Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/02051/FUL in respect of a retrospective planning application for change of use to B8 storage, including the positioning of personal storage containers at the site compound to the rear of James Farm, James Lane, Grazeley Green, RG7 1NB

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

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Jim Thompson, Parish Council representative, Mr Roger Prescott, agent, Councillor Nick Carter, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

4.    Mr Thompson addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.    Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

6.    Mr Prescott addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·       The additional units would support local businesses and people living and working locally. There were 12 people working in the business who handled bookings and reservations for the site.

·       Once the site was fully established, there would be no movement of containers unless there was rapid deterioration. The containers on the site were constructed from steel and less than five years old with a projected lifespan of 25-30 years.

·       In terms of capacity of the site, no further containers could reasonably be added, and there was no scope for significant expansion.

·       Regarding the condition to monitor and limit the amount of commercial usage of the site to 30%, Now Storage would analyse the activities of their clients to determine the proportion of business users. However, they would need to take clients at their word, regarding their status. Now Storage would work with the Council to deliver this condition in an efficient and effective way.

·       The applicant had provided details of how 7.5 tonne rigid vehicles could access the site. The applicant was unaware of any weight restrictions on the site, however, the applicant had monitored the vehicular movements by visitors, and no HGVs had been used to deposit or collect goods.

Ward Member Representation

8.    Councillor Carter addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

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

·       He had previously objected to the September 2024 application for the site, which had been approved.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers advised that the planning committee should not refuse planning permission due to concerns about the practicality of enforcing a condition due to the likely availability of staff resources. Instead, Members should consider whether the condition could be enforced. Officers confirmed that a Planning Inspector would not resile from applying a condition purely because it would be impractical for the local planning authority to take enforcement measures.

·       Officers indicated that the 30% commercial limit was a condition of a usual form, although it was normally applied to floorspace within a building. In terms of enforcing this condition, it was suggested that the operator could establish a register of the people using the units, and an enforcement officer could check the register against the units recorded in that register. While it was a difficult condition to enforce, officers did not consider the condition to be unreasonable and it met all the relevant tests, including enforceability.

·       Officers indicated that they would request Planning Enforcement Officers to liaise with the operators of the site and ensure that any inaccurate signage was amended, irrespective of the determination of this planning application.

·       Officers highlighted that traffic surveys were undertaken in June 2024 when the site was only 78% occupied, and the results showed 8 vehicle movements per day. Officers noted that a number of similar applications previously seen by the Committee, also had very low levels of traffic generation. As most of the storage area was for domestic use, it would be likely that customers would not access the site for significant periods of time. The projected vehicle movements were 12 per day.

·       Officers noted that if the application was approved, opening times would be consistent with those already approved on the site.

·       Officers indicated that power and utilities were not usually planning matters, they were operational matters for the applicant. Electricity would not be provided to the storage containers, and they could not be used as workshops. The application was for B8 storage, and if any B1 or B2 uses occurred on site, that would be a contravention of the planning permission, and the Council would take action. Officers felt that this did not need to be conditioned because it was inherent in the approved plan description.

·       Officers noted that the Ecology Officer had looked specifically at the external lighting, as there were bats in the area, and was satisfied with the proposal.

·       Officers noted that an electric vehicle charging point could be conditioned.

Debate

11. Councillor Jeremy Cottam opened the debate by expressing concern at placing a large number of containers in the countryside. He believed that it was a sensitive site where light should be projected carefully, and indicated that he would like to see a condition to ensure the development met the Council’s dark skies requirement. He was pleased that a traffic survey was included in the report. He felt that the economic side of the application should be considered - there was an increasing need for storage facilities. While he was not totally happy with the proposal, he felt that officers had undertaken a lot of work in response to complaints received.

12. Councillor Justin Pemberton shared the concerns raised by Councillor Cottam and noted the increasing number of applications for storage containers. He felt that flexible storage was increasingly important to residents and local businesses. There were environmental benefits as local customers would make fewer trips and travel less distance. The traffic impact of the application would be low, as there were few daily vehicle movements. He noted the concerns raised by residents in previous applications, however, he highlighted that there had been few complaints raised about the current use of the site. He indicated that he was supportive of this application and was happy to approve it with the addition of an electric vehicle charging point.

13. Councillor Clive Taylor agreed with the points raised by Councillor Pemberton and Councillor Cottam. He felt that the site was not pretty, but the majority of the site was already in use, it was supporting small businesses, and created a small number of jobs. He indicated that he was supportive of the application.

14. Councillor Jeremy Cottam proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report, with additional conditions requiring the provision of an electric vehicle charging point, and measures to ensure compliance with the Council’s dark skies policy. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander.

15. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Jeremy Cottam, seconded by Councillor Paul Kander to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report (subject to the following amendments):

Conditions

8.    Within 2 months of the date of this decision details of an electric vehicle charging point including a schedule for implementation will be submitted to the LPA for approval. Once approved the ev point must be implemented on site within 2 months of that approval date to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Reason. To ensure that an ev point is placed on site in accord with the advice in policy DM44 of the WBLPR of 2023 to 2041.

9.    Within 2 months of the date of this decision a schedule of all external lighting currently provided or proposed to be provided on the site shall be submitted and approved by the LPA. No external lighting except in accordance with the approved schedule shall be erected on the site.

Reason. To protect dark skies in accord with the advice in policy DM5 [f] of the WBLPR of 2023 to 2041.