Agenda item

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space all under B1b, B1c and B8 use classes with 5 no. replacement buildings.

Permit

Rev Bowden proposed that item 5 was deferred to the following Planning Committee meeting, due the volume of information contained within the agenda update sheet and the short time Members had been given to read the information. Rev Bowden added that he also considered there were issues related to the Council upholding transparency. 

Mr Whitty acknowledged that there were a number of changes on the agenda update sheet, but confirmed it was not uncommon for this document to list changes including to conditions; and, it was not unreasonable to continue to consider the matter at the current meeting.

Mrs Sharp confirmed that she would support Rev Bowden’s proposal to defer, as she considered the information provided by the highway authority had been difficult to follow and Mr Shaw had not been able to commit to a site visit to provide further details.

Mr Whitty advised that there had been a number of amendments related to the application in response to concerns raised, but the changes were relatively minor and it was not statutorily necessary to further consult with regards to changes which were not materially or significantly different. Mr Whitty confirmed there was no reason to defer determination prior to the officer’s presentation and debate and following the debate Members could then take the decision as to whether a deferment was necessary.   

Mr Shaw confirmed he had provided further information earlier in the day, prior to the meeting in response to Members requests for clarification received the previous day and could expand on the information as required during the meeting. In response to Mrs Sharp, Mr Shaw confirmed he had been unable to attend a site visit due to other commitments.

Mr Thomson further concurred that deferment relating to environmental health information was unnecessary, as only minor changes to conditions had been made and he could also expand on the information as required during the meeting. 

Miss Golding further advised that officers should be permitted to present the item and provide an explanation of the matters included on the agenda update sheet before considering deferment.  Rev Bowden confirmed he was prepared to accept officer’s advice.

Ms Thatcher presented the item to Members and outlined the details provided in the agenda update sheet. The agenda update sheet included typing amendments and further alterations following recent Government legislative changes regarding use classes, which had taken place after the application had been received. The Council’s solicitor had advised the description relating to the development remain as referenced with the previous use classes, and for consistency any subsequent conditions would also relate to the previous use classes, in accordance with the transitional provisions in the 2020 regulations. Ms Thatcher confirmed amended applicant details had also been corrected and post publication, a further letter of objection had been received which was listed on the sheet. An amended proposed site plan had been received, which detailed that the north-eastern section of the boundary wall would be retained, but realigned 1.2 metres to the west, to accommodate a widened footpath; with, further consultation received from West Sussex County Council Rights of Way, and Highways regarding the footpath. An additional condition to secure the widened footpath surface was also included. Further minor changes had been made to conditions relating to noise and deliveries, and there had been a requirement to delete Condition 34 (operational hours) and to secure matters relating to noise and disturbance via further conditions. The environmental health officer required further minor changes regarding the construction, contamination, noise and disturbance, to ensure conditions were relevant, robust and enforceable. Ms Thatcher also confirmed two additional informatives relating to noise and an update in legislation.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Ian Friel – Objector

Bryan Finlay – Objector

Alex Munday – Objector

Richard Allin – Agent

Kevin Hughes – CDC Councillor

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions.

Mr Shaw explained the highways authority had a desire to improve sustainable transport links along Westhampnett corridor, but could not secure those improvements via this specific planning application. It was necessary to secure improvements through appropriate means and the justification was not available in terms of planning legislation, in relation to this planning application to do so.

Ms Thatcher advised that the applicant had confirmed that as part of the proposals to improve accessibility within the site, the majority of the levels would be regraded to ensure the existing differing levels were less pronounced. Parts of the site would be lowered which would also lessen the impact of Block 1 which was reduced in height on the eastern side. The boundary wall was also retained (in its relocated position) which would aid screening. To the rear of the site all existing trees within the cemetery would be retained and there would also additional planting to the southern boundary. 

Ms Thatcher explained other than the tenant for Block 1, there were twenty other occupiers on the site each with differing operational requirements, and therefore on the advice of the environmental officer, condition 34 was deleted and appropriate hours of operation secured via a ‘Noise Management and Mitigation Scheme, which would also cover any future occupiers within the site and would ensure the Council retained control. Delivery hours were also tightened to include no HGV movements between specific times and conditions which would require details of external plant to be submitted for approval prior to installation.  Other conditions related to air quality and odours, to ensure there was no significant impact to the residential amenity; a lighting condition for the assessment of external lighting, and the class use was restricted ensuring no B2 use on site. Ms Thatcher confirmed therefore, with the numerous conditions in place it was deemed appropriate to delete Condition 34. 

Mr Thomson confirmed that the environmental health team accepted the proposed development subject to robust conditions, which totalled twelve and were considered to adequately safeguard the amenity of the area. The most notable of the conditions was 37, which prohibited the B2 use, which was used for heavier industrial activities, and only B1 and B8 activities would be permitted, which could take place in close proximity to residential areas. In addition, other conditions related to noise and on the matter of the opening of windows, condition 16 referred to the ‘Noise Mitigation and Management Scheme’ which would result in each tenancy and occupancy being examined on its specific merits, and appropriate conditions in relation to operation put in place, including for the opening of windows. 

Miss Bell confirmed with regards to any amendments on the approved plans, these would be considered and examined as appropriate.  On the matter of the mezzanine floor, a viability assessment had not been carried out, and what the applicant was seeking was currently unknown, although it had been assessed for the proposed heights, and this was the scheme before Members for debate.  With regards to the non-designated heritage asset in relation to the cemetery at the rear, Miss Bell was not aware if this had been given as a formal document but consideration had been given to the surrounding relationships, and details had been given regarding the boundary treatments and a landscape condition included.

Mr Whitty confirmed that officers were unaware of whom the tenant may be for Block 1 and that that application proposal was for a particular use class B1 and B8, with conditions controlling further disturbance, which was what the Committee must consider.  

Mr Thomson iterated that the Noise Mitigation and Management Scheme would control fork-lift truck movements and times they were in use, which would also control deliveries as often fork-lift trucks were used in conjunction with deliveries.  Fork-lift trucks would also only use broadband reversing alarms to minimise impact.  With regards to air quality assessment, these would be undertaken when tenants were in occupation and mitigation measures established at that point.

Ms Thatcher confirmed that in 2019 the Planning Policy team commented that 36% of the floor space was vacant, as the building did not attract tenants due issues such as the buildings do not retain heat well, and only shared toilet facilities were available, hence the rational for the development. With regard to the cladding used for the buildings, the materials were part of the conditions and other legislation relating to building regulations, would control matters related to flammability. On the matter of the eastern wall, it would be demolished and reconstructed to provide the extra width to the footpath. With regards to air quality, the environment health officer had reworded the information appropriately on the agenda update sheet for the commercial operations on the site. With regards to the windows to the east, the plans did not suggest they were obscured glazed or non-opening, and Ms Thatcher confirmed that this could be added as a condition.

Mr Shaw explained that there was a proposed increase in jobs, but not an increase in traffic levels as the figures referenced were the potential increases identified in the transport assessment for pedestrians and cyclists.  The figures suggested that there would be no increase in cyclist trips from an existing level of three trips and a small increase in pedestrian trips by one and up to 37, but increases were expected in car trips by 71, light goods vehicles trips by 36 and taxis trips by one, therefore, not a significant level of increase in trips.

With regards to views from the south-east and south-west Ms Thatcher responded that she did not have plans providing this detail. Block 1 would be higher, but would have a pitched roof and step down in height, and officers also considered the development would provide economic benefit.  Mr Whitty further responded that this was the redevelopment of a site, in a city location and officers accepted that there would be a change in the view from the south. The site was also in close proximity to other sites that had permission for development for industrial and commercial use. Officers also considered that style of building was acceptable with different roof pitches, glazed openings and would be constructed of materials of good quality and vegetation would soften the appearance and view. Whilst the blanket condition had been removed, Mr Thomson had made it clear the Council would have better targeted control. Mr Whitty added that with regards to the windows, they would be 14 metres from the boundary although he appreciated issues with regards to noise. Mr Whitty therefore confirmed a condition would be added which required the applicants to submit details regarding the windows, located on the east elevation of Block 1, to mitigate noise escape and light-spill.

 In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Members took a ten minute break