To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Peter Humphrey, the Agent, had registered to speak under the public participation procedures but indicated that he did not wish to exercise this right.  Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the concerns of the local residents appear to be that of noise, and he asked whether any consideration has been given to an acoustic fence along the frontage? Mr Humphrey confirmed that an acoustic fence on the boundary which will stop the headlights into the neighbours’ properties and also reduce the noise can be installed, which the applicant is happy to implement. He stated that he is happy for a condition to be applied including changing the weld mesh fencing to timber acoustic fencing.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed that this would be more appropriate.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does like to encourage the expansion of local businesses, but there is the need to be mindful of the residents of Coney Walk and Blue Lane. He is happy with the acoustic fence and the tree planting, but he made the point that he is concerned with the lighting on the site and for the residents he is of the opinion that it will be a nuisance and he asked whether there was any mitigation that could be included in the proposal? Mr Humphrey explained that earlier an amended lighting layout had been sent to officers but stated that he would be happy for a condition to be included which could be agreed with officers so that there are not lights which are intrusive into the neighbouring properties. He suggested that bollard lighting could be introduced so that staff could see to walk to their cars, but it would not shine over the top of the fencing. Councillor Connor stated that he would prefer that type of lighting, rather than what has been suggested currently which is a 3 metre high lighting scheme and the suggestion from Mr Humphrey has gone a long way to alleviate his concerns.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he is aware that the Police are not in favour of bollard lighting as it does not show up faces of people when they are walking and, therefore, there may need to be a compromise which Mr Humphrey can resolve with officers.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there is a public right of way on the site and if it is to be closed during the development then a Traffic Regulation Order will need to be applied for which has a minimum of 12 weeks to obtain. Mr Humphrey stated that the design has been moved away so that the footpath and parking do not impact on the right of way.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is glad to see that the agent is taking on board the issue with regards to the lighting and added that lighting which projects upwards is wasted and does impact on wildlife. He asked Mr Humphrey when the lighting is installed can he ensure that it is downlighting and not up lighting? Mr Humphrey stated that the same situation arose at another Knowles Transport site in Wisbech, where there were column lights which had an extra cover on them, and the lighting stream does not impact the neighbours.

·       Councillor Connor asked whether the planting scheme can be enhanced to include a better hedge, or some mature trees? Mr Humphrey stated that could be conditioned. He added that when you drive past the lorries are not visible in the car park due to the landscaping scheme on the previous application. Mr Humphrey stated that he knows that the applicant will be happy to include a landscaping scheme that will mitigate and hide the traffic, but he would be happy to accept a condition.

·       Councillor Sutton asked for clarification that an acoustic fence was only being suggested at the front of the site and not all of the way round? Mr Humphrey stated that it is about reaching a compromise between an acoustic fence and the weld mesh, the weld mesh is more secure as there is still the ability to see what is happening behind it and he would only really want to install the acoustic fence where the properties are, and he would like to ensure that is made clear.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton asked whether officers are content with the questions and answers from Mr Humphrey so that appropriate conditions can be added? David Rowen stated that the condition that is recommended as part of the update report relates to fencing purely along the Blue Lane boundary and the anticipation is that it would be a solid fence of an acoustic grade mainly to prevent headlights shining into the properties on Blue Lane. He added that with regards to the wider lighting scheme, he is not aware that a further lighting scheme has been submitted by the Agent and he made the point that he would question whether it is necessary, given that there is a lighting scheme in place that the Environmental Health Team are content with and they have not raised any concerns about excessive illuminance or light overspill.

·       Nick Harding stated that the lighting plan shows that the light spill going into the houses opposite is less than one lux and he advised members that a streetlight is 5 lux or more and, therefore, there is no light trespass in terms of this development onto the adjacent dwellings because it is not even at street lighting level.

·       Councillor Sutton asked whether it would be possible to ask for a mixed scheme with bollard lighting at the front of the site and then a better scheme at the back which would alleviate everybody’s issues. David Rowen stated that the Police Designing Out Crime Team are also content with the proposal, making reference to the point made by Mr Humphrey with regards to bollard lighting and confirming that the Police are not overly keen on bollard lighting as it does not provide a good environment in terms of security. He added that if consideration is being given to implementing bollard lighting at the most vulnerable part of the site which is at the front, in his opinion, it would not be looked at favourably by the Police. David Rowen added that the Wildlife Officer has also stated that they are happy with the proposal and, therefore, in terms of the lighting scheme, the Police, Environment and Health and the Wildlife Officer are all content.

·       Councillor Connor stated that whilst he appreciates that all the parties are happy, consideration must be given to the local residents who are not happy, and a compromise needs to be sought.

·       Nick Harding stated that there is a lighting scheme before the committee which is acceptable to the technical experts and the decision the committee needs to make is whether they wish to approve it on the basis of the submitted lighting scheme and if members are happy to approve it on the basis that discussions will take place between the officers and the applicant to see if the lighting levels can be reduced even more then so be it.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that members of the committee are not technical experts and, therefore, it should be left to officers and the agent and applicant to reach a satisfactory outcome.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that it must be an acoustic fence on one side.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked whether the conditions are going to include elements of tree planting on the eastern side so that the existing gap where the tip at the back is not left completely open? David Rowen stated that there is a condition proposed with regards to the reinstatement of the existing access points and as part of that he would anticipate that hedge planting would come in as part of the condition, however, if members would like to put on a wider landscaping condition across the site it is within members gift should they wish to grant planning permission.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that the agent accepts that there does need to be compromises with regards to the lighting and the fencing. He added that he is aware that the Police do not like bollard lighting as it is detrimental to security, but he stated that there are infra-red cameras that can be considered, and it could be something that the applicant may wish to look at. Councillor Miscandlon made the point that the lighting scheme will have to form a mixture of different types on the site which the agent and applicant will appreciate and will act accordingly.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that there is already a tree planting scheme in place which just needs to be extended to the front of the site along with the acoustic fence which will go someway to allaying any concerns that the residents may have. He added that if the bollard lighting is considered in row 1 then he would be happy to approve the application.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he would like to see a construction management plan included which will not disturb the neighbours as the proposal is going to be a large project.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that whilst she agrees with the inclusion of a construction management plan, they do need to be monitored and adhered to.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the car park is a private car park, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to offer a duty of care to his employees which may not correlate with the suggestions put forward and, therefore, unless conditioned the applicant can do as he may wish.

·       David Rowen stated that there is Construction Management Plan which has already been submitted which is at Condition 11 and sets out the permitted hours of operation.

·       Councillor Sutton asked officers to provide the details of the conditions that they wish to add to the permission should it be granted. David Rowen stated that from his notes from the debate he has captured that members are looking at including a landscaping condition, reinforcement of the condition that has been included in the update report with regards to specifically detailing an acoustic fence and a lighting scheme to be submitted and agreed. Councillor Connor stated that he would still like the bollard lighting to be included even though it is not favoured by the Police.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application is APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation including additional conditions in relation to landscaping, acoustic fencing and a lighting scheme.

(Councillor Connor declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he represents Doddington and Wimblington as a Fenland District Councillor and attends Wimblington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared that she is pre-determined on this application and took no part in the discussion and voting on this item)