|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
|
|
|
PARISH |
LYFORD |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Erection of two commercial buildings with parking and landscaping (as amplified by signage plan received 24th May 2023, and as amended by planting plan received 30th May 2023) |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Jill Rayner |
|
|
APPLICANT |
J, A & D Cottrell |
|
|
OFFICER |
Katherine Canavan |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
|
|
|
1. In accordance with approved plans and materials
Within set timeframe of permission being granted: 2. Sustainable drainage scheme 3. Lighting – removal of lighting columns within set timeframe 4. Biodiversity enhancement strategy 5. Detailed landscape / planting mitigation strategy 6. Details of hard landscaping, parking area and boundary treatments 7. Signage
Compliance: 8. Restricted uses within the definition of commercial 9. Lighting – no additional other than shown on plans 10. Lighting – operational times, and directed down 11. Parking and vehicle storage only in areas marked as parking on plans
|
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
|
1.1 |
The application is referred to Planning Committee as it relates to a major application, and the officer recommendation conflicts with the parish council’s views. Lyford parish council has raised the following concerns: · Overly intensive use of the site in a rural location · Increase in traffic and large vehicles on rural lanes, which cannot be satisfactorily managed by proposed signage · Failure to implement approved landscaping scheme · Extension of the site boundary to create more car parking
The neighbouring parish of Charney Bassett has also raised concerns.
|
|
|
1.2 |
Location The application site comprises a rural business / light industrial site to the south-east of Lyford. Buildings are arranged facing into a large, central yard which serves as a car park / car repair storage and delivery area.
|
|
|
1.3 |
Access is to the north of the site, connecting to Kingston Bagpuize and the A420 via a series of rural roads. There is also a secondary access to the west, adjacent to Cobweb Cottage, which leads to the lane through Lyford. A public footpath runs along the northern edge of the site towards West Hanney to the south-east, and via the secondary access westwards to Lyford.
|
|
|
1.4 |
Proposal The applicant seeks permission for the erection of two commercial buildings with parking and landscaping.
|
|
|
1.5 |
The building on the southern edge of the site is also known as ‘Building 1’ and comprises Units 10 and 11, as indicated on the site plan; The building on the eastern edge is also known as Building 2 and comprises Units 8 and 9.
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
Site history Prior to 2017, before the previous application was made, the site was already established and in use for business associated with light industry, mechanical and vehicle repair, as well as an element of storage.
|
|
|
1.8 |
Permission was granted in 2017 for two commercial buildings for B1 (office) and B8 (storage and warehouse) purposes, along with the provision of new car parking arrangements and new structural landscaping. The intention was for existing businesses on site to expand into the two new buildings as a result of business growth.
|
|
|
1.9 |
The two new buildings have been in operation since 2019 and are occupied by: AT Automotive (unit 9) and One motion (10 and 11), and Ryan-Jayberg Ltd (a refrigeration specialist) (unit 8). The first two businesses employ around 10 workers in the buildings and the latter about 3. The businesses generally carry out processes to make or repair things, or that involve an element of storing things to use off-site and then bringing them back for cleaning or repair. There is some crossover between workshops, in that certain processes and repairs are carried out by one business, before being checked, stored or completed elsewhere on the site.
|
|
|
1.10 |
Retrospective application While the two buildings have been built they have not been built in accordance with the plans. In addition, no landscaping has been provided, and the car parking layout has altered from the previous approval. In terms of the buildings themselves, the position on site is different to that approved, and there is a reduction in the number of windows.
|
|
|
1.11 |
For clarity, the changes from the approved permission are as follows: · Relocation of the two buildings and parking areas, specifically drawing away from the western edge and extending to the south and west. · The floorspace of the buildings has been reduced from 1372sqm to 1339sqm, and the eastern building is now open internally, rather than being partitioned for offices. · The number of openings, specifically on elevations facing out of the site, has been reduced as each of the units is open internally; the windows now only serve wcs, rather than being required for a number of offices. · Reorientation of landscaping, slightly increasing the amount of proposed landscaping. The woodland on the eastern edge has been omitted and the car park on western edge has been relocated further south. In response, the buffer / tree planting to the west has been widened and the buffer planting is now shown to extend further south around buildings and parking area. There woodland on the eastern edge has been omitted but the buffer planting around extended eastern car park has been increased as a result.
|
|
|
1.12 |
The application
is being considered under Section 73A of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as it is retrospective. While the
development
|
|
|
1.13 |
Revised plans and additional information During the course of the application revised plans were received, showing enhanced landscaping, removal of lighting and a signage proposal to encourage vehicles to exit towards the A420 avoiding the village and the narrower rural lanes. For information, a comparison plan was also provided to clarify the site layout differences.
|
|
|
1.14 |
A copy of the latest plans is attached at Appendix 1. |
|
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
|||||||||||
|
2.1 |
A summary of the responses received is below. Full comments can be viewed online at: www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
|
|||||||||||
|
2.2 |
Local representations Two neighbour objections were put forward as part of the original consultation process. · Comments as per representation from Lyford Parish Council · Increased number of vans and vehicles heading in and out of the business park. · Use not appropriate to a quiet hamlet · The commercial vehicles should use the other entrance designed for this purpose
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P18/V2586/DIS - Approved (09/11/2018) Discharge of conditions 3 - drainage details, 4 - materials and 6 - landscaping scheme on application ref. P17/V2509/FUL
P17/V2509/FUL - Approved (08/12/2017) Proposed erection of 2 no. commercial buildings for B1/B8 purposes, provision of new car parking arrangements and new structural landscaping. (Amended plan received 21 November 2017_inclusion of disabled parking.)
P03/V0582/COU - Approved (09/06/2005) Change of use of land and buildings from agricultural use to mixed use for agriculture and for the storage and distribution of golf buggies together with their ancillary assembly, servicing and repair and ancillary offices (retrospective)
P01/V0681/COU - Refused (08/10/2001) - Appeal dismissed (03/09/2002) Temporary change of use from farm buildings to storage of golf buggies. New farm access with vision splays and track.
|
|
3.2 |
Pre-application History P16/V1614/PEM - Advice provided (25/08/2016) Proposed erection of 2 new commercial buildings for B8 or B1 use purposes. Creation of new car parking area and associated new structural landscaping.
|
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
The site is not located in an area classified as ‘sensitive’, for example, an AONB, and does not exceed 5ha is size. The scale of the development is below the threshold of the type of development that may require a screening opinion. This has informed the officer’s decision that an EIA screening opinion is not required for the development. |
|
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
|
5.1 |
The relevant planning considerations are: · Principle of development · Traffic, parking and highway safety · Landscape and visual Impact · External lighting · Design and scale · Additional planning matters
|
|
5.2 |
Principle of development |
|
|
The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 81 puts significant emphasis on supporting the economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. Paragraphs 84 of the NPPF particularly refer to supporting economic growth in rural areas by supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas through both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings in order to create jobs and prosperity. Paragraph 85 recognises that sites for local businesses may need to be located outside existing settlements.
|
|
5.3 |
Policy CP28 of the LPP1 identifies that proposals for new employment development in rural areas will be supported provided that: i) There is no harmful effect on the amenities of nearby residents or occupiers ii) There is provision of a safe site access and there are measures to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport where possible iii) The scale, nature and appearance of the employment development is appropriate to the local character and landscape iv) The proposed development cannot be reasonably accommodated on vacant or developable sites v) The proposal will benefit the local economy and will not undermine the delivery of strategic employment allocations.
|
|
5.4 |
Setting aside that the approved scheme has not been built in accordance with the approved siting or design, the use of the buildings has been broadly carried out in the same way as the previously approved B1 (office) and B8 (storage / warehousing) uses. The two buildings have been in operation as a commercial use involving car repair, light industry and ancillary storage. Under the current application both buildings are to be open plan internally for commercial operations, whereas the eastern building was previously shown to be divided up as office space.
|
|
5.5 |
There is an
element of interdependency between the various businesses
|
|
5.6 |
Traffic, parking and highway safety |
|
|
Policy CP35 of the LPP1 seeks to ensure adequate parking is delivered on developments in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council’s parking standards. Policy CP37 of the LPP1 requires development to be well connected and to provide safe and convenient ease of movement by all users. Policy DP16 of the LPP2 sets out that adequate provision will need to be made for loading, unloading, circulation, servicing and vehicle turning, and off-site improvements to the highway infrastructure can be secured where these are not adequate to service the development.
|
|
5.7 |
During the consultation concerns have been raised over increased levels of traffic, and the types of traffic delivering to the site and on local roads, since the buildings have been in operation (2019).
|
|
5.8 |
Currently the buildings are occupied by automotive type businesses and small workshops which were on-site prior to 2017 and have expanded into the two new buildings. The established use of the site, prior to 2017, already generated a level of traffic which involved larger vehicles and transporters. Under the previous proposal the impact of traffic associated will further B1 / B8 activity on-site was assessed, as well as the impact of the additional car parking associated with the two new buildings.
|
|
5.9 |
While it is acknowledged that the ‘as built’ development does not have permission, the principle of expansion of the businesses on-site, and associated transport impacts, have been assessed in planning terms previously and the application was subsequently approved. At that stage signage was secured by condition to encourage traffic to exit via the northern (main) access, and then head east and then north to reach the main highway network, thereby avoiding the narrower, rural lanes associated with Lyford and Charney Bassett.
|
|
5.10 |
The scope of business activity that could take place on site is comparable to the previous permission, i.e. office, storage, light industry. In practical terms the number of employers that would drive to the site has reduced as the eastern building is no longer designed as offices.
|
|
5.11 |
The area set aside for car parking / vehicle repair storage has increased – located to the south, centrally in the yard, and extended to the east. It should however be noted that the parking area is predominantly used as a ‘parking storage’ area before vehicles are moved into the workshops, and the number of vehicles on-site does not represent regular traffic movements to and from the site. For this reason the vehicles are tightly arranged on site and only moved to be worked on, or to be loaded onto a transporter to be moved off site. This parking arrangement (blocking vehicles in) is considered appropriate for the way in which the site operates, rather than requiring a more formal layout. This layout would not result in displacement of parking onto the highway.
|
|
5.12 |
It is recognised that the reconfigured parking / storage areas, and extension to the east does allow more vehicles to be stored on site than the approved scheme. In practical terms this change has resulted in a change in the type of vehicles using the site, i.e., primarily vans and car transporters offloading and collecting parts and vehicles, but does not necessarily represent an increase in traffic movements.
|
|
5.13 |
It should also be noted that the B1 / B8 uses, and associated types of larger vehicle, could have been used in the same way under the previous permission, but the area available for the storage of vehicles was less as the parking areas were arranged with more manoeuvring space (to be used by office workers). Since September 2020, the use class order has been altered, and commercial uses now fall within a wider, more flexible use class – Class E. As an example, uses within Class E cover offices, light industrial, recreation, fitness, shops, professional services, and the provision allows movement between the uses within Class E. It is worth noting that had the development been built in accordance with the approved plans, it would now have the flexibility to move between these wide range of Class E uses without requiring planning permission.
|
|
5.14 |
Given the site’s rural location, and the way in which the other buildings on site function, it would not be appropriate for the full flexibility of Class E / commercial uses to be made available under any permission. For this reason, it is proposed that the development continues to be classed as ‘commercial’ and the types of uses are restricted by condition to light industry, car mechanics, storage and warehousing. This would still provide a degree of flexibility for the businesses to relocate within the site, or to be leased to new tenants in future, but would not allow inappropriate development to move onto site.
|
|
5.15 |
In addition, it is recommended that new signage is required by condition to direct staff and delivery vehicles to use the main access to the north of the site, so that larger vehicles do not leave via the western access or via Lyford or Charney Bassett on the smaller, rural lanes. In real terms, leaving to the west is not a practical route for larger vehicles given the tight bend and narrowness of the lanes. These measures would however reinforce the need for traffic to leave directly towards the main highway network.
|
|
5.16 |
In terms of meeting the requirements of part ii) of Policy CP28 of the LPP1, given the use and location of the site, it would not be realistic to increase the amount of staff journeys and deliveries carried out using sustainable modes of transports, although this is encouraged where possible. Subject to conditions requiring the northern access to remain the principle access, directional signage to be provided at the exit and a restriction keeping car parking / vehicle storage to the marked areas only, the current development provides safe access and is not considered to have a greater impact in highways terms that the previously approved scheme and accords with policies CP28, CP35, CP37 of the LPP1, and DP16 of the LPP2.
|
|
5.17 |
Landscape and visual impact |
|
|
Policy CP44 of the LPP1 states that key features, such as trees, hedgerows, woodland, field boundaries, watercourses and water bodies, that contribute to the nature and quality of the landscape will be protected from harmful development and where possible enhanced. Core Policy 37 highlights the need for landscape to help physically and visually assimilate the development into its surroundings.
|
|
5.18 |
While the siting of the buildings has altered from the approved scheme, the buildings will still be seen within the context of the existing industrial site, and views towards the site of the two buildings will still be similar to the previous scheme. Both buildings have fewer light sources and openings on their southern and gable elevations, reducing their night-time impact in terms of views from the wider landscape. In this respect the two buildings would have no greater impact on the wider landscape, and the reduction in openings reduces the risk of light spill beyond the site.
|
|
5.19 |
|
|
5.20 |
Grey – development approved under P17/V2509/FUL, and existing buildings Green – ‘as built’ location of two buildings, and proposed landscaping scheme
|
|
5.21 |
Note: Light green planting (version 1 as per planting specification) – trees Dark green planting (version 2 as per planting specification) – hedging
|
|
5.22 |
The proposed planting is in a different form to P17/V2509/FUL. It has been redesigned to respond to the altered locations of the two buildings, and overall there is a slight increase in the landscape coverage. In practical terms the changes involve relocating the car park from western edge and the associated woodland has, as a result, been omitted from plans. In its place the buffer planting to the west has been widened. The buffer planting on the southern edge has been pulled further south to take account of the repositioning of the southern building and parking area. On the eastern edge the car park has been extended further to the east and buffer planting has been provided around the car park, as well as hedging being incorporated between the parking areas. An existing line of hedging exists along the northern boundary. Additional hedging is proposed around the entrance, similar to the previous scheme, to screen the development when viewed from the north and from the public right of way.
|
|
5.23 |
As noted above, the reconfigured parking / storage areas, and extension to the east does allow more vehicles to be stored on site than the approved scheme, and risks an increased visual impact from beyond the site in the context of the rural landscape. However, the landscape proposals have been reconfigured accordingly, and enhanced on the southern edge. These measures appropriately address the potential for adverse impact on the landscape. It is therefore imperative that the landscape and planting scheme is implemented as a priority at the first planting season to allow it to have the best opportunity to become established – to be secured by condition.
|
|
5.24 |
The current landscaping scheme provides an appropriate level of softening and screening to the two buildings and the car parking. The relocation of the parking area from the western edge to the southern edge, in combination with the buffer planting on the western, southern and eastern edges, is sufficient to safeguard the landscape character of the rural area, and to soften the impact of the two buildings. For these reasons the development complies with Policy CP44 and Part iii) of Policy CP28 of the LPP1.
|
|
5.25 |
External lighting |
|
|
Policy DP21 of the LPP1 allows for the use of external lighting on developments as long as there would be no adverse effect on the character of the area, the amenity of neighbouring uses or on local biodiversity. Lighting is restricted to the minimum necessary to undertake the task for which it is required.
|
|
5.26 |
Wall-mounted, angled-down lighting is proposed on the two buildings, to provide security lighting and to ensure staff can work safely outside in the winter months. On the southern building this totals 4 lights facing into the central yard, and on the eastern building 1 light is shown on the southern elevation, facing out from the site, and 2 lights are shown on the western elevation facing into the central yard. The lights will typically be on between 7am and 7pm, and on a movement sensor outside of these hours. The hours of operation are to be secured by condition.
|
|
5.27 |
Through revisions submitted during the course of the application, two lighting columns are to be removed from the southern edge of the site – to be secured by condition.
|
|
5.28 |
Officers consider the amount of proposed lighting is appropriate for its intended purpose, and not excessive. By virtue of it being angled-down and all (apart from one) facing into the site, the lighting safeguards the rural landscape character, and would not cause disturbance to local residents. The lighting shown on plans, and operating hours, meet the external lighting requirements of Policy DP21 of the LPP1.
|
|
5.29 |
Design and scale |
|
|
Policy CP37 of the LPP1 requires new development to be of high quality, to respond positively to the site and its surroundings, to be visually attractive, and for the scale, height, density, grain, massing, type, details and materials to be appropriate for the site and surrounding area.
|
|
5.30 |
The external appearance is akin to a large storage unit or agricultural barn, which is appropriate both in how it relates to the existing workshops and the wider rural setting. The floor space of the buildings approved was 1372sqm GIA; the ‘as built’ floorspace measures slightly less at 1,339sqm. The majority of openings have been removed from elevations as the internal layouts have been reconfigured. Rooflights are unchanged, and large roller shutter doors face into the central yard.
|
|
5.31 |
The design, scale, height and materials are largely unchanged from the previous buildings, and they are similar in character to the existing buildings that make up the industrial site. Given the reduction in openings, the appearance of the buildings is now considered more appropriate to a rural setting. The development conforms with Policy CP37 and Part iii) of Policy CP28 of the LPP1.
|
|
5.32 |
Additional planning matters |
|
|
Flood Risk and drainage The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore not at risk of flooding. A sustainable drainage scheme is required for the two buildings that have already been built. A condition is recommended securing details of the ‘as-built’ drainage scheme to ensure drainage is managed appropriately on-site. (CP42 of the LPP1)
|
|
5.33 |
Residential Amenity The nearest dwelling is Cobweb Cottage located 35m to the west of the industrial site and existing buildings, and 100m from the southern building forming part of the application. Other residential buildings in Lyford are approximately 215-300m to the north-west of the site. Given the separation distance, and the proposed screening on the western edge, the two buildings, car parking and lighting would not adversely affect the amenity of nearby occupants.
|
|
5.34 |
In terms of risk of noise disturbance, the use is consistent with the workshops already on-site. The scale and type of use is similar to the uses previously approved under P17/V2509/FUL, and there is not considered to be additional noise generated by the current development, over and above the use previously approved. Given the distance between the established industrial site and residents, the addition of the two buildings and associated use, would not introduce new noise disturbance. (Part i of Policy CP28 of the LPP1 and DP23 of the LPP2)
|
|
5.35 |
Ecology and biodiversity The development does not involve demolition of buildings and therefore no ecological surveys are required. The development does however extend further to the south and east, and the landscaping scheme has been adjusted accordingly. Bats have been identified in the local area. It is therefore recommended that a biodiversity enhancement strategy is secured by condition to establish the biodiversity benefits of the proposed landscaping and to secure enhancements in the form of bat and bird boxes. (CP46 of the LPP1)
|
|
5.36 |
Community Infrastructure Levy The council’s CIL charging schedule was adopted on 1 November 2017. CIL is a planning charge that local authorities can implement to help deliver infrastructure. As the proposal does not result in residential or retail floorspace being created, CIL would not be liable in this case. (CP07 of the LPP1)
|
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
6.1 |
The development results in the expansion of established rural businesses and facilitates the continued cross-working of enterprises on the site, thereby contributing positively towards the local, rural economy.
|
|
6.2 |
The development is acceptable in terms of traffic and impact on the highway network, and can be appropriately contained within, and integrated into, the rural landscape through the provision of hedging and tree buffer planting. Subject to lighting conditions, the development will safeguard the residential amenity of nearby occupants.
|
|
6.3 |
The development complies with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan and is recommended for approval. |
|
|
The following planning policies have been taken into account:
|
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1) Policies: CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP03 - Settlement Hierarchy CP06 - Meeting Business and Employment Needs CP28 - New Employment Development on Unallocated Sites CP33 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP42 - Flood Risk CP44 - Landscape CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity
|
|
|
A Regulation 10A review (five-year review) for Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) has been completed. The review shows that five years on, LPP1 (together with LPP2) continues to provide a suitable framework for development in the Vale of White Horse that is in overall conformity with government policy.
|
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (LPP2) Policies: DP16 - Access DP21 - External Lighting DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity
|
|
|
Neighbourhood Plan |
|
|
The site is not within a neighbourhood plan area.
|
|
|
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents |
|
|
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Design Guide 2022
|
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 81 – Economic growth and productivity Paragraph 84 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy
|
|
|
Other Relevant Legislation |
|
|
Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
|
|
|
Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
|