Agenda item

Proposal:	Application for approval of details reserved by condition 9 'zero carbon', 10 'CEMP', 11 'LEMP', 16 'levels' and 18 'travel plan' of approved application 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
Location:	Land South of Tower Works, Lambourn Woodlands, Hungerford
Applicant:	Walker Logistics Limited
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Development Control Manager to GRANT APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTED DETAILS.

 

Item starts at 1 hour, 56 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 22/00858/COND1 in respect of an application for approval of details reserved by condition 9 'zero carbon', 10 'CEMP', 11 'LEMP', 16 'levels' and 18 'travel plan' of approved application 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 Control Manager be authorised to grant approval of the submitted details.

3.       The Chairman asked Officers to comment on the matter of the item possibly facing Judicial Review and why the Committee was able to consider the application in light of this. Mr Bob Dray stated that Members would recall the reserved matters approval awarded by the Committee earlier in the year for the site. A claim had been lodged against this application and the Local Authority (LA) was currently awaiting a response as to whether or not the matter would be heard at Judicial Review. The application before the Committee involved conditions on the outline planning permission and not the reserved matters application, which was subject to the claim. There was no injunction on proceeding with development of the site or the applicant progressing their application whilst the matter was considered. If any decision was to be quashed following the court proceedings it would not affect the decision on the current application. There were no legal or planning reasons why the Committee should not proceed with determination of the application.

4.       Ms Sharon Armour concurred and explained that there was an application before the LA to discharge conditions on the outline that was not subject to challenge, even if the reserved matters application was to be found to be unsound.

5.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard reported that Highways Officers had only given consideration to the condition on the Travel Plan and had no comments on any of the other conditions. Highways Officers had objected to the original planning application in 2019 on sustainability grounds, which had subsequently been approved. As part of the approval, a Travel Plan had been requested and the applicant had promised the provision of a minibus to take employees to and from the site, particularly for those living in the Swindon area. The minibus was an integral part of the Travel Plan. Other measures included the encouragement of car sharing and a travel plan coordinator post to monitor implementation of the Travel Plan going forward. The proposed Travel Plan was limited however, there were limitations considering the location of the site. Highways Officers were recommending approval of the proposed Travel Plan.

6.       Councillor Clive Hooker declared an interest as he had formed part of the Committee that had considered the initial application for the site in 2019, which he had been lobbied on at the time. He confirmed that he had not been lobbied on the current reserved matters application. Sharon Armour considered the reserved matters application to be a separate application that needed to be considered on its own merits.

7.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Bridget Jones and Mr Anthony King, Objectors, Mr James Hicks, Agent, and Councillor Howard Woollaston, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objectors Representation

8.       Ms Jones and Mr King in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The Travel Plan did not contain enough details to enable a comprehensive view of the impacts of travel to the site.

·       Recognised best practice for a remote industrial site would be to include all traffic to the site within the Travel Plan and not just the workforce.

·       There was no data available on volume of the workforce, modal split, shift patterns or overlapping shifts. This was essential in this case as planning permission had been approved subject to a condition based on traffic generated by the existing facility nearby. It was queried why the information had not been provided and analysed.

·       The information provided related to the anticipated breakdown of traffic and not numbers.

·       The report was inadequate and was based on inaccurate information. In an attempt to justify the use of bicycles to access the site, the report referred to the regional cycle network next to the site. The plan referred to Ramsbury Road as follows ‘the traffic volumes at the point in which the site connects to the cycle routes are low and vehicle speeds had been observed at 46mph’. This statement was incorrect. Much had changed with the rapid development of Membury and the roads were not safe. There was often speeding traffic on Ramsbury Road. The Community Speed Watch Group had recorded speeds of 58mph in a 40mph zone, with 91 cars travelling in one direction within a one hour period.

·       90 car parking spaces included with the application would not be adequate, given that the staffing figures had risen from 40 to 200. The Case Officer was negligent in not asking for increased traffic figures. The response given to a public enquiry was that the applicant did not supply this information. This was an indefensible response.

·       It was expected that the site would generate five times the anticipated traffic. There was no overflow parking proposed for weekends and bank holidays when visitor numbers might increase. 

·       The aim of reserved matters was to debate the detail. Detail was lacking throughout the Travel Plan and it did not include traffic travelling to the museum or the aircraft that would be located there. There was concern this detail had been intentionally left out.

·       The Case Officer had suggested that transport to the site should not be discussed at the current meeting however, given that a personal condition was granted allowing traffic figures to be significantly supressed, it needed to be considered.

·       TRICS data would normally be used and if TRICS had been applied it would show an increase of 550 vehicles per day on roads not designed to carry large numbers of HGVs.

·       The tactical avoidance of using TRICS data had misled the Committee regarding the actual environmental and sustainability impact the development would have on the surrounding area and rural road network.

·       It was queried what the point was of managing the environmental impact of workforce travel when there was deliberate avoidance to assess the numbers generated by the biggest polluters. The shuttle bus was deemed unsustainable by Mr Goddard and was also not enforceable. The Travel Plan submitted had a clause that stated if changes were made to the plan the applicant would inform the LA however, by then it would be too late as the development would be operational.

·       The roads were unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. There had been a marked increase in accidents on the B4000/Ermin Street and the three junctions leading to and from the site. There had been three accidents in the last week.

·       There was a lack of road markings and road signage for cyclists and pedestrians, along with safe access and crossing points. There were no control measures in place to mitigate foreseeable risks.

·       Regarding BREEAM, NVC Version 6 should be used. The Principal Environment Officer had asked why the submission was based on the old 2013 version and queried if this had been updated. Officers were asked if this update had taken place.

·       Regarding LEMP, it was queried if the landscaping and ecological management plan was fit for purpose.

·       Until all questions were answered adequately and errors rectified, the condition in relation to the Travel Plan should not be supported.

Member Questions to the Objectors

9.       Members asked questions of the Objectors and were given the following responses:

·       Assurance regarding the LEMP was still sought.

·       Regarding the three accidents that had taken place over the last week. One had involved two cars on the Membury junction. The second accident had taken place near to a private residence that was once the Hare and Hounds Public House. This had involved a junction off Ermin Street down into Lambourn. The third accident had taken place at the junction to Chilton Foliat. All were serious accidents and it was feared that there would be a fatality imminently.

·       Only cars had been involved in the accidents referred to.

·       In regard to concerns about the Travel Plan, residents’ expected to see some numbers including staffing figures. Staffing had increased from 40 to 200 so there must be a business plan or staff rota system that would indicate travel numbers. No evidence had been requested and no information had been given on this. It would be difficult to make an informed decision about the traffic and the transport without this information. 

·       The issue was that a Travel Plan based on the workforce would normally be determined after an application had been granted permission and was in operation. In the case of the current application, it was based on a personal condition, which meant all of the traffic generation was based on existing facilities. There was no reason why the existing facility could not be interpolated to provide specifics.

·       Regarding the statement in the report referencing the cycle route, this was incorrect and should be removed.

·       The applicant had stated that instead of 40 jobs there would be 200 and there was no breakdown provided in terms of shifts. 20 of the 90 spaces would be electric charging points and there were also disabled spaces. Given there would be 200 staff with no information on shift overlap, the proposed parking could easily be inadequate. There was also no data provided for the museum.

·       Ms Jones had not carried out any calculations personally for the museum. In her view this was for the applicant to provide.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.   Mr Hicks in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       He was the chartered town planner and agent for the application.

·       The Officer’s report clearly set out the background to the consented development for the site through the form of the outline and reserved matters. Officers had reported on the Judicial Review matter that was currently pending.

·       The report also set out that the current application was considering the detail requested by Officers relating to the conditions attached to the outline planning permission.

·       It was well established in planning law that in discharging condition there was no opportunity to revisit or further curtail granted planning permission. No further conditions could be imposed.

·       The application sought to discharge five conditions, which were pre-commencement conditions relating to the outline permission. These conditions were generally technical in nature. The submitted details had been scrutinised by Officers and consultees where necessary. The Officer’s report set out clearly that the submitted details met the requirements of the conditions.

·       The Committee were urged to consider the Officer’s recommendations and approve discharge of the conditions without any further delay.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

11.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Ward Member Representation

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

·       He had opposed the application in 2019 because he had believed the location to be inappropriate. It had been heavily opposed by residents in his ward due to the significant traffic issues it would create and because it was in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Councillor Woollaston had arranged for a substitute at the 2019 Committee because he was pre-determined and the application had been approved.

·       He wished to focus on part of the application including the plans. The consent was for a museum, which was part of the original consent and not a hanger as was described on the plan. Membury airfield was used for light aircraft and not twin engine World War Two cargo aircraft. Clearly the aircraft would need to be flown in, with occasional aircraft movement for essential maintenance. Councillor Woollaston requested a condition be added on this if approved, because his residents did not want noisy 80 year old aircraft flying over their homes. 

Member Questions to the Ward Member

·       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Parking levels had been reviewed in February 2023 when the reserved matters planning application had been considered. 90 parking spaces were proposed for the building and further parking was proposed for the museum. Considering there were three shifts for 200 staff, it had been recommended at the time that the level of parking proposed was adequate.

·       All traffic and sustainability matters were considered as part of the outline planning application in 2019. This had included consideration of traffic levels on the B4000 and accident data.

·       The accident data had been reviewed for the reserved matters application and it had been found, over ten years, that there had been no change in the number of accidents that had taken place in the area. There was no knowledge of the recent three accidents however, it normally took some months before Thames Valley Police uploaded details onto the system. Data was currently only available up to the end of 2022.

·       Only the conditions set out in the report were for consideration, which included the Travel Plan. Members needed to consider if the Travel Plan was acceptable for approval. The Highway Officer’s view was that it was acceptable and was the best that could be provided considering the location of the site.

·       The museum was not included in the Travel Plan. It would be difficult to include because, unlike employees, there would not be the same people regularly visiting the museum.

·       Issues around accessibility to the site were the points and concerns Highways Officers had raised when the original planning application had been considered in 2019. Highways Officers had objected to the original planning application because the site was unsustainable however, the application had been approved. The Committee at the time had needed to weigh up a number of issues including economic issues.

·       Regarding whether the Travel Plan was still fit for purpose, it was considered highly unlikely that people would cycle to the site. There were cycle racks provided in case anyone did wish to cycle to the site.

·       There was uncertainly as to whether staffing numbers had changed. The reason why personal consent had been granted in 2020 was because the level of traffic for Walkers Logistics was lower than a normal warehouse distribution use. To ensure an alternative tenant with a normal higher traffic generation did not take over the site, it was restricted to Walkers Logistics accordingly. The Travel Plan aimed for a five percent modal shift.

·       It was explained how the 105 percent reduction in savings in carbon dioxide emissions was calculated. Normally the baseline was taken for a building based on building regulations. This was entered into a computer model and measures were applied. At least a 100 percent reduction was sought. In the case of the current application, an even more onerous position was taken because policy required the baseline to be purely based on renewables. The figure had been assessed by the Environment Delivery Team and they were satisfied with the score.

·       Regarding the shuttle bus service, this had been promised by the applicant for employees as part of the Travel Plan. The Planning Policy Team would monitor this service accordingly to help ensure its retention going forward. There was uncertainty as to whether the service would be charged or free.

·       There were conditions on the outline planning permission regarding public access to the museum. It was limited to 28 days per year for public access.

·       Regarding whether there were conditions on restricted hours that did not allow for three shifts, it was confirmed that there were conditions restricting hours of external operation including traffic movements.

·       Regarding whether the Travel Plan would be viable without the minibus, it was confirmed that if the minibus was not proposed there would be no purpose in having a Travel Plan. Members were being asked to determine the viability of a Travel Plan for a minibus and it had to be assumed that the minibus would be viable.

·       Regarding the possibility of further electric charging points on the site, this was a condition that had been applied at the reserved matters stage for the site.

Debate

14.   The Chairman opened the debate by expressing that he had become increasingly uneasy about the travel arrangements associated with the development. He did not feel the Committee could safely approve the application given the Travel Plan provided. The Chairman was not convinced that what had been provided was sustainable or workable for the location. If longevity of the minibus service could be conditioned he might have felt differently. 

15.   The Chairman stated that he did not understand how a Travel Plan could be put in place that completely ignored 28 days per years for museum use. He was concerned that no data had been provided.

16.   Councillor Phil Barnett shared the concerns raised by the Chairman. Councillor Barnett stated that he had voted on balance in favour of the original application in 2019 however, felt uneasy about the current application and would likely be voting against it.  

17.   Councillor Antony Amirtharaj stated that the Chairman had summarised his own concerns regarding the Travel Plan. Regarding the zero carbon condition, the detail on this set out that it was for the building and not transport movements however, it was known that traffic movements would involve that of an 80 year old aircraft and associated noise. Councillor Amirtharaj felt the site needed to be considered as a whole and was not convinced based on this that the site would achieve zero carbon.

18.   Councillor Clive Hooker reported that he did not have any contention with the other conditions however, echoed concerns raised about the Travel Plan. He was concerned about the perceived traffic volume with the increased number of staff and was concerned about traffic speeds and accidents as referred to by residents. Councillor Hooker reported he was concerned about the viability of the travel bus provision over time. Councillor Hooker queried if the site was noted in the new Local Plan for further industrial use going forward and Mr Dray confirmed it was a proposed allocation. Councillor Hooker felt that if it was to be considered  important it was noted that access issues would remain the same.

19.   In reference to Councillor Hooker’s point about the site being allocated in the Local Plan, the Chairman stated that the point of the site eventually becoming a piece of allocation land had been raised when the application for the site had first come forward. It was noted however, that in 2023 the site had still not been allocated and was in process.

20.   Councillor Tony Vickers stated he had always been opposed to the site being an employment site. It was believed that people accessed the site from the motorway network and although this was beyond planning law, if this was the case he hoped they could allow what was happening to continue as it might alleviate the local traffic network, which was a concern that had been raised by residents. Councillor Vickers queried if it was possible as part of the Travel Plan to require an incentive for those using the minibus service.

21.   The Chairman reported that it would be possible for the Committee to make a split decision on the application. Mr Dray reported that each condition needed to be considered individually. He had heard concerns raised by Members regarding the Travel Plan however, the other conditions needed to be assessed on their own merits. If Members were to refuse any part of the application, reasons would need to be given. It would be considered an unsound decision if the whole application was refused based on one element.

22.   Councillor Hooker reiterated his concerns about the bus service. He was concerned about the size or number of buses required given the number of employees.

23.   Councillor Vickers stated that he never envisaged that every employee would use the bus to get to the site however, if it was to have any impact on the numbers of private journeys then it would need to be shown as achievable.

24.   Councillor Tony Vickers proposed that it was approved that all conditions were discharged apart from the Travel Plan. He felt that the Travel Plan should be refused on the grounds that it was not workable.  

25.   Mr Goddard provided some guidance regarding how the Travel Plan could be improved. He felt the potential for its improvement was limited because of the location of the site. There was a shuttle bus proposed and he was uncertain of its size however, this detail could be requested and included. Mr Goddard sought guidance from Planning Officers on how the bus service could be retained going forward.

26.   In response, Mr Dray stated that there could only be a proposal put forward if the Travel Plan became unviable. If such a submission was made to the Planning Department this would need to be considered on its merits at the time. Mr Dray acknowledged the locational restraints of the development and that the Travel Plan sought to make it as sustainable as possible with the inclusion of a minibus and cycle storage.

27.   The Chairman was of the view that the Travel Plan would only become viable if data was provided associated with traffic movements. Longevity of the bus service would need to be assured. It was felt that the Committee needed to be clear that the plan was only going forward if the applicant could provide evidence that a sustainable system would be put in place.

28.   Councillor Hooker stated that it was likely that people would choose to use their personal cars rather than the minibus due to the journey times.

29.   Mr Dray clarified that there was a proposal by Councillor Vickers to approve all of the conditions apart from the Travel Plan condition. Refusal of the Travel Plan condition was on the basis of enforceability and insufficient detail and data to show how the minibus service would make a difference. Councillor Vickers did not wish to include that the Travel Plan did not account for the museum traffic.

30.   Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked for clarification that one vote was being proposed. Mr Dray reported that it was common practices, where there were numerous conditions, to have a split decision and the decision notice would set out specifically which parts had been approved and refused.

31.   The Chairman sought a seconder for the proposal by Councillor Vickers and it was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

32.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Vickers, seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to approve the discharge of all conditions apart from the one condition on the Travel Plan. At the vote the motion was not carried.

33.   The Chairman proposed that the conditions be approved apart from the Traffic Plan and net zero conditions. The Chairman did not feel there was enough data presented within the report to show the site would achieve net zero particularly during the construction phase. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj.

34.   Mr Dray reported that the Energy Delivery Team had verified the Energy Statement which included the standard calculations used and concluded that it achieved zero carbon. The Chairman asked for one of the slides to be shown that referred to the construction methodology. There was uncertainty as to whether the net zero condition included the construction phase and based on this, any decision approving condition 16 would be unsound. Mr Dray asked for clarification that refusal of the net zero condition was specifically on detail relating to the construction rather than calculations related to the ongoing operation of the site and the Chairman confirmed this was correct.

35.   Ms Armour asked for clarification that the reasons to refuse the Travel Plan condition were the same as what had been initially proposed by Councillor Vickers. The Chairman confirmed that this was correct. The Chairman confirmed that his proposal included approval of the conditions relating to the Levels, Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). 

36.   The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on his proposal, seconded by Councillor Amirtharaj, and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant planning approval of the submitted details for Conditions 10 (CEMP), Condition 11 (LEMP) and Condition 16 (Levels) as set out in the report. 

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to refuse planning approval of the submitted details for Conditions 9 (Zero Carbon) and Condition 18 (Travel Plan) for the following reasons:

·   Travel Plan: The Travel Plan has provided insufficient supporting information and data to justify the proposals, in particular to demonstrate that the proposed minibus was viable.  It also fails to provide measures to ensure the enforceability of the travel plan, and also fails to provide adequate incentives for the uptake of the travel plan measures by staff employed at the building

·   Net Zero: Insufficient information has been included within the Energy Statement to demonstrate that the proposed measures will comply with the terms of the condition, specifically in terms of how the zero carbon requirement will be met including construction.

Continuation of meeting

37.   In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, paragraph 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(4).