Agenda item

Application for determination.

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the erection of a new manufacturing and distribution facility (Use Classes B2/B8) and ancillary office with associated car parking, landscaping and access arrangements on land to the south of Waterwells Drive.

He advised that the intended occupier was FLI who currently occupied other premises at Waterwells and Madleaze Road. These sites would be relocated with an anticipated increase of 30 jobs.

He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 6.7 of the report6 which detailed the applicant’s proposal for quiet working between 23.00 and 07.00 hours.

He noted that the Environmental Protection team were satisfied with the proposed noise conditions. There was a policy requirement for 8 metre easements along the watercourse and there were pinch points where the building was closer to the watercourse for a limited area which was considered to be acceptable.

Bill Hayley, director of the Hayley Group addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Hayley advised that FLI had been bought from receivership and opened the current factory in Waterwells in 1996. The workforce had grown from 54 to 77 and the main activity was the manufacture of telecommunications masts. The market for masts had disappeared and a new market developed with the manufacture of railway electrification equipment.

He thanked Officers for their assistance and confirmed his acceptance of all proposed conditions but requested that conditions 19, 20 and 21 have the words “for B2 use” added.

He explained that this was requested to provide an alternative if the business environment required a change to a B8 Class distribution use. He advised that a high quality building was specified and the anticipated cost was £3 million more than originally expected.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that the impact of a 24 hour B8 use had not been fully assessed and if that use was to become dominant the applicant could apply to vary the conditions. He emphasised that the Committee did not have the necessary information on the impact of a 24 hour storage/distribution use to make that decision.

Councillor Hobbs welcomed the application for a very attractive building for a local company that was doing well but he acknowledged that there was insufficient information to consider varying the conditions.

Councillor Hanman questioned the need for any restriction on the business.

Councillor Williams noted that there was a distribution business nearer to residential properties than the application site.

The Development Control Manager reiterated that the application before the Committee had been assessed and considered acceptable for 24 hour employment use. Whilst he could not say whether 24 hour operation for a solely B8 use would not be acceptable, there was no evidence available to prove that it would be.

The Chair suggested delegating authority to approve the change subject to a satisfactory noise impact assessment.

Councillor Hilton believed that the application be approved in accordance with the recommendation as the local community had not been consulted on the change requested by Mr Hayley. The applicant could always apply to vary the conditions.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.