Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 25/01035/FUL in respect of a change of use to allow retention of four and proposed siting of 20 additional storage containers for self storage at The Nurseries, Bath Road, Midgham.

2.      Emma Nutchey introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.      The Chairman asked Paul Goddard whether he had any observations relating to the application. He informed the Committee of the following:

·       The site was to be used by 20 storage containers and was to be accessed via an existing access on the A4.

·     He expected vehicle usage was likely to be very low due to the nature of the proposed usage. No more than five vehicles in and out per day.

·     He believed it was difficult to sustain refusal on traffic or highways grounds.

·     The site was in a sustainable location with regular bus services.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Louisa Hoe Yee Lai and Keith Rogers, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

5.      Louisa Hoe Yee Lai and Keith Rogers addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 August 2025 (15:26)

Member Questions to the Objector

6.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Louisa Hoe Yee Lai advised that the site was on a slope and as a result the entire site was visible from Church View Farm. A barn co owned by Church View Farm and the applicant was being used for storage and other activities by the applicant.

·       Louisa Hoe Yee Lai advised that the applicant’s submitted plans informed that it was a small agricultural business with operating hours of 7:30am to 5pm Mondays-Fridays with ad hoc emergency operations on weekends when required. She noted they were operating outside of the prescribed hours.

·       Louisa Hoe Yee Lai had raised with both the applicant and the Council the fact that the business was operating outside of its prescribed hours however, it had not ceased, and no action had been taken.

Ward Member Representation

7.      Councillor Christopher Read was unable to attend the Committee however, Councillor Richard Somner read a letter on his behalf. This representation can be viewed on the recording:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 August 2025 (25:30)

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Paul Goddard advised that visits could be made to the storage containers without large items.

·       Paul Goddard was not aware of any previous planning application that promised to measure traffic patterns near the site of the proposal. Emma Nutchey advised she had seen nothing referring to this.

·       Emma Nutchey advised an enquiry was made to the Planning Enforcement Team earlier in the week and a case had been opened to investigate a number of matters on the site, but an enforcement officer had not visited.

·       Simon Till noted that Members were present to consider the application in front of the Committee and any matters related to potential breaches of planning consent sat outside the consideration of the Committee item.

·       Paul Goddard had considered the position of the entrance in the road when recommending the application for approval. He advised that the containers were not large and as such they were not expecting large vehicles to visit that particular section of the site. He noted that the access had limitations but advised that the proposal was unlikely to make the limitations of that access any worse. He highlighted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictated that an application could only be rejected on highways grounds if the impact was severe, a threshold he believed had not been met.

·       Paul Goddard noted that sight lines on a 60 mile per hour road should be 215m looking in both directions. The access only had sight lines of 85m looking towards the east but the deficiencies of the access were not so harmful due to the limited increase in access the proposed usage was likely to create.

·       Simon Till advised that the retrospective nature of this application would make it a matter for Planning Enforcement to consider, should the Committee be minded to reject the proposal.

·       Paul Goddard advised that he was happy to have a condition applied requiring the site to include an electric vehicle charging point. However, he did not consider that people accessing the site were likely to stay there for very long.

·       Simon Till reminded Members that conditions as set out in the NPPF were for the purpose of making an otherwise unacceptable development acceptable.

·       Simon Till advised that planning permission applied to the land unless granting personal planning permission which only applied in very particular circumstances (none of which applied with this application). He reminded Members that they were considering the use of the land.

·       Emma Nutchey advised that there were no hours of access conditions granted on previously approved usages. The condition restricting hours of operation was new and did not conflict.

·       Emma Nutchey was unsure whether the units had access to a power supply.

·       Emma Nutchey advised that there was a use restriction determining that the site was to be used for storage purposes only.

·       Paul Goddard advised that the external highways specialist consultancy, Stewart Michael associates, based in Thatcham, had been engaged by the objectors to write a report. This had stated similar concerns to the objector regarding the width of the access, sight lines and speed of traffic on the A4.

·       Paul Goddard advised that the number of vehicle movements was calculated by referring to the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) National Database which included traffic surveys of many different land usages.

·       Paul Goddard advised the road surface was tarmac when entered but became rougher further down. He felt that the level of traffic expected, combined with the size of vehicle expected to make use of the site, meant it was unlikely that the proposal was going to damage the road. He highlighted that the access was private and a private matter.

·       Paul Goddard advised that the sight lines on to the A4 had not changed for a long time. Guidance had also not changed within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges which applied to the A4, though sight lines had changed to lower speed settings with the production of the Manual for Streets in 2007. He did not expect the sight lines for major roads to change moving forward.

·       Sight lines of 215m could not be achieved as the land was not in the applicants’ control, as a result the most that was achievable was 85m. However, as the access was existing, the Committee had to decide whether the proposal had significant enough additional impact to justify refusal.

·       Emma Nutchey advised that the condition on opening times did not override conditions elsewhere on the site and only the 24 containers referred to within this application were to be subject to this condition. She advised that there were six other authorised containers on site.

·       Emma Nutchhey informed Members that there was sufficient space within the red line for customers to access all of the storage containers on the site.

·       Paul Goddard advised that the access already had a number of HGV movements in and out and had done for decades. Once the containers arrived on the site they were likely to remain in situ and as such were not going to require long term access from larger vehicles.

·       Emma Nutchey advised that the specific items to be  stored was the responsibility of those managing the site and planning  could not control what was stored.

·       Simon Till advised that aspects such as hazardous materials had different permitting regimes.

·       Paul Goddard advised that the mitigations for this proposal were the relatively low vehicle movement numbers and that they did not necessarily have to apply physical works to mitigate.

Debate

9.      Councillor Justin Pemberton opened the debate by noting there was a certain level of inconvenience in living next to a commercial area and that approving this application was likely to add to that for the residents of Church View Farm. He accepted the comments the objector made about the higher ground the farm was situated on, as this would make the activities on the site more visible. He noted that he lived on farmland himself and whilst heavy machinery and vehicles could cause an inconvenience it created little cause for concern. He advised that he was struggling to get past the highways elements and felt that not enough regard had been given to the impact of vehicles turning into and out of the site via the A4, highlighting that the road bended which greatly increased the risk of an incident. He felt that if one serious incident could occur because of the increased vehicle usage, the potential impact should have been considered serious enough to reject. He highlighted that the fact that this was an existing access did not mean it should be made worse by adding to the problems it had.

10.   Councillor Vicky Poole agreed largely with what Councillor Pemberton had said. She raised concerns around visibility noting that she was uncomfortable approving this application with the proposed sight lines of 85m whilst it was national guidance that sight lines of 215m be adhered to.

11.   Councillor Ross Mackinnon highlighted that the sight line was 85m and not 215m and that this was not going to change regardless of whether the application was approved or not. He felt that Councillor Poole’s logic precluded any development that was likely to increase traffic movements down the lane in question. He felt that the application could not be assessed based on one incident occurring as this was to imply that the Committee was moving forward on a zero risk basis. He highlighted that the traffic officers had advised that the increase in vehicle movements was likely to be minor. Though he had not made his mind up on the application, he felt that if Members were minded to reject permission then the reasons needed to be stronger than were being suggested.

12.   Councillor Clive Taylor was inclined to agree with Councillor Mackinnon on the highways issue but raised concern around the issue of noise. He noted the proposed opening times and that the proposed location of the containers was very close to Church View Farm. He felt that if the proposal was to be accepted, he would like the opening times to be revised to 8:30am to 5:30pm Monday-Saturday and 9am-12pm Sundays and bank holidays.

13.   Councillor Paul Kander found Councillor Taylor’s suggestion to be reasonable. He noted that whilst he was pro-business, the reduced hours would not matter that much but would have significantly smaller impact on amenity for the neighbours. He sought clarity on whether it was possible to make it a left turn only when exiting the site. He also expressed concern about how this portion of the site was going to be policed given that the rest of the site was allowed to be accessed at all hours.

14.   Paul Goddard advised that making the exit a left turn only was not possible as it was a private access, and a Traffic Regulation Order would be required in order to enforce such a condition.

15.   Councillor Mackinnon proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report, with an additional condition that opening times be revised to 8:30am to 5:30pm Monday-Saturday and 9am-12pm Sundays and bank holidays. This was seconded by Councillor Taylor

16.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Mackinnon, seconded by Councillor Taylor, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was rejected.

17. Councillor Pemberton proposed to reject Officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission on the basis that it contravened paragraph 116 of the NPPF by having an unacceptable impact on highways safety, this was seconded by Councillor Tom McCann

18. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Pemberton, seconded by Councillor McCann, to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission on the basis that it contravened paragraph 116 of the NPPF by having an unacceptable impact on highways safety.