Agenda item

Proposal:	Approval of reserved matters following Outline application 19/02979/OUTMAJ 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: Access, Appearance, Landscaping and Layout.
Location:	Land South Of Tower Works, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford
Applicant:	Walker Logistics Limited
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Service Director, Development and Regulation to GRANT RESERVED MATTERS APPROVAL subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8 of the report)

 

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeff Beck, Jeff Cant, James Cole, Carolyne Culver, Clive Hooker and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/00897/RESMAJ in respect of Land South of Tower Works, Lambourn Woodlands, 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 of Development and Regulation be authorised to grant reserved matters approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that matters of traffic generation and impact were considered by the Committee at outline stage and were found to be acceptable. The layout of the site and access were reserved matters before the Committee. The access route had been relocated 60 metres to the south, but remained compliant with all standards. Traffic generation had not changed, and was acceptable from a Highways perspective. Car parking provision was for 90 spaces for employees, as well as an additional ten for the museum, which was sufficient, as well as numerous electric vehicle charging points and cycle sheds. Highways therefore had no objections, and recommended approval of the planning application.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Bridget Jones, Parish Council representative, Mr Tony King, Ms Sam Coppinger, and Mr Alan Pearce, objectors, Mr Philip Walker, applicant, and Ms Elizabeth Dabell, Mr Jim Tarzey, Mr Paul Reid and Mr William Flloyd, agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.     The Chairman moved to suspend standing orders to allow Ms Bridget Jones, who had not been registered to speak, to speak on behalf of Lambourn Parish Council. This motion was approved unanimously.

6.     Ms Bridget Jones, Lambourn Parish Council, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         In the view of the Parish Council, the inclusion of allowed aircraft movements to the application meant that there had been a material change of intended use for the building from that of a museum to that of an aircraft hangar.

·         The original application was for a private museum open up to 25 days a year. As there was no traffic data for the site within the Travel Plan, the original application was deemed unsustainable.

·         On landscaping, a line of trees had been removed from the site to allow access to the runway. This occurred after the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) consultee had submitted their opinion, which stated that the negative impacts on the environment of the AONB from the development outweighed the economic benefits.

·         The building would be particularly wide, and would disrupt the sight-lines within the AONB, out of keeping with AONB policy.

·         The turning circle provided was inadequate for larger vehicles to be able to access the site.

·         Parking was inadequate to address the larger number of employees expected at the site, which had risen from 40 to 150-200. Access to the site by local transport was non-existent.

·         A pinch point near the site does not allow two HGVs to pass safely. The site owner encouraging staff to cycle to work was ill-advised considering the busy roads.

·         A Flood Risk Assessment, which would have highlighted the existing issue with flooding that would be exacerbated by the development, had not been undertaken.

·         The small reed bed proposed to deal with contamination and foul water was insufficient to resolve the issue.

·         The inconsistencies between the applications submitted, taken in their totality, are significant. Ms Jones questioned how much indicative plans could be changed before the applicant was expected to submit a new application.

·         An application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had not been submitted, therefore floor space was required to remain the same. The internal altering of use to B8, which would accommodate a working plane, should be considered.

·         The Civil Aviation Authority should have been consulted on the use of aircraft, but was not due to the fact that the use of aircrafts were not raised during the outline stage by either the case officer or the applicant.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

7.     Councillor Adrian Abbs asked Ms Jones to elaborate on the assertion that trees had been removed. Ms Jones responded that trees had been removed on the west of the site to make space for the runway. These trees would have assisted with the site’s carbon footprint.

8.     Councillor Abbs asked Ms Jones to expand on the flooding issue. Ms Jones responded that the Council was aware of the flooding issue, with a senior officer contacted and an investigation ongoing. The flooding occurs down the Membury Access Road, and any development which would remove vegetation from the area would exacerbate the issue.

9.     Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether Lambourn Parish Council would have approved of a simple museum rather than an airfield or aircraft hangar. Ms Jones responded that Lambourn Parish Council were opposed to any plane movement on the site, and that the application had changed from a static exhibit to an active airfield. Ms Jones noted the number of plane movements had changed and questioned how it would be enforced by the Council.

10.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether Ms Jones agreed that the outline of the initial planning application involved tree removal to make way for an airfield. Ms Jones responded that it was never stated that trees would be removed for a live airfield. Councillor Vickers responded that it was never stated that trees would not be removed, but it was evident from the plan. Ms Jones disagreed that it was evident.

11.  The Chairman asked how Ms Jones had reached the conclusion that the intended use had changed from a museum to an aircraft hangar. Ms Jones responded that the initial plan was for a static museum exhibit, and would now be used to taxi planes to air shows.

12.  The Chairman asked for comment on the lack of suggestion within the plan that any planes would fly on the site. Ms Jones responded that the plans were for air shows on Membury Air Field, where no air shows had taken place for twelve years. The Chairman noted that the Committee could not consider supposition that no air shows had taken place and would take place in future.

13.  Standing orders were resumed.

Objector Representation

14.  Mr Tony King, Woodland Protection Group, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The Proposed Building Floor Plan presented to the Committee was incorrect as it did not show the full extent of the shed.

·         The application includes a number of changes to the outline plan, some of which were fundamental.

·         There was a reduction of rainfall storage in the application, which was an issue due to the regular incidents of flooding in the area, and it was necessary to undertake a further Flood Risk Assessment.

·         The museum was in fact a hangar for the storage and use of aircraft, and the number of aircraft movements could only be constrained by the refusal of further planning applications to increase them. This was not discussed at the outline stage.

·         The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening carried out was insufficient, and the expansion of the airfield over one hectare must have been assessed under the EIA Regulations.

·         Condition 9, referring to zero carbon, had not come forward with the application, as the development as a whole was not carbon neutral. A Carbon Emission Assessment was necessary, taking into account the increase in road traffic, air traffic and changes to the landscaping.

·         The new proposed building is 7 metres longer, and 15 metres narrower than the approved plan. This would make the building more prominent in the landscape, and change its operational space. The operation of the building would change from the outline plan stage.

·         The application would increase the number of employees from 40 to 200, the throughput, and the number of HGV movements. The personal condition was a redundant concession to the applicant.

·         The Highways Department had stated that due to the parking situation, the development was unsustainable and in direct conflict with the Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration.

·         The increase of traffic levels by four or five times meant that the application had no merit in environmental terms.

·         The attempts by the applicant to have the development approved had resulted in fundamental changes from the outline planning stage had not been properly scrutinised, and the application should not be taken forward.

·         The Committee could impose conditions in perpetuity, reducing the traffic levels to that at outline stage, requiring that the building generate zero aircraft movements, and requiring that there is a wall separating the Class 1 and Class 8 areas of the building.

15.  Ms Sam Coppinger in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         A Flood Risk Assessment had not taken place, which was contrary to the requirements of Policy CS16. The provided statement was not lawful as it did not address flooding on and off the site.

·         The D1 use class for a museum did not give permission for the building to be an aircraft hangar. The proposal made no mention of an operational aircraft.

·         The red line in the outline stage plan and the reserved matters screen did not include the airfield and taxiing strip.

·         An Environmental Impact Assessment was incorrect as it was for an industrial estate, not an expansion of an airfield over a hectare. This required a public consultation.

·         Planning Practice Guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that a personal condition of a limited company was inappropriate and unenforceable.

Member Questions to the Objectors

16.  Councillor Vickers asked why the reduction in rainfall storage ponds was relevant if the outcome was the same. Mr King responded that a proper appraisal had not been carried out.

17.  Councillor Vickers noted that aircraft movements were currently legal on the site. Mr King responded that that was incorrect. Ms Coppinger noted that there was a certificate of lawfulness from a previous application in 1995 which allowed it, and it was therefore inappropriate to set as a condition.

18.  Councillor Vickers asked whether the objectors were concerned that part-time employees would create more traffic than if the employees were full-time. Mr King responded that personal permission allowed the applicant to suppress the true traffic numbers. Mr King suggested that the true number of traffic movements per day would be 800 rather than 125.

19.  Councillor Abbs asked for a full explanation of the issue regarding the personal condition. Mr King responded that a development of this size would use a TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) model to set out expected traffic movements. The application in question used a different model which utilised floor space, and assumed that they would own the sheds in perpetuity. Ms Coppinger noted that it was inappropriate for a limited company to have such a personal condition as the company’s ownership could change. Mr Alan Pearce noted that traffic did not come into the issue of scale. Mr Bob Dray clarified that the reserved matters were the closer details of an application, and access and the scale of the application were two of the five parameters within reserved matters.

Applicant and Agent Representation

20.  Mr Philip Walker, applicant, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         At the time Mr Walker purchased the site 25 years ago, it consisted of neglected commercial buildings and storage. The buildings were remodelled over time into a functional logistics facility, which now employs over 150 members of staff. The business plan is to continue to grow, and continue to be based at Membury.

·         In 2019, the company started the process of trying to obtain planning permission, gaining outline consent in 2021. The new building, once completed and fully operational, would create a predicted 200 additional jobs.

·         Mr Walker’s family was passionate about Second World War history, and the role Membury played during it. The outline application was for a museum to show the story of Membury.

·         10 years ago, the Walker family acquired a Dakota aircraft which had operated from Membury during the Second World War. The aircraft was potentially able to be flown again from 2023, and could form part of a display at the museum.

·         The museum would not be used as an operation aircraft hangar. The Dakota had to be primarily situated at an airport with refuelling and maintenance facilities. The aircraft would only be brought to Membury for display purposes for five times each year, during the summer months.

·         If residents were resolutely opposed to the aircraft’s presence, Mr Walker offered to agree to not be positioned within the museum.

21.  Ms Elizabeth Dabell, on behalf of Cornish Architects, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The design had been developed to suit the requirements of the site’s operational needs, with input from specialist consultants, and amended in response to comments from the Council’s officers and other consultees.

·         The proportions of the building had been adjusted, moving the eastern elevation further into the site. Combined with the revised access and gentle bends within the access roads, this allowed more space.

·         The finished floor levels were set at mid-ground level. Outside the building, paths would be set to allow for even access.

·         The building height proposed was 11.3 metres, rather than the 12.6 previously proposed.

22.  Mr Jim Tarzey, on behalf of Pegasus Group, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The details of the proposal were important regarding the sensitive AONB location. The controls set out by the outline conditions had been adhered to, with the development broadly fitting the outline drawings.

·         Considerable effort had been made to ensure that the building and surrounding landscape were in harmony with each other.

Member Questions to the Applicant and Agent

23.  Councillor Jeff Beck asked whether the limited number of aircraft movements was sustainable considering the potential issues the plane may experience. Mr Walker responded that the site was not suitable for maintenance of the plane and it would only be possible to take off and land. The Membury site would not be used to house the plane.

24.  Councillor Beck asked for clarification of when the museum would be open. Mr Walker responded that it would be open 27 days a year, and run by volunteers.

25.  Councillor Beck asked what the capacity of the museum would be. Mr Walker responded that there were ten parking spaces and some of the employee parking could be used at weekends.

26.  Councillor James Cole asked what the museum would be used for if it did not exhibit the plane. Mr Walker responded that there are a number of historical artefacts from another museum which could be exhibited, as well as six military vehicles and a number of uniforms.

27.  Councillor Cole what the hours of operation would be. Mr Walker responded that it would be open 8:30am to 6:30pm, and that he was conscious of light pollution. Mr Tarzey responded that light pollution was covered by a condition at the outline stage. Ms Dabell noted that all external lighting would have proximity sensors to turn off when not being used.

28.  Councillor Cole asked whether the hedge that would be removed was a Countryside Stewardship Hedge. Mr Walker responded that the hedges were not, and they were planted by him 15 years ago. The trees were planted 27 years ago and was a patch of rubble previously.

29.  Councillor Abbs asked how many traffic movements involving the military vehicles were expected, based on where they were currently exhibited. Mr Walker responded that they were not currently exhibited, and were currently situated in his private barn.

30.  Councillor Barnett noted the removal of trees on one boundary, and asked whether consideration had been made to the nesting birds. Mr Tarzey responded that the trees had to be removed, and that the removal of any vegetation or trees was controlled by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and would be done outside of the nesting season.

31.  Councillor Abbs asked whether Mr Walker had rights over the roads leading up to the airfield. Mr Walker responded that he did not. Councillor Abbs asked why the access point had therefore been moved. Mr Tarzey responded that there were two reasons: they had taken advice from Highways consultants to move it away from the two closest residential buildings, and it was a better location for visibility.

32.  The Chairman asked whether the plane will be tugged from the runway to the museum. Mr Walker responded that the plane will land on the grass and be tugged by a Second World War tug, as driving it directly would be too dangerous.

33.  The Chairman asked how far away from the museum the plane would cut its engines. Mr Walker estimated that it would be 800 metres.

Ward Member Representation

34.  Councillor James Cole, speaking on behalf of Councillor Howard Woollaston, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Councillor Woollaston noted that he had been lobbied extensively by residents to oppose any further intensification of use of the Membury Industrial Estate.

·         There had been a significant increase in HGV travel, which had doubled in recent years and had occurred at unsociable times. The flood risk of the area had increased, as had light pollution. It was due to those concerns that Councillor Woollaston had voted against the original outline application.

·         The grounds for support were the creation of 200 jobs, supporting a local business, and the creation of a museum to house the Dakota aircraft and rehousing some artefacts from the RAF Welford Museum collection. Councillor Woollaston reiterated his view that the Committee got the decision wrong.

·         Councillor Woollaston noted that he viewed Walker Logistics as a good employer, and was confident that they would maintain good care of the facility for as long as they were owners. However, future occupiers may not be as responsive to the environment within the AONB.

·         There was no reason not to believe the applicant’s claim that HGV traffic would not increase, but reiterated his belief that this should have been assessed according to the agreed TRICS metric which implies a far higher level of traffic movement.

·         The application for a museum had become one for a hangar and a taxiway to a runway. The claim that there would be no more than ten flights a year was contradicted by the minutes of the Woodland Protection Group in 2021, which stated that the applicant anticipated that there would be at least 20 to attend airshows.

·         The Dakota aircraft had two 1,200 horsepower engines, and noise containment was not a priority during its manufacture, so the impact of the Membury Airfield on the local community could be greater.

·         Councillor Woollaston urged that Members reject Officers’ recommendations and refuse the application. Alternatively, they should strengthen the condition regarding aircraft movements, limiting it to the minimum needed for maintenance.

·         Membury Industrial Estate should never have been allowed to exist in its current format, and it was unfortunate that it does. Some occupiers did not have a sense of responsibility to the area.

·         Two previous HGV incidents had occurred on the nearby B4000, and the danger would be exacerbated if this and other applications were approved.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

35.  The Chairman did not open the meeting to questions, due to the fact that Councillor James Cole was not making his own presentation.

Member Questions to Officers

36.  Councillor Lynne Doherty noted that a number of consultations had raised the issue of flooding, drainage, and water run-off, and asked what Point 6.20 meant when it stated that the technical details of proposed SuDS would be dealt with in a future submission of an application to approve details reserved by condition 13 of the outline planning permission. Mr Dray responded that flooding was covered by the outline stage because it was considered fundamental, but there was a detailed Drainage Strategy at this stage, due to a condition.

37.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked how the Committee can make a determination on layout and landscape without a detailed Travel Plan and SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) information, or the Zero Carbon condition. Mr Jake Brown responded that the lead local flood authority had received information about the SuDS plans and were satisfied that the layout of the landscape on the ground would not need to change. The only thing remaining for approval was how the SuDS would technically operate. So it is not expected that the layout would need to be altered by approval of the drainage details reserved by condition.  If SuDS details for whatever reason cannot be approved without a change to the layout the applicant can come back and submit an application to amend the layout or landscaping.  Mr Brown stated on the Travel Plan that the Highways Officer had looked at the number of employees on the site at any one time, and had confirmed that the planned number of parking spaces is acceptable taking into account the Travel Planning. On Zero Carbon, Mr Brown responded that Zero Carbon was related to the building approved only and it was not related to the landscape, and if the applicant struggles at a later date to achieve Zero Carbon or BREEAM they will have to apply to amend those conditions attached to the outline permission.

38.  Councillor Culver asked whether, if the other applications for approval of matters reserved by conditions plans are objected to, whether the Committee would have to consider the development four separate times. Mr Brown noted that those applications are currently under consideration and they would be brought to this committee for determination if more than ten objections are received and officers are minded to recommend approval, otherwise they would be dealt with under delegated powers unless the Development Control Manager decides to refer them to this committee.

39.  Councillor Culver noted that Policy ESA2 in the draft Local Plan Review covers land to the west of Ramsbury Road, and asked whether that allocation covers this site or is a nearby site. Mr Dray presented a map showing the location of the site in relation to the allocated site and Protected Employment Areas.

40.  Councillor Cole asked how small the reed bed was, and whether it would be the only means to deal with foul water. Mr Brown advised that this is the only means by which foul water would be treated and that a foul water statement had been submitted as part of the application.  There is a treatment plant process proposed as well and the reed bed was relatively small compared to the proposed works across the whole site.

41.  Councillor Cole asked how the Council intended to monitor tree planting over 15 years. Mr Brown responded that there was a condition at outline stage for a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) to detail how landscaping will be managed. Councillor Cole asked how the Council would monitor it. Mr Brown responded that the Council has the ability under Planning Enforcement to take action should the conditions not be adhered to but the LEMP does require details of the body or organisation who is responsible for the implementation of that plan and the ongoing monitoring, as set out in condition 11 of the outline planning permission.

42.  Councillor Cole asked whether it could be set as a condition that the removed hedgerow is transplanted. Mr Brown responded that it could be replanted on site provided that it accords with their proposed soft landscaping plan.

43.  Councillor Cole asked whether ten parking spaces would be insufficient considering the expected popularity of the museum. Mr Goddard responded that the museum would be open at weekends, when the commercial use of the site would be reduced, so some of the employee parking spaces could be used. Mr Brown responded that a condition at outline stage required the museum to be open no less than 28 days per year together with details of arrangements for public access.

44.  Councillor Abbs asked what the definition of “broadly” was in regards to the Committee considering whether the reserved planning application was broadly in line with the outline plan, and how different the two had to be for the Committee to consider that it was not in accordance. Mr Brown responded that it was a matter of scale and degree, but “broadly” was a matter of judgement and Members can choose to take a different view from officers. Mr Brown noted that the outline plan was indicative, and the reserved matters application does conform to the conditions that the Committee agreed.

45.  Councillor Abbs asked how Officers could support the Committee if they opted to reject the application. Mr Dray suggested that the Committee should not reject based solely on difference, but focus on the reserved matters to be considered.

46.  Councillor Abbs asked at which point the number of aircraft movements is clarified. Mr Brown responded that the applicant has proposed and confirmed that there would be a total of10 aircraft movements, 5 in, 5 out.  Officers have assessed that proposal and consider it would be ancillary to the museum use and have proposed a condition restricting the number of aircraft movements via the taxi strip.

47.  The Chairman clarified that the movement of the aircraft out of the museum beyond the red line was defined as an aircraft movement, and movements within the red line were not a matter for the Committee. Mr Dray advised that this application does not seek to approve any development outside of the red line. . Other movements on adjacent land would come under CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) policy or other legislation.

48.  Councillor Beck asked whether an aircraft movement within the site counted for the purpose of the conditions. Mr Dray responded that that was not the intention but the condition could be changed to clarify this.

49.  Councillor Beck asked whether prior approval of samples of building materials were included in the conditions. Mr Dray responded that it could be included, but that it was up to the Committee.

50.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked if anything had materially changed regarding traffic movements between the outline and reserved matters stages. Mr Goddard responded that there had been no significant change.

51.  Councillor Culver asked for clarification of whether the site was on the Protected Employment Area set out by Policy ESA2 in the new Local Plan. Mr Dray presented a map showing the location of the site in relation to the allocated site and Protected Employment Areas, which showed that the site was the proposed allocation and part of the proposed extension to the Protected Employment Area.

52.  Councillor Culver noted that one of the opponents had raised that the AONB did not get subsequent opportunities to comment on the proposal before it was proposed to cut down the trees, and asked for clarification on whether they had. Mr Brown responded that the AONB was consulted on both applications and could see on the plans submitted that trees would be cut down.  Mr Brown advised that he was not aware of any trees having been cut down.

53.  Councillor Culver asked whether the flood risk had been assessed against the large concrete area on the application, and whether the effects of that on water run-off had been considered. Mr Brown responded that it would have been included in calculations for SuDS.

54.  The Chairman noted that RAF Welford had a museum and aerodrome on site which had been asked to half its volume, and he understood that they had been in discussions with the applicant regarding some of the artefacts. The Chairman noted that the proposal was for a specific Membury museum, but it was always part of the plan and understanding that the museum would house those artefacts.

55.  Councillor Abbs asked if there would be a solid wall between the museum and commercial use. Mr Brown confirmed that the floor plan shows a demarcation between the uses proposed. Mr Dray responded that the conditions on the outline permission secure the floor space in respect of the uses proposed and that internal changes do not normally require planning permission.  Mr Dray advised that that condition would be sufficient for planning purposes to have the floor spaces secured by that condition.  If Members consider it necessary to maintain a divide between the two uses that is justifiable in planning terms then they may wish to debate whether an additional condition is imposed to secure the internal layout. The Chairman noted that it was likely that there would be a wall.

56.  The Chairman asked whether the TRICS database should have been used as part of the application process. Mr Goddard responded that typically a proposal would consult the TRICS database and it would be assessed that way at outline stage, but the applicant had taken their own surveys. A personal consent was applied to ensure that it would remain a B8 warehouse under the applicant.

57.  Councillor Culver asked if a new owner of the warehouse would have to make their own application. Mr Dray responded that a new owner would have to make their own application which would be assessed on its own merits.

Debate

58.  Councillor Cole opened the debate by stated that if the applicant was only exhibiting the aircraft occasionally, or not at all, then the issue was not as bad as initially suspected. Councillor Cole noted that the trees and hedges were issues that could be dealt with by the Committee with additional conditions, and raised concerns that the monitoring had not been closely considered. Councillor Cole additionally raised concerns that the reed bed was too small, but had been assured by officers, and stated that the application had somewhat changed from the outline stage and that traffic movements were a concern.

59.  Councillor Beck concurred with Councillor Cole and stated that the Committee were a lot clearer on the intended use of the site than at the start. Councillor Beck no longer believed that the site was an aircraft hangar, and noted the importance of the museum’s aims. Councillor Beck stated that he would move for permission to be granted, but wanted a clearer condition on aircraft movements.

60.  Councillor Barnett stated that it was paramount for Members of the Committee to visit the site, and that he found it very valuable. Councillor Barnett noted that a thorough debate had been had, and that he supported the heritage aims of the museum. On air and traffic movements, Councillor Barnett noted that it would be highly dependent on the weather and that it could be a case that the aircraft is there for a different amount of time than suggested. Councillor Barnett concurred with Councillor Beck and stated that he was inclined to support the Officer’s recommendations.

61.  Councillor Cant stated that his early concerns about traffic and flooding had been addressed by officers, as well as concerns regarding the personal condition granted to the applicant. Councillor Cant stated that he was inclined to support the Officer’s recommendations.

62.  Councillor Beck proposed that the conditions are amended so that the term “aircraft movements” is clarified as being movements over the red line; that the material samples had to be approved by the officers prior to them being used; and that any trees or vegetation that die within 15 years are replaced.

63.  Councillor Doherty stated that a thorough discussion on the reserved matters had been had and that she was happy to second the proposal to accept Officer’s recommendations.

64.  The Chairman asked what the Committee was addressing on each of the reserved matters. Mr Dray clarified that the proposal was to accept Officer’s recommendation which includes the change to 15 years for the landscaping condition, refine the air movement’s condition to refer to on and off site movements, and to change the materials condition to require that a schedule and sample of materials is submitted for approval.  Mr Dray noted previous discussion not part of the proposal yet was in relation to a condition fixing the internal layout and divider and Members will need to decide whether such a condition is included before it is seconded.

65.  Councillor Abbs stated that there had been an offer to address most of the residents’ concerns by not having the Dakota aircraft exhibited, which superseded the need for a new condition, and the applicant had additionally stated that the Dakota aircraft would only be exhibited outdoors. Councillor Abbs raised concerns with the layout of the building and its accessibility, and that the Committee had clearly understood that there were unresolved flooding issues and serious traffic issues which would be exacerbated by the application without a TRICS database assessment. Councillor Abbs suggested that the Committee could conclude that the application was on balance, broadly, not equivalent to the outline application and refuse the reserved matters application. Councillor Abbs also suggested that the Committee should accept the applicant’s offer not to have the Dakota aircraft.

66.  Councillor Abbs additionally noted that BREEAM Excellent could only be achieved if it was aimed for from the outset of the planning process, and that it was a disappointment that the potential failure to achieve it was not a matter for discussion. Councillor Vickers concurred and suggested that it could potentially be an additional condition.

67.  Councillor Vickers noted that if the applicant offers not to have the aircraft on site it would fundamentally change the application, and so could not be set as a condition. Councillor Vickers stated that he was content that the reserved matters had been addressed, even if there were concerns regarding traffic movements and the impact on the B4000 that had failed to be resolved at outline stage, and that the aircraft movements could be an issue if it required maintenance. Councillor Vickers suggested an additional condition to reaffirm the internal barrier, and that the museum exhibitions should be outdoors.

68.  The Chairman stated that, in his view, the Dakota aircraft was fundamental to the museum’s aims and it would be a distraction to consider removing it. The Chairman suggested a condition to ensure that the aircraft is tugged up to the red line.

69.  Councillor Cant stated that he considered the museum’s aims to be philanthropic and a benefit to the local community, and that 10 flights a year were not excessive. Councillor Cant suggested that a discussion on whether the Dakota aircraft should be exhibited was up to the applicant and the local community and separate from the application process.

70.  Councillor Culver stated that she would have preferred to consider all of the reserved matters together, and that she still had concerns that one would have a knock-on effect on the others. Councillor Culver noted her vote against the application at outline stage, but that it had been approved and could have no bearing on her decision. Councillor Culver stated that she would abstain as she still had outstanding concerns regarding traffic movements.

71.  Mr Dray noted that Condition 8 of the outline planning permission stated that the development could not be occupied unless it had been shown that it had achieved BREEAM Excellent. Councillor Abbs responded that previous applications had been later allowed to fail to achieve BREEAM Excellent.

72.  Councillor Abbs raised that the D1 use class was for a static museum and not for exhibits which were temporary and could be moved in and out. Mr Dray responded that the outline planning permission granted an aircraft museum and the question is whether the movement of aircraft would represent a material change of use.  The number of aircraft movements proposed is not considered to represent a material change of use.

73.  The proposed amendments to the conditions were:

·         The landscaping condition would be amended to require replacement of any landscaping that is removed, dies, becomes diseased or seriously damaged over a period of 15 years. An informative would be added to request the reuse of the existing hedge to be removed.

·         The aircraft condition would be amended to clarify the definition of a movement to only apply to movements on and off the site.

·         The materials condition would be amended to require prior approval of samples and a schedule.

·         A condition would be added to fix the layout according to the floor plan, and require further details on the dividing line between the use class sections.

74.  Councillor Jeff Beck proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report and proposed to be amended or added to. This was seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty.

75.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Doherty to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried. Councillor Abbs voted against. Councillor Culver abstained.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant reserved matters approval subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.	Link to Outline Planning Permission   This permission relates solely to the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 of the Outline Planning Permission granted on 5th May 2021 under application reference 19/02979/OUTMAJ.  Nothing contained in this proposal or this notice shall be deemed to affect or vary the conditions imposed on that outline planning permission.   Reason: For the clarity and the avoidance of doubt.  The reserved matters cannot be considered separately from the permission to which they relate and the conditions imposed on that outline permission are still applicable.
2.	Approved plans   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:   Site Layout Plan 21025-TP-001 Rev E received on 18 January 2023; Landscape Masterplan P16-0633_14 Rev M received on 18 January 2023 except in respect of the external lighting shown on that plan; Soft Landscape Plans (sheet 1 and sheet 2) P16-0633_16 Rev G received on 18 January 2023 except in respect of the external lighting shown on that plan; Hard Landscape Plans (sheet 1 and sheet 2) P16-0633_15 Rev F received on 13 January 2023 except in respect of the external lighting shown on that plan; Site Sections Plan 21025-TP-002 Rev E received on 13 January 2023; Indicative Landscape Site Sections Plan P16-0633_11 Rev D received on 13 January 2023; Building Elevations Plan 21025-TP-007 Rev A received on 3 November 2022; Building Sections Plan 21025-TP-006 Rev A received on 3 November 2022; Site Fencing Plan 21025-TP-008 Rev A received on 3 November 2022; External Finishes (sheet 1, 2 and 3) 21025/TP/000B received on 3 November 2022; Site Vehicle Swept Paths Plan 21025-TP-003 Rev A received on 3 November 2022; Building Ground and First Floor Areas Plan 21025-TP-00 received on 23 June 2022; Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment by LandArb Solutions dated March 2022 (ref: LAS_391_A) and received on 13 April 2022; Roof Plan 21025-TP-005 received on 13 April 2022.   Reason:   For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3.	Electric Vehicle Charging Points   The use shall not commence until electric vehicle charging points have been provided for in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the charging points shall be maintained, and kept available and operational for electric vehicles at all times.   Reason:   To secure the provision of charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
4.	Provision of Access   The use shall not commence until the vehicular site access to the site from Ramsbury Road has been completed in accordance with the approved details.   Reason:   The timely completion of the site accesses 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.
5.	Parking and Turning   The use shall not commence until vehicle parking and turning spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out).  Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring 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 and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
6.	Cycle and Motorcycle Parking   The use shall not commence until cycle and motorcycle parking 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 adequate provision of cycle and motorcycle parking facilities.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Quality Design SPD, and the Council’s Cycle and Motorcycle Advice and Standards for New Development (November 2014).
7.	Materials   Notwithstanding the details approved by this application, no construction of the building above ground level shall take place until samples, and an accompanying schedule, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials. Reason:   To ensure that the external materials respect the character and appearance of the area and AONB.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
8.	Hard landscaping   The use shall not commence until the hard landscaping of the site has been completed in accordance with the details of boundary treatments (e.g. walls, fences) and hard surfaced areas (e.g. driveways, paths, patios, decking) shown on the following approved plans (except in respect of the external lighting details shown on those plans):   Hard Landscape Plans (sheet 1 and sheet 2) P16-0633_15 Rev F received on 13 January 2023; Site Fencing Plan 21025-TP-008 Rev A received on 3 November 2022; External Finishes (sheet 1, 2 and 3) 21025/TP/000B received on 3 November 2022).   Reason:   Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.
9.	Soft landscaping   All soft landscaping works, including the creation of the bund, shall be completed in accordance with the following approved soft landscaping details (except in respect of the external lighting shown on those plans):   Landscape Masterplan P16-0633_14 Rev M received on 18 January 2023; Soft Landscape Plans (sheet 1 and sheet 2) P16-0633_16 Rev G received on 18 January 2023; Site Sections Plan 21025-TP-002 Rev E received on 13 January 2023; Indicative Landscape Site Sections Plan P16-0633_11 Rev D received on 13 January 2023.   All soft landscaping works shall be completed within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first use of the site (whichever occurs first).  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 fifteen years of 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.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.
10.	Tree protection fencing   Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment by LandArb Solutions dated March 2022 (ref: LAS_391_A) and received on 13 April 2022.  Within the fenced areas, there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.   Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
11.	Lighting Assessment   No internal lighting shall be installed within the building hereby approved until a lighting assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The assessment shall include a plan to show the location of any lighting, isolux contour diagram(s), an operation strategy (e.g. details of timed operation), specifications of all lighting, and, mitigation to be used where necessary including the operation of the large opening on the northern elevation, to ensure that light spill levels from the proposed building are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.  No internal lighting shall be installed within the building except in accordance with the approved lighting assessment.   Reason:   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.
12.	Aircraft Movements   No more than 10 aircraft movements (5 in and 5 out) of the Dakota Night Fright aeroplane, C-47 42-100521, across the aircraft access to and from land outside of the site, shall take place in any given calendar year, and only between 1 April and 31 September in each calendar year. No other aircraft shall be transported to or from the site via the aircraft access proposed and no use of the aircraft access for the transportation of goods or products to be stored within the warehouse shall take place at any time..   Reason: To ensure that the access for aircraft to the site is not used for any other purposes than specified in application submissions and to prevent frequent use of that access by aircraft that would represent a material change of use from the planning permission granted.  This condition is necessary to protect the amenity of the area and neighbouring properties.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies OVS.5 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and Quality Design SPD.
13.	Internal Wall / Use Separation   No use of the warehouse or museum area shall commence until details of an internal wall of permanent construction of full internal height and width (except for the pedestrian access) separating the museum area from the warehouse area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and fully constructed in accordance with the approved details. That internal wall shall thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details and no part shall be removed.   The distribution of uses within the building hereby approved shall only take place strictly in accordance with the Building Ground and First Floor Areas Plan (drawing number 21025-TP-009) received on 23 June 2022.   Reason: To ensure that no change to the distribution of uses as proposed on the plans submitted occurs following construction of the development. This condition is required to ensure a clear distinction and retention of the proposed distribution of uses taking place at the site and prevent a potential material change of use occurring that may result in harmful impact on the amenity of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policies OVS.5 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Informatives

 

1.	Proactive   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.  The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
2.	Details Not Approved   For the avoidance of doubt, details relating to external lighting, sustainable drainage and the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) are not approved by this decision.  Those details are considered separately under the respective applications for approval of details reserved by conditions attached to planning permission 19/02979/OUTMAJ.
3.	Access construction   The Asset Management team, West Berkshire District Council, Environment Department, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD, or highwaysassetmanagment@westberks.gov.uk should be contacted to agree the access construction details and to grant a licence before any work is carried out within the highway.   A formal application should be made, allowing at least four (4) weeks’ notice, to obtain details of underground services on the applicant’s behalf.
4.	Damage to footways, cycleways and verges   The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge arising during building operations.
5.	Damage to the carriageway   The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.
6.	Incidental works affecting the highway   Any incidental works affecting the adjoining highway shall be approved by, and a licence obtained from, the Principal Engineer (Streetworks), West Berkshire District Council, Transport & Countryside, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD, telephone number 01635 – 503233, before any development is commenced.
7.	Advertisement Consent   It will be necessary to submit a separate application for Advertisement Consent for advertisements to be displayed on the site.
8.	Hedge Re-use   The applicant is requested to re-use/re-locate where possible the existing hedgerow to be removed in the planting of new hedgerow, provided that planting is in accordance with the Soft Landscape Plans (sheet 1 and sheet 2) P16-0633_16 Rev G received on 18 January 2023.