Issue - meetings

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02379/COND in respect of an application for Approval of Details Reserved by Condition 9 (Zero carbon) of planning permission 19/02979/OUTMAJ - 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.

2.      Ms Sian Cutts 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 the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

Agent Representation

3.      Mr James Hicks in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       Outline planning permission and a subsequent reserved matters approval were in place for the development at Lambourn Woodlands.

·       The current condition discharge application was the final approval required to enable development to lawfully commence.

·       The discharge application and condition nine was presented to the Committee in August 2023 and the Committee had refused the discharge of the condition. Following this refusal, the applicant team had worked closely with Officers to understand the Committee’s concerns and also to provide a suitable technically robust response.

·       The proposal presented in respect of condition nine was highly technical and addressed all requirements.

·       It was hoped that the Committee agreed with Officers that condition nine could now be discharged and development could commence.

Member Questions to the Agent

4.      Members asked questions of the agent representative and were given the following responses:

·       Mr Hicks confirmed that the carbon emissions plan for the condition dealt with the energy used in the building and the building’s built fabric. It was nothing to with how the building operated including the aircraft and this had been agreed with Officers.

·       Mr Hicks clarified that he had not referred to robust systems but had stated that the report and response provided in terms of the earlier refusal was robust.

Ward Member Representation

5.      Councillor Woollaston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       He had opposed the application from the start and he suspected if it had been put before the current Committee it would have been refused.

·       It remained his view that it was the wrong building in the wrong location.

·       The current application was a technical request to release a condition referring to carbon zero.

·       Experienced Officers had confirmed that the applicant’s submission met environmental requirements and he could therefore see no reason to not accept the Officer recommendation albeit reluctantly.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

7.      Members asked questions of the Officers and were given the following responses:

·       Emily Ashton-Jelly reported that in relation to unregulated energy in a building, it did not include any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3