Agenda item

26/0520/FUL – Erection of three buildings comprising six new industrial units (Use Classes B2/B8 E (g) (iii) at Woodcock Hill Industrial Estate, Harefield Road, Rickmansworth

Recommendation: that planning permission is granted.

The application was for erection of three buildings comprising six new industrial units (Use Classes B2/B8 E (g) (iii) at Woodcock Hill Industrial Estate, Harefield Road, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that a correction was required to paragraph 7.6.8 of the report, which should refer to a Section 278 agreement (not a Section 28 agreement).  Additionally, Condition 16 should be amended to update the reference number of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Condition 17 should be amended to require the soft landscaping scheme to be submitted prior to the first occupation of the buildings rather than prior to development taking place.

Councillor Lisa Hudson spoke on the application.

Parish Councillor Diana Barber of Batchworth Community Council spoke on the application.

Points raised by speakers against the application included the constrained nature of Harefield Road and access issues; impact on the character of the industrial estate which currently operates quietly and is located in a highly sensitive natural setting; concerns about delivery vehicle size, frequency of deliveries and intensification of use; concerns about hazardous material disturbance during development; lack of information regarding foul water or surface water drainage; lack of clarity about the proposed use of the buildings and their potential height; and parking issues.

In responding to points raised by the speakers, the Planning Officer confirmed that Hertfordshire County Council had been consulted on a number of occasions during the application process and had not objected to the proposal on highways safety grounds.  Whilst Harefield Road was a narrow road, policy TR6.4 of the NPPF emphasised that applications could only be refused on highways safety grounds where there would be a severe adverse impact on the transport network.  Officers did not therefore consider that there were grounds to substantiate refusal on the basis of highways safety.  A pre-commencement Construction Management Plan would be conditioned, which Hertfordshire Highways would also be consulted on. 

In relation to the concerns raised about contamination, the Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency, Affinity Water, Environmental Health and Thames Water had all been consulted and had not objected to the application, subject to a significant number of conditions which were set out in the officer report and which would be discharged in consultation with those consultees in their capacity as the professional bodies responsible for managing contamination risk.  Contamination risks were therefore considered to be satisfactorily managed.

In relation to the location of the site in the Green Belt, the Planning Officer clarified the site location was an established industrial site and was also enclosed.  The buildings proposed within the application were not significantly high and were not considered to be out of character with the surrounding buildings which were generally of two storeys.  There would therefore not be a substantial harm taking into account the wider site surroundings.  The application was therefore considered to meet the test for falling within the exception for inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

With regard to the off-site highways works, the applicant would be required to enter into a Section 278 agreement with the Highways Authority with regard to details and implementation, and Condition 5 required these agreed details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of works above slab level.

The Planning Officer also highlighted that the NPPF encouraged economic development, including in more rural locations.  Given that there was a shortfall within the district, this was a further reason why officers were supportive of the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.  Points raised included that the scheme fell within the previously developed land exception at policy GB 7.1 (e) of the NPPF and would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt; the scheme would deliver 6 new flexible industrial units and address unmet need for this type of space within the district; the buildings were of sustainable design; the proposal would offer employment opportunities, both in construction and following occupation; traffic at the site would comprise small vans and cars, and not HGVs; and a suitable number of parking spaces reflecting the location and nature of the development were to be provided, with no opportunity for parking to be displaced outside the site.

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·        A Committee Member commented that several recent or current planning applications had sought to convert existing Class E or B2/B8 use to residential, which indicated that those landowners did not consider that there was a demand for buildings to accommodate those use classes.  In light of this, officers were asked to clarify why it was considered that the application addressed unmet need for Class E or B2/B8 use.  Officers responded that the Local Plan evidence work included a number of studies which demonstrated that there was an unmet need, and the scheme before the committee specifically proposed accommodation which would benefit smaller businesses.  In addition, every site needed to be assessed in terms of its individual merits.  Condition 22 specified the use class of the buildings and would prevent any future change of use without the grant of planning permission, and Condition 24 prevented the buildings being enlarged without the grant of planning permission.  Another Committee Member commented that there had also been recent applications which had sought to provide Use Class E or B2/B8 accommodation, which was an indication that there was a demand for such buildings.

·        In response to a question about hours of operation, the Planning Officer clarified that due to the length of time which they had been there, some of the units at the site did not have restrictions on operating hours.  As the application before the committee offered the opportunity to condition hours of use for the new units, these were being proposed in order to allow a degree of control and to address concerns about potential disturbance to neighbouring residents.  Proposed hours had been agreed with the applicant and were set out at Condition 23.  Officers considered that a 10pm finish during the week was appropriate given the buildings’ relatively small size, their location away from residential properties, and the woodland to the south of the site which would serve as a noise buffer for residential properties to the south.  Hours of operation would be more restricted at weekends.

·        In response to a question about parking, the Planning Officer clarified that the maximum shortfall was 4 spaces.  Officers considered that looking at the application site as a whole and its wider setting, this would not result in sufficient harm to justify refusal.  There would be no impact on the adjoining highway as there was no opportunity for overspill parking; a car parking management plan was conditioned; and no objections had been raised by Herts Highways in relation to highways safety.

·        Committee Members considered that it would be beneficial if the applicant could tidy up the site as part of the development if granted permission, and that this should include removal of the boat and other paraphernalia at the site and on adjacent land.

Councillor Cox moved, and Councillor Whately-Smith seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) amendment to condition 16 to update the reference number of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and (ii) amendment to condition 17 to require the soft landscaping scheme to be submitted prior to the first occupation of the buildings.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and (i) amendment to condition 16 to update the reference number of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and (ii) amendment to condition 17 to require the soft landscaping scheme to be submitted prior to the first occupation of the buildings.