site but very much understood the objections made in relation to noise. Councillor Mackinnon shared the concerns of Councillors Woodhams, Macro and Somner in regard to opening hours and was disappointed that acceptance appeared to have been given to the proposed opening hours without question and felt an 08:00 start was far more civilised. Councillor Mackinnon also agreed with the points made about opening hours on Sundays and public holidays. Councillor Mackinnon felt the noise of reversing vehicles would carry up the hill and he had not appreciated from the site visit that it was from there that the main objections would arise from so he would appreciate seeing some mitigation against that.  However, he did not feel his concerns were enough to go against the Officer’s recommendation, in the main because there were other industrial units right next to the site on both sides. Councillor Mackinnon said he had every sympathy with Mr McEwan’s point about noise and if this was the first industrial site in that area and there was no other noise there, it would be a different matter. In conclusion, Councillor Mackinnon said he would like to see stronger restrictions on opening hours but in light of the economic, employment and supply chain benefits, he was in favour of agreeing to the Officer’s recommendations. 

Councillor Park asked Mr Dray what he felt his guidance could be if a proposal was to be made in regard to imposing time restrictions. Mr Dray said Members could consider altering the recommended opening hours but also bear in mind whether it was a reasonable condition to impose on the site in order for it to be a viable business. With regard to the Noise Management Plan, Mr Dray said the Environmental Health Officer had assessed the noise report and had considered it to be robust having taken into account the objections that had been raised. The purpose of the Noise Management Plan was to give some specific operational and management guidelines or parameters within which the site could operate and something the applicant would submit in order to support how they intended to manage the site. The wholesale nature of the operation should give some comfort as to the tight restrictions that could be imposed through the Management Plan which would help minimise individual poles clanking around and hopefully avoid an operation like that which would be a reasonable constraint to be included in conditions. Councillor Pask said if such a condition was considered by the applicant to be unreasonable, they could always go to Appeal but Members would try to be reasonable and reach a compromise.

Councillor Somner said he was happy to propose the acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation with the caveat that the condition on the Noise Management Plan needed to be stringent. With regard to opening hours, Councillor Somner said they must not be seen as an outlier for the industry along that stretch of road and the proposal therefore was that the hours as printed were not acceptable. Councillor Somner’s proposal was that either the opening hours were changed to be in line with the original plan or the issue was dealt with within the Noise Management Plan.

Mr Dray suggested two approaches that could be adopted:

·         Either as part of the Committee’s proposal to amend the conditions and specify the hours thought to be acceptable and amend conditions 18, 19 and 20 in the report respectively, or

·         Delete those conditions and add a requirement into the Noise Management Plan which was condition 11 and specifically state that reduced hours were requested then delegate to Officers to agree to reduced hours based on the debate.

Councillor Somner said he was content to go with the second option and for Officers to have the ability to give it due diligence and make sure the Noise Management Plan was sufficient. Councillor Pask suggested to Councillor Somner to add words such as in conjunction with/in consultation with the Chairman or the Ward Member. Councillor Somner was grateful for Councillor Pask’s guidance and was happy with the suggestion. 

Mr Dray clarified therefore the proposal would be to accept Officer recommendation with the caveat about delegating the conditions on drainage to Officers, as in the introduction, and deleting conditions 18, 19 and 20 but factor them into the Noise Management Plan and add clauses into condition 11 to say the Noise Management Plan would cover these hours restrictions and when it came to agreeing that detail by condition, Officers would consult with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, proposer, seconder or Ward Member.

The Chairman said as this had engendered quite a lot of very reasonable and well-intended debate he felt there should be wide consultation and believed the Agent would have heard the very genuine concerns that had been expressed around the table and understand that the remit was to look at the employment benefits but also to protect the interests of the local residents and adopt the most reasonable approach possible. 

Councillor Pask invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below, and as amended during the discussion, which would be delegated to Officers to negotiate in conjunction with various Members.