Change of use of Building 1 from agricultural building to storage; change of use and adaptation of old factory building (Building 2) from offices and storage to offices, storage & manufacturing.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Ford, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Worrall, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MJK Cooper, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The local community supported Tyrell’s as a brand and a company but they had clearly outgrown their current site.

·         The proposed development would have an impact on neighbouring residents due to traffic, odour, noise and light pollution.

·         There had been in improvement in respect of the smell of popcorn in the vicinity recently.

·         Tyrell’s should look into moving their operation to either the enterprise zone in Hereford or the Enterprise Park in Leominster.

The Committee discussed the application with some members of the opinion that the operation had clearly outgrown its existing site. It was suggested that Tyrell’s should therefore seriously consider moving either part of or all of their production to an industrial environment, the Enterprise Park in Leominster was referred to as a suitable location by one Member.

The Committee made significant reference to the transport issues on the site with some members of the opinion that the transport plan should be amended to only allow vehicles to exit the site in one direction. The Development Manager advised the Committee that the Transport Management Plan had been approved via a condition as part of an earlier application and could not be amended through the current application.

The issue of odour was discussed but members were advised that existing odour issues on the site could not be addressed as part of the application in front of them and that they needed to therefore determine the application on its merits.

Councillor Cooper was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

·         There was a clear odour of popcorn in the vicinity of the site.

·         The Council should support local enterprises but Tyrell’s had become a full scale production site.

·         There would be further applications on the site in the future.

·         Tyrell’s should be encouraged and supported in moving their enterprise to a purpose build facility.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation was lost. The Committee debated the possibility of refusing the application due to it being contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies T8 and DR4 but were advised that neither reason would be defendable at a planning appeal. The Committee therefore deferred the item for further information.

RESOLVED

That the determination of the application be deferred for further information.