Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of land to Class B8
Location:	Land Adjacent To M4 Membury Airfield Road Known As Ramsbury Road Lambourn Woodlands Hungerford
Applicant:	Putnam Properties Ltd
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8.2 of the report)

 

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that was the local Ward Member. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Carolyne Culver and Howard Woollaston declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 21/03083/COMIND in respect of a change of use to Class B8 at Land Adjacent to the M4, Membury Airfield, Hungerford.

2.     Mr Jake Brown (Principal Planning Officer) 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 Service Director – Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Gareth Dowding (Principal Engineer – Traffic and Road Safety) if he had any observations. No highways issues were raised.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Bridget Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr Alan Peace and Mr Richard Bobrucki, objectors, and Mr Andrew Turvill, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     Mrs Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Lambourn Parish Council had serious concerns about the impact of this proposal on the road network, emergency access to the M4, residential amenity and the environment within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         The case officer had acknowledged that the site was agricultural land outside the Protected Employment Area (PEA).

·         The previous application had lapsed and so this was a greenfield site, which should have been restored – the applicant had stripped the topsoil, imported additional material and created a large bund prior to submitting the current application. This was not conserving / enhancing the site within the AONB.

·         The claim that biodiversity would be enhanced was considered insulting, since the applicant had already destroyed it. Environmental screening had been done for another application and only covered a third of the site. The screening exercise which had determined that this was not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development was done after the applicant had destroyed the green field.

·         Since 2018, when the previous permission had been granted, the number of HGVs using access roads to this site had more than doubled and the Walkers Logistics Plan would add hundreds more.

·         Highways had highlighted the lack of public transport and the dangers of walking and cycling on Ramsbury Road, which made the site unsustainable.

·         Cumulative impacts of further development affected local villages, especially between the site and Junction 14 of the M4, yet planners did not consider the effects sufficient to give rise to concerns. However, residents did have concerns and complaints about noise, obstruction and out of hours working had been ignored, or they had been fobbed off. This meant that residents had no confidence in the efficacy of planning conditions. If conditions could not be enforced then the application should be refused.

·         Those who had attended the previous site visit would be aware of the volume of traffic using the service road to access the M4 services, which was not being enforced by National Highways.

·         A proposed pull-in area which Highways had said would mitigate blocking of access for emergency vehicles was considered inadequate. Vehicles travelling to and from the site would be turning across a busy road and the potential for delaying emergency responses to motorway accidents was considered to be high.

·         As more developments were permitted, the demand for electricity had risen. The local electricity supply had been interrupted and generators had to be provided to residents. The amount of security lighting had increased and there was no requirement on developers to develop and sustain critical infrastructure.

·         Consultants Stantec had been employed by the Council to inform the Local Plan about where employment was required in West Berkshire – no further requirement was identified at Reading.

·         Disadvantages that this application would bring to the parish outweighed any employment advantages.

·         The Parish Council asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.     Members asked about the level of illegal use of the access road to the M4 services and if there were access controls. At the previous site visit, Mrs Jones had observed several vehicles using the access road, which were not recovery vehicles and the party had been forced to step off the road on a number of occasions. She confirmed that there used to be an access barrier years ago, but there was no gate now.

7.     Clarification was sought if the Parish Council’s road safety concerns were associated with traffic turning in and out of the site. Mrs Jones agreed and indicated that they were also concerned about the ability of emergency service vehicles to be able to attend incidents in a timely fashion.

Objector Representation

8.     Mr Bobrucki read out a statement from Mr Anthony King of the Woodlands Protection Group who was unable to attend the meeting in person – this included the following points:

·         It was considered that there were many contradictions and inconsistencies in the Planning Officer’s report, which resulted in the Committee being provided with misleading and biased information.

·         Much emphasis had been placed on the previously approved planning applications on this site as being justification to approve this one (e.g. 16/02116/OUTMAJ). This application was for a different site and so it was misleading to reference it.

·         In the section on appraisal, there was no reference to sustainability in the issues for consideration. It was suggested that the Committee could not take a decision on this site without a full appraisal of sustainability. Officers had previously declared that current development proposals were not sustainable. It was suggested that Membury Industrial Area was not sustainable now and no further expansion should be allowed.

·         Paragraph 7.4 of the report dismissed cumulative impacts and referenced the application 19/02979/OUTMAJ and 20/00562/COMIND. The Walkers’ application and the Committee’s approval were considered to be flawed, since they were based on artificially suppressed traffic generation figures. This approach was considered unenforceable and would lead to unprecedented growth of HGV and other vehicle movements  This was recognised by Walkers when they submitted a new business plan, which Planning Officers and this Committee chose to ignore before approving the application.

·         The correct approach would have been to use the UK standard TRICS data, which was recommended by Woodlands Protection Group’s own traffic consultants and Walkers’ Traffic Consultants. The outcome of this was that traffic generation from Walkers was artificially suppressed at 153 vehs/day instead of the correct forecast of 776 vehs/day. It was suggested that this development and others should not be approved until the true traffic impact of Walkers had been seen or the correct forecasting was used.

·         In summary, the report was considered to be poorly presented with obvious errors and inconsistencies, which misled the Committee. Sustainability was ignored when it should have been given the deepest investigation and when Council officers had declared Membury to be unsustainable and that no further development should be undertaken.

·         The report dismissed cumulative impacts, which was considered to be wrong, particularly when Walkers’ new development was already forecast to add 776 vehs/day to the local road network, which was already stressed.

·         It was suggested that this application should be refused until the Council accepted the level of traffic forecast at Membury was beyond reasonable and it got to grips with the sustainability of the whole Membury Industrial Area.

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

·         He had lobbied Committee Members on 12 September 2022.

·         He considered the case officer’s report to be erroneous.

·         Paragraph 7.4 failed to address the cumulative impact of the Walkers’ development. The Walkers’ application had been passed totally unrestricted with Condition 15. Traffic movements should have been taken into account.

Member Questions to the Objectors

10.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

11.  Mr Andrew Turvill in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         It was recognised that any development at Membury was contentious and it was suggested that matters were being conflated by the Walkers Logistics application.

·         This site had an extant consent at the time when the Walkers’ application had been determined.

·         Conjecture about the traffic issues at the Walkers’ site was being used to talk this site down.

·         He considered the officer’s report to be exemplary. A number of very minor errors had been identified, including reference to a site opposite this one. However, in all other respects, it was correct.

·         Cumulative impacts had been properly considered. A screening opinion had been provided and stated that the cumulative impact had been assessed.

·         There had been no policy change since the previous application had been determined, and this application was for a less intensive use compared to that originally proposed. Also, there were no objections from the Parish Council or individual parties to the previous application, and were it not for the Walkers application, there would be no objections to this proposal.

·         It was suggested that this application was being used as a scapegoat and if refused then it would make it untenable for any business to do anything at Membury in future.

·         Traffic issues were related to the Walkers’ development and what they might do in the future was not a consideration for this application. No other business at Membury was subject to restrictions on their movements and if other businesses wanted to use smaller vehicles to transport goods, they could do so. The likelihood of there being a large increase in traffic related to the Walkers’ development was queried. Projections were extrapolations of existing movements. Traffic movements for this site would be very limited – less than 12 per day.

·         The site would also provide employment and would tidy up the site.

·         The application had been subjected to detailed negotiations regarding conditions. It would have come forwarded earlier, but for some ecology issues. Measures put forward by the Council’s ecologist had been agreed by the applicant.

·         Responding to comments by the Parish Council and objectors, he confirmed that the EIA screening was for the whole site. Also, the site would be subjected to more conditions than under the previous consent (including pre-conditions), which would give the Council more control over issues such as drainage.

·         He hoped that the Council would accept officers’ recommendation and support the application.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

12.  Members sought clarification about the screening opinion. It was confirmed that a full screening opinion had been completed in January 2022, with details provided in the agenda pack.

13.  It was queried whether the applicant ultimately wished to develop the site for asphalt batching. It was confirmed that a previous application had been withdrawn and their long-term intentions were not known. Historically, there had been an asphalt plant at Membury.

14.  Members questioned the traffic modelling, which had assumed that there would be no access to the access road for the M4 services, but at the site visit for the previous application, it was clear that this was being used. Mr Turvill confirmed that the Council’s highways officers had looked at the data, which included traffic counts. It was not clear if the day of the site visit was typical – five lorries carrying straw had accounted for most of traffic using the road that day. It was highlighted that National Highways had raised no objection to the application, and one of their vehicles had been present on the day of the site meeting. Members recalled that other vehicles had used the road on the day of the site visit.

15.  Clarification was sought about proposed employment at the site. It was confirmed that there would be five full-time staff who would work daytime only and would be recruited locally if possible.

Ward Member Representation

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

·         This application replaced the time-expired approval from 2018.

·         There had been a recent application for a change of use to B2 for an asphalt grading plant, which was withdrawn because there was no longer an extant B8 planning consent.

·         The easy option would be to assume that since approval had been granted four years ago, it should be granted again. However, in the intervening period, the Walkers’ application for a 10,000 sq.m distribution unit had been approved and HGV traffic on the B4000 had more than doubled as shown by the Council’s own surveys as well as independent surveys by the Woodlands Protection Group.

·         The Council had declared a climate emergency, but this site and the whole Membury Industrial Estate was recognised by the Council’s officers as being unsustainable, with just one bus per day, stopping 400m away, and requiring passengers to walk along an unlit road.

·         There had been exponential growth of the industrial estate in recent years, much of this being open storage with large numbers of daily HGV movements.

·         This site was open green space in 2018, but bunds had since been created to limit views of large soil tips and heavy duty machinery behind substantial locked gates.

·         It was thought that the developer’s ultimate intention was to get consent for an asphalt plant.

·         Although the site was just outside the nutrient neutrality zone for the Lambourn Valley, surface run-off would go into the River Lambourn or the River Kennet.

·         The site lay outside the designated employment area and was part of the North Wessex Downs AONB. This had been ignored by the applicant who had removed topsoil and created bunds without planning approval.

·         The development would not create significant additional local employment.

·         Membury Industrial Estate was an anomaly dating back to the World War II and its subsequent use as an airfield. There was a 14km round trip to Junction 14 of the M4 via the B4000, an undesignated road and a country lane with no public transport links. Nobody would think to create a designated employment area in this location. There was no justification for allowing further industrial development beyond that which had already been designated and the applicant should be required to return the land to its original state. The Committee was urged to reject the application.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

17.  Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

18.  Members asked about the visibility splays. It was explained that they were designed according to the road class and traffic speed. A speed survey had shown that speeds were well within that required for a 30–40 mph limit despite the road being subject to the national speed limit at the time. The need for a visibility splay looking towards the M4 services was queried. It was confirmed that splays in both directions were required. Members asked where speed surveys had been undertaken. It was confirmed that they had been carried out on the Ramsbury Road.

19.  It was noted that a screening assessment had been undertaken and concluded that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the environment. Officers confirmed that the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the environment (the word ‘not’ had been omitted from a previous version of the report).

20.  Given the Stantec report recommendations, Members asked if it would be appropriate to wait for the Local Plan to be updated before considering this application. Officers noted that the emerging Local Plan and the Stantec report could only be given very limited weight at this stage due to the limited progress of the Local Plan.

21.  Concerns were highlighted about drainage, and the lack of assessment of cumulative impacts (both traffic and flooding). Also, the officer’s report did not list the SUDs SPD as a policy consideration. Officers confirmed that sustainable drainage had been considered acceptable for the previous application. Additional detail had been sought for this application to ensure that surface water was properly drained within the site. This meant that there would be no cumulative impact with adjacent sites. Traffic impacts were considered negligible and the Walkers’ application had been approved while the previous application for this site had been extant, so cumulative impacts had been considered at that time.

22.  Members noted the illegal use of the M4 services access road and asked if this should be discounted when determining the application, and what could be done to address the issue. Officers noted that it was a private road and it was up to National Highways to enforce any restrictions. The Council could take enforcement action should there be a breach of condition taking place. It was suggested that any existing illegal use should not be a consideration for determination of this application. It was noted that there was a no entry sign where this road joined the M4 services.

23.  Clarification was sought as the weight to be given to the economic benefits arising from this application and whether this offset sustainability concerns. Officers suggested that significant weight should be given to the employment benefits, since the Council was supporting economic development through its development plan. Overall, the development was considered to be sustainable when economic, social and environmental considerations were taken into account.

24.  It was noted that for previous applications in the vicinity of the site, the location had been assessed as unsustainable, so Members queried why this one was different. It was confirmed that under the three elements of sustainability set out by national government, this application was considered to be sustainable.

25.  Members asked if they were being asked to consider an area within the AONB moving to B8 use, or the site in its current condition moving to B8 use. It was confirmed that the site had no authorised use, so Members should consider it as going from agricultural use to B8 use.

Debate

26.  Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate. He reiterated his desire for the application to be deferred to enable a site visit. He was uncomfortable about a number of aspects, including: anomalies in traffic flows, which were thought to be out by around 30%;  traffic speeds on the private road, which had appeared to be more than 40mph; and the visibility splays which actively encouraged traffic to turn right out of the site.

27.  Councillor Tony Vickers could see no reason not to support the recommendation. However, he was unhappy about the issues in the area that fell outside of planning. He recognised that there was a case for motorway services to become storage and distribution hubs, but this was not permitted under current legislation. He could not see any material change in planning law since 2018 that would prevent approval of this application. While he recognised that the applicant may ultimately wish to apply for an asphalt processing plant on the site, the Committee had to consider the current application solely as a change of use to B8. He asked for the minutes to reflect Members’ concerns about the lack of enforcement of access to and from the M4 services.

28.  Councillor Dennis Benneyworth accepted that the previous decision still stood and highlighted the weight that should be given to the employment benefits associated with the proposal. As such, he was minded to support the application.

29.  Councillor Howard Woollaston highlighted that the site was in the AONB and, since it proposed going from agricultural use to an industrial use, the application should be rejected. He indicated that National Highways had already given consent for one operator to access a site on Membury Industrial Estate via the M4 services.

30.  Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that the site was outside the PEA and asked at what point would a site be considered unacceptable. She expressed concern about the lack of assessment of cumulative impacts and noted that the Local Flood Authority had not provided a response and that insufficient detail had been provided to ensure that surface water would be managed in a sustainable manner. She indicated her discomfort with the approach being taken and indicated that she was minded to oppose the application.

31.  Members were reminded of the need to be clear on reasons for refusal given that a similar application had been previously approved for this site.

32.  Councillor Jeff Cant felt that there was little basis on which to refuse the application. He indicated that he would like clarification that the location of the site within the AONB was not an over-riding factor that should preclude approval.  Officers confirmed that loss of a field within the AONB had been considered acceptable when the previous application had been determined in 2018. Therefore, it would be difficult to defend this as a reason for refusal at appeal this time, especially since additional landscaping had been secured.

33.  Councillor Phil Barnett felt uneasy about the application, but could not see a reason to reject it.

34.  Councillor Jeff Cant proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers.

35.  Councillor Woollaston asked if an informative could be added to indicate that a future change to B2 use would be considered unacceptable. Officers advised that this would not be considered acceptable as an informative, since any B2 use would need to go through planning.

36.  Councillor Abbs asked if the visibility splays could be adapted to discourage traffic from turning right towards the M4 services. Officers highlighted that there was a condition relating to access. Also, it was noted that the road was an emergency access to and from the M4 services, so the splay would be needed to ensure that vehicles exiting the site could see traffic approaching from the right. 

37.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant, seconded by Councillor Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.	Commencement of development   The development hereby permitted shall be begun 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.	Approved plans   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:   Location Plan, drawing number PUT/002 Rev A received on 7 December 2021; Entrance Surfacing Plan, drawing number PUT/003 received on 9 December 2021; Swept Path Analysis Plan, drawing number JG02 received on 9 December 2021; Block Plan, drawing number PUT/001 Rev B received on 16 May 2022; Existing Levels, drawing number SU00485- SHT01 received on 17 August 2022.   Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3.	Sustainable Drainage   The use hereby approved shall not commence until details of the sustainable drainage measures to be implemented at the site including any hardstanding material, cross sections drawings,resultant ground levels and management/maintenance details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.  The sustainable drainage measures shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter and no other hardstanding shall be laid within the site.   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.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Drainage Systems (December 2018).
4.	Soft Landscaping   The use hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, including cross section diagrams of the western boundary landscaping alongside the service road showing the depth of each of the different landscaping elements to be placed there, the landscaping, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, management prescriptions including the management of landscaping after 5 years post implementation to ensure that mitigation measures continue, and any other supporting information.  All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following first use of the site and managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.  Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.   Reason:   Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design and is also necessary to mitigate the impact of the proposal in respect of ecology and biodiversity.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.
5.	Boundary Treatments   The use hereby approved shall not commence until boundary treatments for the site have been implemented in accordance with a boundary treatment scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The boundary treatments shall include details of fauna access points to be provided as part of the development that allow fauna to utilise the planting proposed within the site.   Reason: To ensure the protection of species and habitats, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
6.	Ecology   The mitigation measures described in the Ecological Appraisal created by Aluco Ecology Ltd dated January 2021 shall be implemented in full (except for landscaping, the timing of which is defined in condition 4) before the use hereby approved is brought into first use and the measures shall thereafter be retained. This measures include (but not limited to):   - carrying out works on any woody vegetation at an appropriate time of year, usually considered to be between September to February unless the area is checked by a suitably qualified ecologist beforehand; - trenches in excess of one metre in depth should be covered or secured and a means of escape provided for any animal that does fall in (a suitable escape can be provided by wooden planks placed at a 45 degree angle); - any temporarily exposed open pipe system should be capped in such a way as to prevent Badgers gaining access; - chemicals and fuels should be stored carefully and as far away from any setts and badger paths as possible, and in accordance with the Code of Construction Practice; - updated badger survey where works have not commenced within 12 months; - provision of bird boxes, bat boxes located by a suitably qualified ecologist.   Reason: To ensure the protection of species and habitats, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
7.	Maximum Height of Storage and Ground Levels   No items including structures, plant, equipment, materials, products or goods shall be placed or stored above a height of 4 metres from the existing ground levels shown on drawing number SU00485- SHT01 received on 17 August 2022.  The ground levels on the site shall not be altered unless approved as part of the details submitted in respect of sustainable drainage (condition 3) or landscaping (condition 4).   Reason: To ensure that future storage on site has an acceptable visual impact in the surroundings in accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
8.	Access via Ramsbury Road only   No vehicles accessing the site shall be routed via the unnamed road to the south of the site via the Motorway Service Area. All access must be via Ramsbury Road to the east of the site only.    Reason:    To ensure that unauthorized vehicles from the proposed development do not access the M4, via the westbound Membury Services, from the unnamed access road and therefore does not have a detrimental impact on the M4, and to ensure the M4 continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety.
9.	Access Creation and Surfacing   The use hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until the vehicular site access to the site from the unnamed road off of Ramsbury Road and visibility splays have been completed in accordance with the Block Plan, drawing number PUT/001 Rev B received on 16 May 2022, and, the Entrance Surfacing Plan, drawing number PUT/003 received on 9 December 2021.   Reason:   The timely completion of the site access is necessary to ensure safe and suitable access for all.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
10.	Parking   The use hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until vehicle parking have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out).  Thereafter the parking shall be kept available for parking (of private cars and/or private 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 flow of traffic.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.
11.	Cycle Parking/Storage   The use hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until cycle parking/storage facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings.  Thereafter the facilities shall be maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times.   Reason:   To ensure the provision of cycle parking/storage facilities in order to encourage the use of cycles and reduce reliance on private motor vehicles.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD, and the Council’s Cycle and Motorcycle Advice and Standards for New Development (November 2014).
12.	Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)   The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) dated 6 July 2021 and received on 9 July 2021.   Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and biodiversity and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS5, CS13 and CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
13.	Lighting strategy (AONB/Ecology)   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 isolux contour diagram(s) 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 unless sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate that a different lighting zone is appropriate.   No external lighting shall be installed within the site except in accordance with the above strategy.   Reason:   To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site and to conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
14.	Use Restriction   Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any subsequent variation thereof, the use of the site shall be for purposes of the storage of groundworks and construction vehicles, plant, equipment, materials, machinery and any other items associated with the groundworks contracting business only, and no other use within use Class B8 or any other Class of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any subsequent use thereof) will be permitted.   Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in order to ensure that the use of the site is of an scale and intensity commensurate to its rural location in accordance with the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

 

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 which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
2.	The unnamed road serving the Membury motorway service area is owned by National Highways.  You must obtain the prior consent of the owner of that land upon which it is necessary for you to enter in order construct, use, or in any other way carry out any works in connection with this development.  This permission granted by the Council in no way authorises you to take such action without first obtaining this consent.
3.	All bats are protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended) & The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Should you find bats during development, all work must stop until advice has been sought from Natural England. Their local contact number is 0300 060 3886.