Ilmor Engineering Ltd

Ilmor Engineering Ltd
Planning Appeal Statement of Case for
Car Park Extension – DA/2015/0023
M5730
July 2015
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
Prepared by
ORIGINAL
DATE
Reviewed by
Approved by
NAME
NAME
NAME
JOHN KELLETT
SIMON BARSON
MARTIN STRONG
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
07 July 2015
This report, and information or advice which it contains, is provided by QMP solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of QMP’s duties and liabilities under its contract with the
Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon
the information made available to QMP at the date of this report and on current UK standards, codes, and technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery
of this report to the Client, QMP will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This
report has been prepared by QMP in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers, Architects, and Surveyors. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of
legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of QMP’s contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering
and/or placing any reliance on this report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, QMP may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that:
(a)
QMP’s written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and
(b)
By release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against QMP, accordingly assume no duties,
liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and
(c)
QMP accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of QMP’s interests arising out of the Client's release of this report to the Third
Party arising out of the Client's release of this report to the Third Party
July 2015
1
1
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
Ilmor Engineering Ltd.
Proposed Car Park Extension
Planning Appeal Statement of Case.
Prepared by John Kellett RIBA, QMP.
Figure 1. Aerial view of Ilmor Engineering Ltd indicating the site location.
July 2015
2
2
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
1 Introduction
1.1 CONTEXT
1.1.1 Ilmor Engineering are an existing employer in Brixworth re-growing
after the recent economic downturn. Consequently staff numbers are
increasing within the confines of the present site without, currently the
need for new buildings.
1.1.2 QMP Ltd on behalf of Ilmor Engineering Ltd, were engaged to prepare
and submit a planning application to extend the existing car parking
area to cater for new and existing staff.
1.1.3 The application was made on, planning fee receipt dated 22nd
December 2014, validated on 16th January 2015, and refused on 9th
July 2015. The single reason for refusal being that the staff car parking
in the South East corner of the development would result in the loss of
green open space that provides a buffer between the business
premises in Quarry Road, and the residential area to the South.
1.1.4 Following the receipt of refusal of planning permission QMP have been
engaged to appeal the decision as the appellant and ourselves are
concerned that the original proposal does not appear to have been
refused on proper grounds. Especially in the light of Government
moves to ease unnecessary planning red tape delaying or denying
approval for sustainable development.
1.2 SITE
1.2.1 The open area to the South of the engineering buildings is used for
parking and includes an area of scrubland in a former quarry gullet. It is
not ‘green open space’ as stated in the refusal notice, the normal
English definition implying open grassland. The planting had been
enhanced by the landowner to form a landscape buffer and it is
intended to continue to be retained.
1.2.2 Contrary to statements by the local planning authority that the land was
public land, at no time has the land been Publically owned, designated
as public open space (or indeed anything else), and there are no tree
preservation orders in place.
1.2.3 The land had previously been proposed for housing development and
the quarry gullet was used as driving practice for 4x4 vehicles. The
buffer was set up by Ilmor to help shield nearby houses from industrial
operations and themselves from prying eyes. The motor industry is
conscious of the security risks involved with intellectual property. There
is no intention of losing the landscaping buffer.
July 2015
3
3
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
1.3 APPLICATION
1.3.1 The proposal is for 6 additional parking spaces near the main office
building (where the current disabled provision is located) and extending
the main car parking to the South eastwards and southwards to provide
a further 27 spaces.
1.3.2 The extension Eastwards will remain out of vision of drivers on the
bypass for two reasons: the existing / new buffer landscaping; and the
earth bank and planting on Highways.
1.3.3 The extension in the South East corner will only create a minor
intrusion into the buffer zone as the appellant wishes to retain the
landscaping buffer.
1.3.4 An application for additional parking was made and, after many weeks
of providing further details and revising drawings to meet concerns,
was refused permission on 9th July. It transpired that, after attempts to
contact the planning case officer, Mary Baynham that she had retired.
The application had been one of the last she had been dealing with.
1.3.5 The last item of additional documentation requested, a Biodiversity
Report, initially considered disproportionate by the design team had
been submitted and we were awaiting the Council’s response to the
report which indicated that no species of note or rarity had been found.
The refusal, without any further discussion or notice of the case
officer’s retirement, was therefore a surprise.
1.3.6 The initial application did not consider that, due to the limited extent of
the works that any ecology studies would be necessary. Brownfield exquarry land and features are quite extensive in the area and this former
quarry had already been built over to form the industrial estate and the
adjacent road bypass
1.4 CONDITIONS
1.4.1 At no point during the application process were planning conditions
suggested by the local authority to overcome any concerns. Ilmor
would have been happy to enter conditions to control the work should
any rare species, or archaeology, or geology be uncovered, for
example.
1.4.2 If we had been aware of an imminent refusal due to concerns over the
landscape buffer we would, as the agent, advised our client to withdraw
the application and resubmit a scheme for just the 6 spaces near the
main office.
July 2015
4
4
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
2 Response to Reason for Refusal
2.1 APPROACH
2.1.1 The appellant has no intention of removing the private landscaping
buffer and the scheme, as drawn, retains as much as is possible. For it
to be considered a loss of green open space was a surprise it is
scrubland heavily covered in shrubs and some planted trees.
2.1.2 There appears to be a number of errors and inconsistences in the
planning officer’s report recommending refusal:
a) Under ‘main issues’, the report states ‘It is proposed to infill the
cutting, using spoil that is to be cleared’. That is not quite the
case as only the gullet spur will be fully infilled to provide the
additional parking.
b) The Local Plan policy R22, that was not saved, showed a
proposal to designate the land as Public Open Space. It is not
publically owned, and is not known ever to have been. There is
therefore no current designation of the land as Public Open
Space on local authority mapping, contrary to the case officer’s
implication.
c) In the paragraph that starts ‘Policy R2 of the Joint Core
Strategy’, one sentence states that despite the independent
report indicating that the impact on the biodiversity is minimal, it
is the case officer’s view that the loss of open space should not
be condoned, as there ‘remains potential for this area to part of
the green infrastructure with the adjoining pocket park to the
West’. The land is private, not public, with the pocket park being
around 200 metres away from the application site to the West,
not ‘adjacent’ as stated.
d) The final sentence of that same paragraph states: “However, on
the information contained in the protected species survey, it is
acknowledged that the proposal does not cause significant harm
to the biodiversity of the area”. Whereas the reason for refusal
states that the development will ‘result in the loss of an area of
land that contributes to biodiversity in the village.
July 2015
5
5
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
2.1.3 Appealing the decision was considered the correct response in the
circumstances. A minor intrusion into non-designated landscaping
buffer would allow the appellant to provide more parking for existing
and new staff on their existing premises.
2.1.4 The recent and welcome development of the large development on a
large site outside the village for another motor industry company was
considered evidence that the application would be dealt with favourably
and swiftly.
2.1.5 The following policies are those specifically referred to in the reason for
refusal.
2.2 WEST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE JOINT CORE STRATEGY
2.2.1 Policy SA – The proposal is for sustainable development as the parking
is needed due to public transport services being cut back and suitable
qualified staff needs to be drawn from a wider area.
2.2.2 Policy S10 – Most of the quoted Sustainable Development Principles
are not relevant for a car park extension for an established local
business. The appellant is quite happy to use sustainably sourced
materials (S10/c), sustainable drainage (S10/h).
2.2.3 Policy R2 – Brixworth is an established location for ‘high-tech’ motor
industry companies. The policy promotes the expansion of businesses
in their existing location (R2/e and R2/f) which the purpose of the
proposed scheme.
2.3 ‘SAVED’ LOCAL PLAN POLICIES (from 1997)
2.3.1 Policy GN.1 – The application meets the following requirements:
a) By developing within the existing property boundary the natural
resources of the district are safeguarded.
b) By developing within the existing property boundary the natural
environment of the area is both protected and enhanced.
c) The minor extension into the gullet spur is considered ‘proper’
use of a small piece of disused and underutilised land
d) The proposal is for an existing employer in a village and this
clause is therefore not relevant.
e) The proposal is for a limited development in a village.
f) No new buildings or development is proposed in the open
countryside.
g) The site is accessible by the limited public transport local
services which has no services suitable for shift workers
July 2015
6
6
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
2.3.2 Policy GN.2 – The application meets the following requirements:
a) The proposal is of a scale and design in keeping with the
locality, it is an extension to an existing car park. Neither will it
detract from the amenities of the area.
b) It also uses the existing means of access to the site and
provides sufficient parking, as that is the purpose of the
application.
c) The few car parking spaces created will have little impact on the
local road network.
d) The development could be better served by public transport but
the service is being reduced in scale and provision.
e) As there is no conservation area or listed building adjacent, the
development will not adversely affect any known building of
architectural or historic interest. Had anything of heritage note
been uncovered during construction existing legislation would
have required it to have been reported, noted and if appropriate
fully excavated.
f) There are no recognised sites of nature conservation, geological
or archaeological importance, or the setting of archaeological
sites in the immediate vicinity to be adversely affected.
g) There are no areas of special landscape areas nearby to be
adversely affected.
h) The proposed development is of brownfield land and therefore
has full regard to the requirements of agriculture and the need to
protect the best and most versatile agricultural land from
irreversible development.
2.4 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
2.4.1 Paragraph 14 – “At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread
running through both plan-making and decision-taking” The proposal is
sustainable and the local authority have failed to demonstrate that the
proposal isn’t sustainable:
a) Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to
meet the development needs of their area.
b) No policies in the NPPF appear to indicate that the development
should be restricted.
c) The limited intrusion into the landscaping buffer, created and
retained by the appellant, has no adverse impacts that outweigh
the benefits of granting permission.
2.4.2 Paragraph 17: the 12 Core planning principles –
a) Refusal of the original application does not demonstrate that the
planning policies of the local authority are set up to empower
local people to shape their surroundings with a positive vision.
July 2015
7
7
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
b) Refusal demonstrates the scrutiny of the proposal rather than a
creative exercise in improving the workplace for employees.
c) The experience of the planning application process and its
refusal did not show evidence of supporting local sustainable
economic development taking account of the needs of a local
business.
d) The appellant, in appointing qualified professionals, sought to
secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for
all existing and future occupants of the land and buildings.
e) By retaining the appellant’s landscaping buffer (not nationally or
locally designated as such) the character of the housing to the
South (backing on to woodland) recognising the intrinsic
character of the area and supports the Brixworth rural
community.
f) The proposed development re-uses post-industrial scrubland
without adding to climate change or flood risk.
g) Extending the car park is effective re-use of previously
developed brownfield land of low environmental value.
h) The promotion of mixed use developments is not strictly relevant
in this case.
i) Neither is the conserving heritage assets appropriate to their
significance as there is nothing on the site of ‘significance’, all
remnants of the quarrying in the area, apart from the retained
area of landscaping buffer, have been destroyed by landowners
with the express permission of the local authority.
j) The appellant already encourages employees to walk and cycle
but public transport services are not extensive. Without cycle
paths the local road network is dangerous for cyclists.
k) The refused application is not of a nature that can improve
health, social and cultural well-being directly or deliver sufficient
community and cultural facilities to meet local needs. It is for a
car park to allow employees to get to, and leave, work safely
(which benefits well-being indirectly).
2.4.3 Paragraph 109 – The proposal contributes and enhances the natural
and local environment by:
a) By avoiding the majority of what is left of the quarrying heritage
within the appellant’s ownership, any geological, soil or
landscaping interests are enhanced.
b) Again, the minimal intrusion and retention of the main quarry
gullet and landscape buffer minimises the effect on biodiversity
as shown by the report submitted with the application.
c) New and existing developments are not put at unacceptable risk
from, or adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air,
water or noise pollution or land instability.
d) The scheme will help to remediate and mitigate any despoiled,
degraded, contaminated and unstable land by infilling the gullet
July 2015
8
8
Ilmor Engineering Ltd – Planning Appeal Statement of Case
Proposed Car Park Extension
M5730
separating the existing car park from the bypass. The existing
fall on the site draining water away from the bypass.
3 PLANNING BALANCE
3.1 APPLICATION DA/2015/0023
3.1.1 Despite being a minor application to extend an existing on-site car
parking facility, the extent of information required appeared
disproportionate. Full engineering information had been requested but
successfully resisted as being inappropriate at the town-planning stage
and also covered by other, existing, legislation.
3.1.2 The works could have been carried out without any impact on
neighbours and without them even seeing the work being constructed
due to the retained existing vegetation to the South separating the
development from the housing.
3.1.3 An application was made in accordance with legislation
3.2 CONDITIONS
3.2.1 The appellant was and is quite happy to meet any relevant conditions
that might be placed on the scheme should the appeal succeed.
Indeed, a visual inspection by the design team revealed little of
ecological note and the appellant would have been quite happy to carry
out the ecological report as a condition of approval with any discovered
wildlife of note protected under existing legislation. Rather than it be
insisted upon as a prerequisite to a decision.
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1.1 The appeal site is currently of no historical / architectural /
archaeological or wildlife interest either nationally or locally.
4.1.2 The development is minor in extent and does not include any buildings.
4.1.3 Many of the planning policies listed in the reason for refusal are those
that apply to major schemes that involve buildings.
4.1.4 A proposal that allows a local employer to continue to offer local
employment within a business hot-spot of high-tech motor engineering
in Brixworth, by developing within their existing site, is sustainable
contrary to the reason(s) given for refusal.
July 2015
9
9