Agenda item

Demolition of existing car park and redevelopment for industrial (Use Class B2); storage or distribution (Use Class B8); and/or light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii)) purposes, with ancillary office space, landscaping, car parking, servicing and access arrangements. (AMENDED PLANS 18.05.23)

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the addendum and the addition of a compliance condition to ensure the developer is responsible for the maintenance of the bridge gates.

Demolition of existing car park and redevelopment for industrial (Use Class B2); storage or distribution (Use Class B8); and/or light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii)) purposes, with ancillary office space, landscaping, car parking, servicing and access arrangements (AMENDED PLANS 18.05.23).

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. Initial concerns had been raised by officers regarding the bulk and scale of the building and the proposed redundancy of the access bridge across the M4 spur road. In response to these concerns the applicant had submitted revised drawings which reduced the height of the building, introduced additional planting along the boundary with properties in Sipson Way and agreed to retain the use of the access bridge for employees.

Members heard that the site was located within the Bath Road Employment Area. The site was considered appropriate for industrial use and the principle of the proposed development was deemed to be acceptable.

Members welcomed the proposal which was consistent with planning policy. In response to their requests for clarification, it was confirmed that the application site was located under the flight path and next to a busy road hence it had been considered more appropriate to measure plant noise rather than background noise. Plant noise should not exceed certain prescribed levels and any breaches could be reported to the Council.

With regard to the design of the proposal, Members were informed that this had been improved under the revised plans – the development would be built further from existing boundaries, the height had been reduced and the roof form amended. 

The Committee sought further clarification regarding the bridge and how this would be managed. It was explained that the applicant would be responsible for one section of the site, but the main part of the bridge was owned by Highways England. Key fob gates would be installed, and the bridge would be maintained by National Highways; however, maintenance of the gates would remain the responsibility of the landowner. It was agreed that this should be conditioned by way of a compliance condition.

In terms of highways matters, Members were advised that the numbers of trips had been based on 2019 traffic surveys. It was recognised that there would be an uplift in these under the proposed scheme, but numbers would be insignificant.

In response to further queries regarding construction times, Members heard that these would be set out in the construction management plan – approval would need to be sought to operate outside these times; this normally happened at the beginning of the process and only for a short period of time.

Members raised no further objections and welcomed the employment opportunities the new development would bring.

The officer’s recommendation, subject to the addendum and an additional compliance condition relating to maintenance of the gates, was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the addendum and the addition of a compliance condition to ensure the developer was responsible for the maintenance of the bridge gates.