Issue - meetings

To consider a Section 73 application to permission reference: 21/00529/FPM – amendments to condition 1 (approved plans), condition 2 (timing), condition 3 (construction management plan), condition 5 (Drainage Strategy), condition 6 (drainage management and maintenance), condition 7 (Travel Planning), condition 8 (hydrants), condition 9 (acoustic fence), condition 12 (materials), condition 14 (external lighting), condition 15 (access), condition 16 (service yards and car park), condition 17 (bin storage), condition 18 (electric vehicle charging), condition 20 (landscape drawings), condition 22 (hard surfacing) and conditions 27 & 28 (Unexpected Contamination).

It was RESOLVED: That the application 22/00838/FPM be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report, with any amendments to the conditions listed in this report be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 22/00838/FPM seeking a Section 73 application to permission reference: 21/00529/FPM – amendments to condition 1 (approved plans), condition 2 (timing), condition 3 (construction management plan), condition 5 (drainage strategy), condition 6 (drainage management and maintenance), condition 7 (travel planning), condition 8 (hydrants), condition 9 (acoustic fence), condition 12 (materials), condition 14 (external lighting), condition 15 (access), condition 16 (service yards and car park), condition 17 (bin storage), condition 18 (electric vehicle charging), condition 20 (landscaping drawings), condition 22 (hard surfacing) and conditions 27 & 28 (unexpected contamination).

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that the original application for three warehouse buildings with access, parking, and landscaping was granted planning permission in 2022 and construction was currently underway. Due to the site proximity to the Cygnet Hospital, it was established through the original planning permission that an acoustic fence along the boundary was needed.

The approved layout could not be built as the original flood risk assessment did not consider the acoustic fence would have on floodwater as an impermeable barrier across the flood plain. The established ground conditions were also not suitable for ground infiltration and so changes needed to be made to the scheme to reduce the flood risk. There were also some other minor changes. These amendments included:

·         Maintain the 3-metre easement between the brook and the development site.

·         Change the design of the acoustic fence to have 1m gaps at the base to allow flood water through.

·         Some minor amendments to the site levels but the buildings remained unchanged.

·         Unit C being moved slightly to allow for the easement.

·         Remove the trees under the pylon.

·         1.2m high acoustic fence along the spine road

The Committee was informed that there were also temporary changes to the approved access. Some parking had to be relocated and there was a reduction in the width of the cycleway. The approved shared signalised access with the housing site opposite was not ready to be built as the housing is coming forward at a slower timescale than the employment site. This had impacted the application site, so they submitted a temporary access proposal for 18 months to 2 years where the southern access was widened as a priority T junction with the provision of a pedestrian refuge.

The Chair asked a question in relation to the approved access. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the approved access was linked with the permanent access with the housing development to the north. This had planning permission but was currently going through the Section 278 process.

Some Members asked why the flood risk was reassessed and the issue was only discovered after building started. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the original assessment took into account the acoustic fence but didn’t assess what a continuous permanent barrier would do and where the water would go. The initial flood risk was agreed as recommended. The original drainage strategy relied on the site being able to infiltrate water, however following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4