Agenda item

Partial redevelopment to provide new warehouse development (Class B8) and ancillary design and administration accommodation (Class E(g)) and associated works.

Public Participation

Simon Chambers spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Maltby spoke in support of the application.

Graeme Slaymaker spoke on behalf of Hullavington Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined a partial redevelopment to provide a new warehouse development (Class B8) and ancillary design and administration accommodation (Class E(g)) and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, scale, design and impact upon the character of the area, impacts upon the amenity of the area, access and parking, impact on highways. Attention was drawn to the agenda supplement, which was published as a late report in relation to Item 7a.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that it had been the parish of St Pauls Malmesbury without who had shown support for the application, rather than the parish of Crudwell. It was questioned whether the proposal was consistent with the Hullavington neighbourhood plan, as well as with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Spatial vision for Wiltshire; Lee Burman clarified that the proposal was not in accordance with Core Policies 1, 2, 10 and 34 of the WCS as well as not being in accordance with the Hullavington neighbourhood plan. It was additionally clarified that though the site is vacant it’s extant use remained a horticultural site, there was however no detail available as to why the previous operation ceased and at what date.The officer also clarified that from a Highways perspective, the access arrangements as well as the nearby dip in the road and low bridge had been rigorously tested at length, with the Highways team content on the proposal. It was also clarified that regarding the site’s historical use, the proposed application’s traffic movement generated would not be substantively different to that in the past.

Additional technical questions were asked regarding the late report that was provided, which drew attention to the availability and suitability of the site at Malmesbury Garden Centre, amongst others.The officer explained to members that though thereare constraints at the Malmesbury Garden Centre Site, there is no absolute barrier to the site accommodating the proposed use and it would be a matter of agreement between the parties involved and that this would be at the owner’s discretion; therefore though it wouldn’t be immediately available, the legal covenants would not be an absolute bar on use.Further questions were also asked regarding whether the permission of the site was restricted to be a horticultural site only, and additionally what Class B8 and Class (E(G)) meant for the application.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Nick Botterill, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the application had received wide ranging support and had not faced opposition from a range of bodies including Wiltshire Economic Development, Highways England, Wessex Water and Hullavington Parish Council.Councillor Botterill stated that whilst the status of the site was not technically brownfield, having conducted a site visit and from seeing the amount of concrete laid along with the derelict buildings; it could be concluded that the site would constitute itself as brownfield. Regarding Core Policies, Councillor Botterill noted that Core Policies 1, 2 and 10 were the main issues; however if approved the application would bring a sizeable workforce to the site, ancillary structures and economic development, which suggested that it would be a positive proposal.

Additionally, having reviewed the alternative sites that were listed in the late report that was provided, Councillor Botterill was of the opinion that there was no readily available alternative site for the application. Reasons for this included that some of the sites were not designed for the purpose of the application or were not available at this time, sites were only available for rent or sites were out of town and accessible only by bus or by car, which is the same as what had been proposed. Councillor Botterill did however state that the applicant had proposed ways of mitigating the negative impact identified by the location of the site, which would be reliant on private transport. Suchmethods of mitigation included a workforce incentive to use green travel options such as electric bikes and car leasing, 50% EV usage on site which would rise to 75% in 2030 and the installation of solar panels.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Trotman and seconded by Councillor Berry, however when later voted upon the motion fell due to the number of votes against.

Consequently, a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Martin Smith. The reason for the decision being that following debate and receipt of representations at the meeting members considered that the sustainability and economic development benefits of the proposals outweighed the harm arising from the conflict with the strategy of the plan as to the location of the development proposed, given Committee member’s local knowledge of available alternative sites and demand for such sites.Furthermore, that the proposed development was considered to be partially supported under the provisions of CP34 (iv) and did not conflict with the subsequent tests at criteria v – ix.

During the debate the issues included that though local neighbourhood plans are supposed to underpin planning in Wiltshire, this application could be an exception to Core Policies and Neighbourhood Plan in the way that the proposal sought to be sustainable by means of green travel options for the workforce and the continuation of the site’s previous horticultural use by targeting the sun for solar power. If granted, it was also recognised that the application could potentially provide an opportunity for environmental gains by means of delegating authority to the Head of Development Management with a clear brief to identify conditions that supported sustainable construction and operation with a target of achieving carbon neutrality. Concerns for flooding were also raised by Members, alongside a need if the application was approved to install height restriction signs on site for the adjacent rail bridge.

Additionally, the Committee referenced planning balance when basing decisions on Core Policies and that in the case of this application, though finely balanced, there was greater benefit for the application being granted, as suggested by the strong support from the local Parish and neighbours. It was also acknowledged by Members that this was a rare case as there had not been such an application before that had been recommended by officers for rejection, but had been backed by such an unanimity of support. It was argued that though previously cited as a reason for rejection, Wiltshire Core Policy 34 set out a strategy in areas for economic development for businesses and that this type of warehousing could potentially qualify. Additionally, it was argued that subclauses of Core Policy 34 had been met, with there being a clear social need to create employment opportunities, meaning that the application made a strong case for the wider strategic interest of economic development in Wiltshire.

Further points made included that as per sub-paragraphs within Core Policy 34, it could be argued that this application would not adversely affect nearby buildings and surrounding areas or detract from residential amenity; which could be demonstrated from the support provided by the local Parish and neighbours. It was also stated that no objections had been raised regarding the need for the application to be supported by adequate infrastructure, with the Highways team not raising concerns and that public transport would be enhanced as well as the owner supporting access to the site through use of electric vehicles.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

To Delegate Authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by Officers. Such conditions to deliver sustainability measures in construction and operation aimed and achieving net zero carbon emissions and signage advising of height restrictions on the adjacent rail bridge.