Proposal Description: Item 6: Change of use from Use Class B1c/B2/B8 (19/00001/FUL) to Sui Generis bespoke to Turbocam including minor alterations to Rooflights and new external plant enclosure
It was noted that that majority of committee members present had visited the application site and the existing site on 9 June 2026 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.
The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following:
(i) Removal of business and replace with manufacturing on Condition 8.
Condition 8:
8. No manufacturing operations shall be carried out outside the building.
Reason: To ensure acceptable noise levels within noise sensitive premises are maintained and to limit the impact on residential amenity.
The reason for the change was to allow things such as business meetings outside and external repairs/maintenance to the building.
In addition, the planning case officer gave a verbal update at the meeting to advise that an email had been received from the applicant on 8 June 2026 and a copy of this had been circulated to all members of the committee.
During public participation, Alice Drew and Councillor Karen Bird (Shedfield Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Matthew Brussee and Stuart Morley spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.
Councillor V Achwal spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application.
In summary, Councillor Achwal raised the following points:
1. She noted that the recent site visit was helpful for members to see the application site in its context with nearby roads.
2. She stated that the application should be judged on the intensity of the site’s use and its suitability for a rural area with nearby homes, rather than just the building itself.
3. She highlighted that there had been 78 objections to the proposal, including an objection from Shedfield Parish Council, with residents expressing repeated concerns regarding noise disturbance, traffic, HGV movements, highway safety, and the impact on the rural character of the area.
4. While she acknowledged the positive improvements in the sustainability statement regarding energy performance and low carbon technology, she argued these benefits did not address the primary issue of the location being unsuitable.
5. She raised concerns regarding transport and accessibility, noting the site had no meaningful public transport, no footpaths, and very limited pedestrian access, making it a solely car-dependent site.
6. Councillor Achwal considered the proposal was contrary to policies CP10 and CP13, both of which seek to reduce the reliance on private vehicles.
7. Regarding highway safety, she noted that Shirrell Heath High Street was a long, straight road where she regularly received complaints about speeding, and that the site access was on the brow of a hill which reduced visibility.
8. She pointed out that nearby junctions leading to the site had seen several major collisions in recent years and urged members to consider the real safety risks of increased traffic and HGV movements, even if Hampshire Highways had not raised an objection.
9. She identified a significant gap in the application regarding HGV movements, stating it was unclear how many lorries would access the site, how often they would operate, or how they would be routed.
10. She questioned the wider public benefit of the development, noting that while it maintained employment on the site, it did not improve infrastructure, reduce car dependency, or deliver community gain.
11. She raised ecology concerns, stating that while the building had negligible potential for roosting bats, the external security lighting for the site’s operation could negatively impact bats and wildlife in the nearby ancient woodlands and Gravel Hill SINC.
12. Councillor Achwal criticised the weaknesses in the suggested conditions, specifically noting that operating hours from 06:00 hours to 23:00 hours were too extensive for a rural setting, with a lack of HGV routing plans or noise monitoring.
13. In conclusion, Councillor Achwal urged the committee that if they were minded to approve the application, that stronger safeguards must be secured, including tighter working hours, noise complaint triggers, HGV management, and safety improvements on Shirrell Heath High Street.
The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.
RESOLVED:
The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the Update Sheet and the verbal update