Agenda item

Friars Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby

Applicant:      Friars Well Farm Business Park - Mr Geoffrey Johnson

Location:        Friars Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby

Proposal:       Construction of 3 commercial buildings for B1 and B8 uses, associated access delivery tuning areas and landscaping.

 

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that: This application is for full planning permission for the construction of 3 independent commercial buildings for B1 and B8 uses, measuring 24.6 metres by 46 metres floor area.  Total floor space 3395 square metres.  The 3 buildings will be sited next to each other with gables facing south outwards the access road.  There will be 12.2 metres gaps between them to allow for rear accessed and staff parking.  The buildings each measure 4.57 metres to eaves and 6.9 metres to ridge.

 

The application site is adjacent an existing business estate on the edge of the village of Wartnaby and seeks consent for the principle of additional employment land with the Borough.  Consideration to material and design have been given in relation to its semi-rural nature and also the use of existing mature screening, along with details of design, layout and appearance, it is considered that the principles of the development is acceptable in this location.

 

Despite concerns regarding highways issues, no evidence has been put forward that any such increase would significantly harm road safety interests and the Highways Authority have confirmed that the roads serving the site do not have a capacity issue and neither is there a traffic accident issue.  Accordingly, it is not considered that these concerns can be substantiated and withstand challenge.

 

Details of Conservation have been considered and the separation afforded from the application site to the Conservation Area is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

For these reasons the proposals are considered in accordance with local and national planning policy (NPPF) and no other material considerations indicate it should depart from these.  The application is recommended to be conditionally approved.

 

(b)       Wilson Boardman, the Chairman of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Additional traffic

•           Commercial vans/lorries go through Ab Kettleby

•           Parking and speed problems

•           Inconvenience to pedestrians, horse riders and bikes

•           Emergency services would not get through

•           Inappropriate – there are more sites for this development

•           Concerns on loss of amenity

 

A Cllr asked if there was signage on the village road.

 

Mr Boardman stated that there had been efforts from the applicant to reroute traffic to not go through the village however this cannot be controlled.

 

Cllr Holmes left the meeting at 8.18pm.

 

(c)        William Musson, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Larger development

•           Overcapacity of storage facilities

•           Traffic concerns

•           Damage to road

•           Close to conservation area and will harm rural setting

•           Less than substantial harm

•           Visual impact

•           Detract from attractiveness of landscape – trees removed

•           Loss of recreational activity

•           Loss of residential amenity – noise issue

•           Few benefits

•           No new jobs created

•           Benefits do not outweigh harm

 

A Cllr asked how there was an overcapacity of storage facilities.

 

Mr Musson stated that there were prime locations of warehouses and light industry  in Old Dalby, Gaddesby etc.

 

(d)       Maurice Fairhurst, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Well managed and successful

•           No harm

•           No noise, adverse impacts or pollution

•           Additional jobs

•           Estate successfully reroutes traffic onto Six Hills Road

•           Construction of new access road North Drive

•           Clauses included in contracts to use new access

•           Traffic not generated by park but by farms

•           No objection from Highways

•           Mature trees will surround development

•           Proposed buildings will not harm conservation area

 

A Cllr asked if 2.5acres of trees are to be removed.

 

Mr Fairhurst stated that he did not have the exact number but it is not as much as that. At least a 30m band of trees will be maintained.

 

A Cllr asked how far the buildings would be from the applicant’s own building.

 

Mr Fairhurst stated that it would not impact on the boundary of the conservation area.

 

A Cllr asked how many HGV visits there are now and how much this is expected to increase by.

 

Mr Fairhurst stated that a survey had been carried out of 5 peak hours and it was found that out of 213 vehicle movements 99 were generated by the park. 10 of these came through Ab Kettleby. Cannot specify on how much HGV visits would increase by.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to permit the application as it does not cause a lot of harm, it will grow the borough and provide more jobs.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal to permit and stated it is a good gain for the Borough and only 10% of the traffic is going through the village.

 

Several councillors expressed their support for the application.

 

The Chair added that he appreciated the traffic management could not be controlled but he would like to see the applicant continue their efforts to reroute traffic away from the village.

 

Cllr Chandler asked to include a condition on LED lighting.

 

The Chair advised that condition 3 alludes to lighting however the wording can be changed to be more prescriptive.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided, of the nine Members left, that the application should be approved.

           

Determination: PERMIT, in accordance with the conditions as set out in the report, for the following reasons:

 

The application site is adjacent an existing business estate on the edge of the village of Wartnaby and seeks consent for the principle of additional employment land with the borough.  Consideration to material and design have been given in relation to its semi-rural nature and also the use of existing mature screening, along with details of design, layout and appearance, it is considered that the principles of the development is acceptable in this location.

 

Despite concerns regarding highways issues, no evidence has been put forward that any such increase would significantly harm road safety interests and the Highways Authority have confirmed that the roads serving the site do not have a capacity issue and neither is there a traffic accident issue.  Accordingly, it is not considered that these concerns can be substantiated and withstand challenge.

 

Conservation issues have been considered and the separation afforded from the application site to the Conservation Area is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

For these reasons the proposals are considered in accordance with local and national planning policy (NPPF) and no other material considerations indicate it should depart from these.