Agenda item

Proposed redevelopment to provide new buildings for storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and ancillary facilities, car and lorry parking, service areas, access and landscaping.(Revised drawings showing lower height and smaller footprint to main building).

The officer presented the report on an application for the proposed redevelopment to provide new buildings for storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and ancillary facilities, car and lorry parking, service areas, access and landscaping. (Revised drawings showing lower height and smaller footprint to main building). Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and this site’s planning history are detailed in the officer’s report which forms part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

Updates from the report

The officer clarified that the warehouse site is not in the ownership of Milton Park.

David Hignell, from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·            The negative impact of cumulative development, especially traffic and drainage.

·            That the village feels as though it’s losing its identity and setting and is being absorbed into Didcot.

·            The proposed development would be out of keeping with the village.

·            Vehicles used by potential employees would increase the traffic.

Philip Campbell from MEPC, the owners of Milton Park, spoke on behalf of the objectors to the application. His concerns included the following:

·            The scale was out of kilter with the existing buildings and would the proposed warehouse would be 40 per cent of the size of Milton Park.

·            Transport and infrastructure: Milton Park traffic would be affected and some of the volume which was currently on private roads would be forced back on to the public highway.

·            Proposed S106 contributions were significantly lower than those for other comparable developments.

·            There were inconsistencies with the Milton Park Development Order.

NikLyzba, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. His speech included the following:

·            The applicant has worked with planning officers to mitigate the scheme.

·            It is an employment based development, and as such should be given “significant weight” under the National Planning Policy Framework.

·            The proposed warehouse would give a boost to local jobs.

·            The proposal has been amended following comments from local people.

·            The proposal is policy compliant.

Councillor Gervase Duffield, the ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The points he raised included the following:

·            The economic argument did not stack up, the proposed development would give a low quality economic return as it was the wrong type of development, not “high tech” enough.

·            The warehouse would be too close to a residential area.

The committee considered this application, with advice from officers where appropriate; the discussion covered the following points:

·            The Local Development Order allowed for structures between 12 and 16 metres in height, as permitted development. This application was for a structure 23 metres in height;

·            The transport issues were not resolved, including those of staff transport to and from the site;

·            The committee wanted further information on the s106 agreement, and a review of whether the contributions would be adequate;

·            The scale of the proposed development was too big;

·            The committee did not think that the application would bring appropriate types of jobs to the area: there was not currently a need for a large number of low skilled jobs;

·            The committee questioned whether this application was in accordance with NPPF guidelines on sustainable development: their could be a negative environmental and social impact;

·            There was likely to be a significant cumulative impact on the area;

·            The development was likely to generate further housing pressure, where the Vale currently has a housing shortage and not an employment shortage;

·            The proposal was speculative as there was no agreed tenant;

·            The A34 is already “at capacity”;

·            There was further risk of losing the village identity.

RESOLVED (for 2; against 11; abstentions 1)

To accept the officer’s recommendation to grant outline planning permission for this site.

Therefore the officer’s recommendation was defeated.

RESOLVED (for: 10; against: 3; abstentions 1)

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1) The local planning authority considers the proposed development would, by virtue of its scale, bulk and height, unduly erode the rural setting of the historic village of Sutton Courtenay. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies NE9 and NE10 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the NPPF

2) The lack of certainty provided regarding the potential occupant(s) of the speculative development raises an unacceptable degree of uncertainty regarding the pattern and nature of the impact of associated traffic on the local road network. Therefore the local planning authority considers that the transport data and conclusions put forward by the developer to be of limited value, posing unacceptable risk in terms of highway safety. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy DC5 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the NPPF.

3) The height and scale of the proposals, including the proposed six metre bund and its associated landscaping, will appear discordant, and will erode the long, open views that are characteristic of the Lowland Vale landscape area, together with the amenity of the local network of public rights of way, including the national cycle route. As such the works are not considered to be compliant with policies DC1, DC6 and NE9 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the NPPF.

4) Given the scale of works proposed, the levels of S106 contributions proposed are not considered to adequately reflect the extra burden that will be placed on local infrastructure when reasonable comparisons are made to nearby commercial schemes. Therefore the works are not considered to be compliant with the provisions of policies E10 and DC8 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the NPPF.