Agenda item

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).

Councillor Jill Rayner declared a non-registerable interest in this item as she was local ward member. Councillor Rayner stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.

The committee considered planning application P23/V0798/FULfor the 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), at Cobweb Buildings, The Lane, Lyford, OX12 0EE.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that permission had previously been granted on the site in 2005 for a series of workshops for the storage and distribution of golf buggies. Although the application had previously been dismissed on appeal permission was secured under a personal permission and tied to Jeneta Limited. A number of different businesses now occupied the site and whilst this did amount to a breach of condition it was likely that this had been the case for more than 10 years and therefore was immune from enforcement action. The officer went on to highlight that in 2017 planning permission had been granted for two commercial buildings and included parking and boundary landscaping. The officer advised the committee that the two buildings had been constructed but had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The officer went on to highlight the differences being that building one had been built 22 metres further south than was approved. Building two was built seven metres further south than shown on the approved plans and was in use as a car workshop not as an office as had been approved. There had also been reconfiguration of the approved parking area and an increase to the size of the car park on the eastern edge. The officer advised that the landscaping had been amended to take account of these changes.

The officer informed the committee that the key concern which had been raised during the course of the consultation process related to large vehicles and car transporters travelling to and from the site through the surrounding villages. Light spill and the proposed lighting had also been raised as concerns. The officer advised the committee that the proposed landscaping would act to screen the increased parking and proposed lighting. The planning officer went on to note that the nature of the site’s use had caused an increase in the number of vans and car transporters using the site but that in light of the approved commercial use and the widening of permitted development rights for commercial uses this increased use was not substantially different in highways terms.

The officer informed the committee that following discussions with the local highways authority two additional conditions were proposed. These conditions were designed to ensure vehicles were directed away from the villages of Lyford and Charney Bassett and to allow enforcement where this was not adhered to. During the committee item this was amended to one condition for a travel plan and a legal agreement to secure a routeing agreement, on the advice of the highways officer.

The planning officer went on to highlight that the two lighting columns on the southern boundary had been disconnected and removed and that the majority of the lighting on the two commercial buildings faced into the yard. She advised that a condition was proposed to restrict the constant use of the lights to between 7am and 7pm and for them to be sensor operated outside of these times.

The officer concluded with an update on the proposed conditions which included an additional condition recommended in advance of the committee meeting by the highways officer for a travel plan, as well as the landscaping condition requiring planting to be completed within 3 months so as to give trees the best chance of becoming established and providing appropriate screening. The officer confirmed the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions which had been set out.

Mike Trippit spoke on behalf of Lyford Parish Meeting, objecting to the application.

Trevor Brown, a representative of Charney Bassett Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Henry Venners, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Jill Rayner, a local ward member, spoke on the application.

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the meeting. The committee asked the highways officer whether they were satisfied that the turn right sign on the A420 was sufficient to prevent large vehicles from accessing and leaving the site via the nearby villages. The highways officer advised the committee that the signs in isolation would not be sufficient. The Highways Officer recommended a routeing agreement be attached to any permission to avoid business traffic to and from the site through the nearby villages. This would be secured by legal agreement (s106) before planning permission could be granted. The highways officer went on to advise that it would not be possible to stop all large vehicles from driving through local villages but that it would be possible to stop the vast majority. He went on to advise that drivers would be notified of failure to comply in the first instance but if they failed to comply a second time they would be banned from visiting the site. The highways officer advised this had worked effectively elsewhere in the county. The committee enquired as to why the highways officer felt that a legal agreement was required and he advised that this was to ensure that the County Council also had enforcement ability.

The committee noted that in order to travel to and leave the site without travelling through any local villages there were a number of turns which had to be made and asked the highways officer if there would be signs displayed beyond just the exit to the site. The highways officer confirmed that there would be no signs beyond the site as private company signs cannot form part of the highways network signage but that all vehicles accessing the site would be advised in advance of the routing agreement.

The committee then asked for an explanation as to why officers felt that the storage of more vehicles on the site did not necessarily mean there would be an increase in the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. The highways officer advised that in the main parking associated with the site was storage and those vehicles would therefore be leaving the site on a low loader rather than being driven. He went on to confirm that the movements from the site had been calculated based on the gross floor area of the commercial units and the maximum potential usage as opposed to what was actually happening on the site.

The committee asked the planning officer to comment on how a legal agreement to allow for enforcement as per the highways officer’s suggestion would work. The planning officer confirmed that a legal agreement would sit alongside the planning permission and that a decision could not be issued until the legal agreement had been drawn up and signed. The planning officer advised officers were of the view that a routeing agreement secured by condition alone would be sufficient to secure an enforceable agreement. The committee noted that a delay to issuing the decision would impact upon the requirement to complete the landscaping by February 2024 and whilst this was regrettable addressing the issues raised in regards to traffic was of higher importance. Subsequently, and having regard to advice from the highways officer, committee favoured a legal agreement as the most appropriate method to secure the routeing agreement.

The committee enquired as to what the enforcement steps would be should there be issues with light pollution. The planning officer confirmed that the lighting conditions would be enforced in conjunction with the environmental protection team. She went on to advise that issues of light pollution and nuisance to neighbours were covered by separate environmental health legislation.

In relation to concerns about lighting the committee enquired as to whether it was possible to require mature and significant planting was implemented. The planning officer advised that a planting scheme had been submitted as part of the application and this indicated a good level of buffer planting but that within the wording of the landscaping condition specifics of what would be planted where could be requested. She also advised the committee that a standard element of the condition was that any trees which failed or were damaged within the first five years would be replaced.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application with additional conditions in relation to signage and a travel plan and a section 106 legal agreement to cover the routing agreement and changes to the landscaping details condition to incorporate timing, maturity and size, was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee reflected they were keen to secure the section 106 legal agreement in order that the County Council were also involved in enforcement of the routing agreement. The committee noted that enforcement of this was of key importance.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/V0798/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

Standard:

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

Additional condition, recommended in advance of planning committee by Highways Officer:

14.  Travel Plan