Agenda item

MIES International Unit C Norman Court Ashby De La Zouch LE65 2UZ

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members. 

Councillor R D Bayliss, ward member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the business park was one of the finest developments of its sort that he had seen. He explained that the development had been driven by the developers themselves, the planning brief and the urban design policies, resulting in a first rate modern industrial development which provided a wonderful working environment.  In his view the proposals within the application were contrary to the council’s own policies, specifically the development brief, and permitting the development would by inference allow further applications of a similar nature and would destroy the Council’s urban design policies.  He urged members to refuse the application. 

Mr M Evans, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the proposals were the polar opposite of the design brief which sought to secure a high quality development whilst minimising its visual impact.  He said that the approach to Unit C was purposely kept clear to achieve a high end business park feel, to allow units to sit in isolation and to retain the openness of the site.  He added that this would be lost should the application be permitted.  He called upon members to reject the proposals. 

Mr P Eaton, applicant, addressed the meeting.  He explained that an extension to the unit was required to support growth in his business.  He added that as the owner of the building he did not wish to spoil the business park.  He did not plan to build on the whole of the service yard, which he had not used as a courtesy to his neighbours, and the roof would be set 1m lower than the existing structures.  He explained that the same architect was being used to ensure that the design and materials for the proposed development were identical to the current building on site. 

Councillor J Hoult moved that the application be refused, as it would set a precedent. This was seconded by Cllr M Specht. Cllr J Hoult went on, and stated that he could not support the proposals as it would spoil the estate and other developers would want to extend in a similar manner

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded members that it was an established planning principle that each case was determined on its own merits, and whilst setting a precedent may be a concern, this could not be taken into account in determining the application.

In response to a question from Councillor N Smith, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there would be no change to existing employment levels. 

Councillor D Everitt stated that in his view the design of commercial developments was just as important as residential developments.  He felt that the status quo ought to be maintained. 

Following advice from the Head of Planning and Regeneration on the reasons for refusal, it was moved by Councillor J Hoult that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposals would represent over intensification of the plot and would detract from the open feel of the wider estate.  The motion was seconded by Councillor M Specht. 

Councillor J Legrys suggested that an additional reason for refusal, that visibility splays would be inadequate, be added. The Head of Planning & Regeneration pointed out that the highway authority had not objected to the application, and advised against using it as a refusal reason.

Councillor G Jones stated that as a local Town Councillor he was very proud of what had been achieved in Ashby de la Zouch in recent years and that he did not like to prevent the expansion of businesses. However he felt he had to support the comments made in respect of spoiling the working environment and over intensification of the whole site.  He concluded that he could not support the officer’s recommendation. 

In response to a question from Councillor V Richichi, the Principal Planning Officer referred to the update sheet, and advised that the design brief was intended to guide the initial development of the site and was not an ongoing document which governed the future design of estate.  He stated that little weight, if any, should be afforded to this document.

Councillor D Harrison felt that the proposals blended in well and that the Committee should be flexible by supporting people who invested in the area.  He stated that he supported the officer’s recommendation as all business would like to eventually expand and thus, the Committee should retain an open mind to such applications.

R Canny emphasised the importance of design.  She appreciated the needs of the business for more space however commented that once the extension was built, the design of the whole area was permanently changed.  She suggested relocation of the business be considered as an alternative. 

Councillor M Specht commented that the design brief may be out of date, however the development had been built in accordance with the design brief.  He commended the design of the existing development and felt that he could not support the proposals as they interfered with the street scene. He stated that had the proposed development been to the rear of the existing development or to its side, he would have been able to support the application.

Councillor N Smith commented on the cost of relocating a business and felt that refusing the application would send the wrong message to people considering setting up a business in North West Leicestershire. He could not see anything wrong with the proposed development given that the same architect and materials were being used as those for the existing building.

Councillor J Legrys expressed support for the motion to refuse the application as he felt very strongly that policies should be accorded with.  He made reference to the outstanding design and layout of the site.  He commented that he disliked the idea that the proposed development would block out the street scene to people arriving at the site. 

The motion to refuse the application was then put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the proposals represented over intensification of the site and the loss of the open feel of the estate.