Employment park at Land At Carrington Junction, Isherwood Road, Carrington

What was proposed

The application sought an employment park with up to 95,000 square metres of industrial and storage floorspace, open storage, landscaping, parking and habitat creation.

“The application seeks outline planning permission for the proposed development of up to 95,000 sqm of buildings for Use Class B2 (general industrial) / B8 (storage or distribution) uses and Use Class B8 open storage, together with associated landscaping and car parking and the provision of off-site habitat creation.”

“Plan confirms the maximum building height as 22 metres and the maximum storage height in the open storage areas as 12 metres.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The 30.7-hectare site included previously developed land, woodland forming part of a Site of Biological Importance, a watercourse and nearby homes and Green Belt land.

“The woodland within the site extends to approximately 6.6ha, most of which is designated a Site of Biological Importance (SBI) forming part of the Wetland at Carrington Moss SBI. The other part of the SBI, known as the Shell Pool Reserve, is to the south of the application site and adjoins the southern boundary. There is an existing watercourse on the east side of the site adjacent to and within the woodland that runs parallel with Isherwood Road.”

“The site is part of the former petrochemicals site which covers an extensive area west of the site and includes large tracts of vacant, cleared industrial land and LyondellBasell’s operational area to the western part of the site. This area includes above ground pipelines, storage tanks, areas of hardstanding and access roads in the vicinity of the site. The flare stack at the southern end of the site remains in use.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers advised granting permission subject to a legal agreement, concluding that the scheme’s significant economic and other benefits outweighed its policy conflict and identified harms.

“The proposed development does not comply with the development plan as a whole, however it is considered this conflict and the harms identified are outweighed by the significant economic and other benefits of the scheme.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Wright, the ward councillor, made representations against the application and took no part in the debate or vote.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse planning permission was moved, seconded and carried.

“It was moved and seconded that planning permission be refused.”

“The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

Permission was refused because the scheme would harm biodiversity, landscape and views, precede the required masterplan and remove best and most versatile agricultural land.

“(1) The proposed removal of a significant area of woodland and which forms part of a Site of Biological Importance would result in loss of habitat and significant harm to biodiversity, which could be avoided by locating part of the proposed development on an alternative site.”

“(5) The proposed compensation for the significant harm to biodiversity would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, contrary to Policy JP-G8 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes