Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the next item on the agenda, application number 144738, to erect 7 no. commercial units, 5 units to fall within Use Class E((g)i) office ii) the research and development of products or processes or iii) any industrial process, (which can be carried out in any residential area without causing detriment to the amenity of the area)) and 2 units within Use Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) on land off Willoughton Drive, Gainsborough.

The Officer stated that there was no update, and gave a presentation on the application. This included a comparison of the original submission with the current application plan, clarification that the hedgerow could be removed at any time without planning permission.

The Chairman informed Members of the Committee that there were three registered speakers. The Chairman invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read the statement from the agent for the application, Sean Madden. The following statement was read.

“Good evening to the planning committee members and thank you for considering this planning application.

The Development Proposals. The proposals seek planning permission for 7no commercial units on a plot of land within the Foxby Lane Business Park, Gainsborough. The originally submitted site layout indicated a terraced row of commercial units along the full western boundary of the plot which required the removal of all the shrubs and hedges along the rear boundary. After reviewing the comments received from the residents at number 27 and 36 Maybell Close and the adjacent Vulcan Bossit site, the applicant was very proactive and ensured our proposals were developed in a collaborative manner, taking into full consideration the comments received. We also noted the comments received from the Environmental Protection Officer.

The proposals were therefore developed further and subsequently updated to remove the single storey unit from side of the garden of no.36 Maybell Close, reposition the units towards the northern edge and move the units a further away from the rear site boundary to increase the separation distances even further. The updated site layout also allowed for part of the hedgerow to be retained along with the tree, including a root protection area in accordance with the British Standards BS 5837 was also implemented. Additional planting was also provided towards the northern edge of the side along with a footpath to the rear of the units to provide maintenance access. We note the professional opinion of the Environmental Protection Officer that the current proposals presented have now removed the initial concerns raised.

When reviewing the proposals against the overall master plan of Gainsborough and the focus for substantial housing to be delivered as Policy LP3, the proposals will provide much needed employment and business start up opportunities in the area and will also compliment the major housing developments on the land adjacent to Foxby Lane and Middlefield Lane respectively and allow the site to be reached by walking and cycling, therefore reducing the potential users carbon footprint significantly and the reliance upon motor vehicles.

The design of the commercial units have been developed to provide an enhanced materials palette comprising of timber effect cladding with contrasting black brickwork with associated trims when compared against some of the typical units found on the adjacent sites which feature steel cladding for the roof and walls. The proposals would therefore provide aesthetically pleasing units which will enhance the character and locality.

Conclusion. We have taken appropriate steps to revise the designs/ building arrangements to reflect the comments made on to the WLDC planning website. And in conjunction with the relevant planning policies, we consider the proposals to be in accordance with the Central Lincolnshire Plan and Gainsborough Neighbourhood Plan. The proposals will provide both social and economic benefits to Gainsborough and provide a welcome increase in employment and business opportunities which will help to support the housing growth for our Town. We would like to respectfully ask the planning committee to grant planning permission for the development proposals on the established Foxby Lane Business Park.”

The Chairman thanked the Officer for reading the statement, and invited the second registered speaker, the objector, Andrew Boulton. The following remarks were made.

“There is no benefit to WLDC in approving this particular planning application. Any revenue from completing the sale of this Plot 5, will be received by LCC. Alternative less contentious purchasers of Plot 5 are available.

There is a positive effect of rejecting this planning application. The prospective purchaser, will be looking to the Committee to reject the application as LCC will then be required to refund the £6,000 deposit, enabling the prospective purchaser to look for a more appropriate - less contentious - site.

There are numerous more appropriate alternative sites available on the nearby Heapham Road South industrial estate, for the applicant to pursue his private financial ambitions, and where his cavalier distain for social obligations to neighbouring residential property owners, would not be an issue.

Whatever employment and jobs might be envisaged for this development, would still be possible and accommodated should the development be relocated to the more appropriate Heapham Road South industrial estate. A very similar development already exists at the entrance to the Heapham Road South industrial estate. It is pertinent that no-one has made written submissions - or is speaking - in favour of this application.

It is understood that 10% of recommendations for approval are overturned by a Planning Committee. It is respectively suggested that this planning application is one of those that should be included in that 10%.

It is hoped that the elected members of the Planning Committee will exercise their independence, and their responsibilities to the community they represent, and risk incurring the ire of Planning Department Officials, by rejecting this planning application. There are a number of inconsistencies in how planning guidelines have been applied to individual submissions and, in the consideration of those different submissions. In a number of instances, it seems that some material planning considerations, have conveniently been ignored, which undermines the Report’s recommendation to approve.

Trees – especially thriving twenty-year old trees, surrounded by “unmanaged” undergrowth or not – are a material planning consideration. It is evident that within this report, the existing trees, have NOT been given serious consideration.

This undermines the assertion within the report’s “Planning balance and conclusion”, that the proposal “would not conflict or cause harm to the amenities of neighbours (and that) the scale and appearance is acceptable”. The material planning consideration of “Impact on the neighbourhood” has demonstrably been ignored, as demonstrated by the above. I have identified four illustrative examples.

One: Implicitly accepting the necessity for a screen, Condition 3 requires that “details of soft landscape proposals shall be submitted”. There is no proposal for any “soft landscape” at the rear of any of the remaining units, particularly the two-storey buildings, that confront Maybell Close houses and Gainsborough Park.

Two: When considering “Main Issues” the Report refers to the “existing mature hedgerow. Whilst the Council's tree and landscape officer condescendingly refers to this as “unmanaged”, this is not (just) a hedgerow. It contains within it, twenty-year-old mature trees. This paragraph goes on to dismiss the necessity for retaining the existing screening, because “the maximum height (of the development), is below that of existing housing that neighbours the site”. Question: what is this comment even meant to convey? All the neighbours will view this development from ground level, and from bedroom windows.

Three: The Report mentions distances from the established Maybell Close houses and Gainsborough Park. Whatever the distances from the proposed industrial units, does not make them any less intimidating, any less offensive, or negate the necessity for appropriate screening.”

The speaker asserted that he wanted a change about the public participation processes, and wished to counteract the officer’s view and statements later on. The speaker concluded his statement to reemphasis the issue of the hedgerows.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read the statement from the Local Ward Member, Councillor Mick Devine. The following statement was read.

“The Design and Access Statement clearly states the mature hedgerow will remain, this screens the industrial development from the housing close by. The plan being submitted requires that this hedgerow will be removed, to me that is not acceptable, the planting originally done by LCC I believe was to provide screening.

I note that replacements will be planted but this will not accommodate the birds that currently use the hedgerow as a nesting site, there will also be other insects and wildlife disrupted damaging the ecology of the whole area. Neither will the new planting screen the site from the homes immediately behind the application.

I have visited the site and the proposed units will be crammed into what is a small site and unsuitable in my mind for 7 units and the accompanying vehicles that will be visiting the site. I do not object to the development of this site as it is designated for development, but I do object to the size of the current application on this site. I would recommend that the Planning Committee make a visit to this site to see for themselves the scale of the site.”

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer for reading the statement, and invited a response from the Development Management Team Leader. The Officer further explained the layout using photographs of the site.

Debate ensued, and Members raised different points, including the expansion of businesses in Gainsborough, supportive of the principle of the development, and expressed concerns about the changes to the landscaping surrounding and on the proposed site. Members were also supportive of the changes made by the applicants during the application process. There were also comments about the layout of the site and the effect of the height of the proposed units.

In response to a few queries, the Officer emphasised that removing the hedgerow did not require planning permission. In a separate response, the Legal Adviser explained that the hedgerow was not protected, and anyone could take it away with the land owner's permission, or by the land owner themselves. The Adviser stated that there were no tree preservation orders on any vegetation on the site itself.

In response to a query about owning the land concerning hedges, the land ownership was not a material consideration in a planning application decision, whoever was the owner's identity. All that was required was the permission of the landowner or the landowner themselves to remove a hedge.

In reply to a query about the levels of the site as compared to the surrounding area, the Officer clarified that this could be conditioned in the possible granting of the application.

The Chairman proposed a site visit to the Committee to learn about the site, the vegetation on the site, and to understand the application better. This followed the request made by the Local Ward Member.

It was also understood that this would also allow the Case Officer to liaise with the agent for further information in relation to landscaping and existing and proposed levels. with an update provided by the next meeting, after the site visit.

Having been proposed, and seconded, on taking the vote, it was

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for decision at the next available

meeting, in order for a site visit to be undertaken.