Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application.

(Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.)

(Councillor Bolderson left the meeting during consideration of this item and did not vote on it.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

He added that a further communication from Ledbury Town Council had been received since the publication of the committee update and read that to the meeting.  This is included with the updates appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr P Kinnaird, a local resident, spoke in objection as did Mr S Humphrey of Oruna Ingredients UK Ltd.  Mr S Stanion spoke on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson homes in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor I’anson, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        A disruptive level of noise was unacceptable.

·        There was an onus on the factory to do what it could to ensure noise was not unacceptable for existing properties behind it.

·        She had not been approached by residents about noise at the development site.

·        The overwhelming wish of residents was that the current eyesore was resolved together with road issues that were presenting an accident risk with no speed restrictions in place as required by a Traffic Regulation Order with effect from 1 May 2019.

An adjoining member, Councillor Harvey, also spoke on the application.  She made the following principal comments:

·        The site contravened Core Strategy policy LD1.  Ledbury had a made Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) so there is no presumption in favour of development.  All requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF were met. Ledbury could more than fulfil its target for housing delivery under the Core Strategy, were the application to be refused.

·        There remained an opportunity to bring forward an acceptable development but this required more work.

·        She was concerned that there were many instances in the report where statutory and internal consultees stated that their previous concerns had not been addressed, that because of the state of the documentation they could not see clearly what was being proposed or that without their earlier concerns being answered they were unable to make further comment.

·        Regarding Policy H3 – ensuring an appropriate range and mix of housing, the Ledbury local housing market assessment (HMA) underpinning the core strategy stated that Ledbury required 2 & 3 bed housing, but the application remained skewed towards the delivery of 4 & 5 bedroom homes which no-one locally would be able to afford, making it likely occupants would be commuters or retirees from outside the county – replicating the demographic issue facing the county as a whole.

·        In the detailed consent quashed in the High Court, there was provision for bungalows on site for local families with special accommodation needs and for supported living units for vulnerable adults. It was asked if these remained part of the housing mix.

·        The Strategic Housing Manager (SHM) stated in the report that the affordable housing mix complied with policy.   However, Councillor Harvey remarked that the location of this housing seemed to make it a shield to protect the privately owned householders from cheese factory and bypass noise.

·        She added that some previous comments of the SHM appeared to have be unanswered including what he saw as a contradiction between amended plans and the Design and Access Statement.  He had also previously commented that the open market mix was not in line with the HMA with an over-supply of four plus beds. He had stated this was contrary to policy and had objected to the application.

·        She questioned how Policy SS6 – environmental quality and local distinctiveness and Policy SS7 - addressing climate change were evidenced in the application?

·        In relation to Policy LD1 - landscape and townscape the landscape officer had commented that itwould be helpful to have an overall landscape plan submitted which then linked to the individual detailed drawings to aid understanding of the complex site.

·        Officers were clearly struggling to make sense of the application.  Members and members of the public faced an impossible task.

·        Regarding Policy LD4 – Historic environment and heritage assets the report said that ‘less than significant harm’ was done to the setting of Hazel Farm – a Grade 2 listed building immediately adjacent to the site and the large soil bund and fencing proposed to the Dymock road to mitigate some elements of the noise emissions from the cheese factory. She questioned this.

·        She noted that the Building Conservation Officer stated that  “The 3m bund and fence would be an alien feature in close proximity to the listed and curtilage listed buildings at Hazel Farm.” … “the bund would cause less than substantial harm” … “This harm should be weighed up against any public benefits of the scheme”  She referenced paragraph 196 of the NPPF requiring less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.  She questioned what these public benefits were.

·        The Building Conservation Officer had reiterated the requirement for local distinctiveness.

·        The Ecologist had commented that the Mitigation and Enhancement Plan omitted detail in relation to the off-site great crested newt population and lighting.

·        She questioned whether the development satisfied the requirements of the relevant NDP policies outlined at paragraph 6.11 of the report

·        The diagram at paragraph 6.36 of the report showed the loss/lack of amenity numerous homeowners would experience as a consequence of industrial and road noise, being unable to open their windows without suffering substantial noise nuisance – day and night. She questioned whether this was acceptable.

·        Housing built to the north of the bypass shown on the same diagram had a proper green buffer and wildlife corridor.

·        The owners of the Cheese Factory had submitted a substantial and strong objection reiterated in the schedule of updates.

·        The noise reports online detailed the frequency spectrum of the noise emitted from this business – containing both low and high frequency components. Sound at different frequencies behaved very differently and required very different measures to mitigate it.

·        The report made clear that although some aspects of the persistent ‘hum’ component of the noise generated had been mitigated at source on the factory roof – the overall noise being emitted from the factory had not changed. So 5.5m high soil bunds with 3m fences on top were now proposed. She asked if this would ‘catch’ the high frequency sound, or just interfere with the low frequency noise still coming from the site.

·        The road noise was all but impossible to mitigate – a 3m fence and double/triple glazing was suggested, but actually what was needed was distance.

·        She highlighted the Environmental Health comments on external amenity at page 79 of the agenda papers and questioned what she considered to be their implication that people living in mostly social and affordable housing adjacent to the bypass would need to seek refuge in areas of public open space in order to find some relief from the noise.

·        She highlighted the detailed comments of the EHO on internal noise levels (paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 80 of the agenda papers) and the section on factory noise from the Omua Cheese factory also on page 80 of the agenda papers.

·        She questioned whether the Committee could make a sound decision – given these and other officer comments and, without plans and reports being brought together in one place to clearly articulate what was being proposed.

·        There had been many objections from the public about the development with a view that it would be unsatisfactory and not give a good outcome for Ledbury.

·        She suggested that the best course would be to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to continue to work with this applicant – and with the community to address all the outstanding issues.  If officers advised that this was not an option she would advance policies that gave grounds for refusal.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application a Member expressed reservations about the location of the affordable housing and the housing mix and sought clarification on a number of matters.

It was suggested that there were clearly several issues to be resolved including noise mitigation, the development’s layout, housing style and building materials.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and Councillor Kenyon seconded a motion that consideration of the application be deferred.

The Lead Development Manager expressed the view that a number of the points that had been raised were covered within the report and questioned some of the assertions that had been made to the meeting about the application.

The motion that the application be deferred was carried with 9 votes in favour, 3 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred for further information.

(The meeting adjourned between 12.32pm and 12.44pm)