Agenda item

A report by the case officer is attached.

The following spoke in support of the application:

• Paul Fong – Planning Agent
• Simon Westerfield – Kemble Enterprise Estate
•  Jeff Downes - Architect for the applicant

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the hybrid application for employment development Class B1 and B8 uses. The Case Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused.

Members of the Committee were informed that there were restrictive planning policies at both national and local level, however it was recognised that the site was an established employment use and the proposal would have positive economic benefits in terms of job creation. As such, some additional development at the site might be acceptable to help safeguard existing businesses on site in line with adopted policy. It was noted that due to the rural location of the site there were key sustainability considerations and a limit to what could be considered to be a reasonable level of increased floorspace. It was suggested that a robust Travel Plan supporting access by sustainable forms of travel for a more limited scheme would be important to encourage and support access by modes other than the private car.

The Case Officer acknowledged that the re use of this former Ministry of Defence site for employment uses had helped safeguard and protect historic buildings on the site, however the application did not offer any additional benefits that would help secure their survival in the longer term that may help to offset the harm to listed buildings. Officers felt that the effect that the proposed buildings would have upon the listed buildings, in particular building 4, was not considered to be acceptable.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to the categories of trees mentioned in the report, highways, development opportunities on the site. 

The Committee then heard from the public who had an opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Committee then considered the application and debated a number of issues. Several members expressed reservations about the officers recommendation for a refusal as they felt that further negotiations could be held with the applicant for a reduced scheme that included a Travel Plan.  The Service Director of Development Services explained that negotiations with the applicant had been on-going for 18 months with all available avenues for a compromise now being exhausted.  It was noted that the size of building 4 could not be reduced as it was designed specifically to the requirements of an end user.

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1)    The proposal is located within open countryside and on a Greenfield site within a former MoD site. The proposals are not considered to be limited expansion or redevelopment of an existing premises; are not well related to any existing settlements and are considered to be remote, involving development of an open area. The proposals are thus considered to conflict with policies BD5 and NE20 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 37.

2)    The proposals lack sufficient detail to ensure that they preserve or enhance the setting of the Grade II listed hangars on site and are thus contrary to Policy HE4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011, Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 58, section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the guidance given in S.16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

3)    The proposals are set within an open landscape and of a scale, massing and design that is considered to have a detrimental impact on the “special” character of the area and its openness, causing the built form to coalesce, contrary to policy NE15 of the North Wiltshire Plan 2011, Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 51 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 on conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

4)    The proposal is sited within a remote location with poor public transport facilities and the sustainability proposals put forward by the applicants are considered to be insufficient to outweigh the harm caused and thus the development is considered to be contrary to Policies T1 and T2 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and polices DP1 and DP3 of Wiltshire Structure Plan 2011 together with Wiltshire Core Strategy Policies 60 and 61 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 about delivering sustainable development.

NOTE:

Members agreed that if a further application was considered for the site by the Committee in the future then a site visit is held prior to consideration of that application.