Agenda item

Plot 12 East Midlands Gateway Development Ashby Road Castle Donington, DE74 2DL

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor E Nudd, representing Lockington and Hemington Parish Council, addressed the committee highlighting that the parish objected to the development as the application before them would allow a building to be 16 meters higher than the approved scheme, which was not consistent with policy. He noted that the current site had been designed, in line with a landscaping scheme that protected the setting of the area and by accepting the new design with a significant increase in height, it would undo all the work that had taken place to agree a layout that was acceptable to the surrounding villages. He stated that the height of the XPO building had been agreed due to its location on the site and was an exception, this was not the case with the proposal before them. He informed members that the economic benefits that were being offered had already been taken into account and the increased height would not add any additional benefits or create additional jobs in the area.

A statement was read out on behalf of the applicant, DHL, highlighting that the East Midlands Gateway was well placed in the region to provide supply and demand business solutions and, that the rail connectivity would enable sustainable access to customers both nationally and internationally. It was noted that the warehouse would provide a temperature controlled environment for short-term storage and would be a multi-user facility to consolidate activities that otherwise would be undertaken at different locations. It was stated that once operational the scheme would generate over 1,000 jobs and the height was necessary to allow for high-bays, which would not generate any additional noise, storage density, capacity and a low energy temperature controlled environment.

Councillor C Sewell, Ward Member, addressed the committee highlighting that the main objection to the application was the proposed height of the building, which was almost double the approved height. She noted that residents had accepted the overall development of the site despite day to day issues and that the approval of the XPO building should not have set a precedent for the remaining plots with the increased height. She stated that there were already existing issues with HGVs using village roads to find the Gateway development and that housing close to the site was not affordable and rental properties were at a premium, therefore employees would need to travel in by road. She expressed concerns over the additional traffic noise, air pollution and red dust that the warehouse would bring, along with the height of the building that would have an impact on the amenities of the surrounding areas and villages. She urged Members to consider the residents when considering the application.

In determining the application, some members raised concerns over the proposed increase in height of the building, its impact on visual amenity and heritage assets and the lack of information to justify why the additional height was required. Concerns were also expressed over the applicant’s commitment to climate change and limited information on how they will tackle it and the visual and amenity impact the unit would have on the surrounding villages including the highway network, including the additional HGV and car movements, lack of public transport to the site and, additional noise and pollution. Members had regard to the comments received from the statutory consultees and that the application before them was in relation to the increased height only as approval had already been given to the site. Members’ attention was drawn to the fact that officers were happy with the landscaping mitigation proposed, that the benefits of the proposal that it would bring to the area outweighed the less than substantial harm the increase in height would cause, and that the increase in height would not generate any additional noise or air pollution.

A motion to refuse the application, as it would be contrary to the NPPF Para 196, Local Plan Policy S3 and Local Plan Policy D2 was moved by Councillor D Bigby and seconded by Councillor M B Wyatt.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was declared LOST.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure was moved by Councillor N Smith and seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.