Proposal: Change of use of the land to a corporate headquarters for a scaffolding and access company (Sui Generis) including an office, training centre, fabrication bay, workshop, and employee accommodation, following the demolition of all but 3 of the existing buildings on site and the erection of 2 new buildings. The removal of existing hardstanding and the re-use of existing hardstanding for storage and parking. The returning of the remainder of the site to greenspace. (Part Retrospective)

Several committee members thanked officers and the applicant for getting an application to this stage, as the site had been abused green belt land for a prolonged period of time.

The Head of Planning praised the applicant, who had taken the time to understand the lessons learnt from previous applications and utilised conditions and legal agreements to avoid the risk of spreading across the site.  Additionally, officer concerns on previous applications centred around the lack of reduction in overall storage space, which was undefined and threatened to spill across the site, whereas the current application had limited the potential volumatic impact of the storage, which officers felt tipped the balance and ensured that the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Head of Planning confirmed that environmental health had not recommended a condition restricting the hours of business on the site on the basis that there was a reasonable amount of separation from residential properties, whilst the background noise assessment had stated that when in operation the increase in noise only equated to around 2DB.  Furthermore the highways authority had considered the proposed increase in HGV movements and did not expect it to be significant, even based on the worst case scenario.

In response to a member’s question the Head of Planning confirmed that any failure to undertake the work identified in the S106 agreement would cause a planning issue and be an enforceable position, whilst the contents of the S106 agreement would define what could be used for business purposes and what could be used for open space.

A Committee member welcome the boundary protection, and responding to queries about the potential need for a TPO along the green corridor of Hurst Lane, the Head of Planning considered it very unlikely that the applicant would remove any trees as it would open them up to complaints from residents, and strongly encouraged the applicant to retain the vegetation on the site.

Responding to a query about whether approving the application could set a precedent and lead to further planning applications on the site the committee would struggle to turn down, the Head of Planning advised that each application would be judged on its own merits.

A ward member thanked officers and the applicant, who had engaged positively with the community with a desire to see Padd Farm and Hurst Lane changed for the better, and highlighted a resident’s view that it would the proposal would enhance the area and bring about economic benefits.

            Resolved that –

            The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

               i.         Completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

              ii.         Updated ecological assessment

            iii.         Planning conditions 1-24

            iv.         Addendum notes