Proposed extension and expansion of existing B1 facility comprising:

1) change of use of grain store to new production facility

2) extension to provide additional office space and research and development facilities

3) additional car parking provision

4) production waters treatment plant

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed extension and expansion of existing B1 facility comprising of: 1) change of use of grain store to new production facility, 2) extension to provide additional office space and research and development facilities, 3) additional car parking provision, and 4) production waters treatment plant.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, C Rusby, of Upton Bishop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Rusby, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Lambe, the applicant, and Mrs V Simpson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant’s company was ethical, well-run, contributed to economic prosperity and he supported its expansion.  He agreed with the comments of the cabinet member – economy and communications supporting the application as set out in the schedule of updates.

·        The local community wanted the company to prosper.  However, there was concern about the volume and weight of traffic the proposal would generate and the highway impact on the U70004.  He highlighted the provisions of policy MT1 (1). He referred to differences of opinion over road usage statistics between the applicant and objectors.  The C1286 servicing the site was marked unsuitable for HGVs.

·        Paragraph 6.24 of the report referred to the requirement that the applicant produce a travel plan and the requirement that passing bays be created.  A draft travel plan had been produced but had not been progressed since October 2018 and no detail had been agreed on proposed passing places. Although there was good communication between the applicant and the community, the production of this document and consultation on it with the local community would quite possibly have led to an acceptable outcome. 

·        There was a concern as to whether passing places would be in keeping with the area which was in the open countryside.

·        It had to be born in mind that the U70004 was also used by large farm vehicles.

·        Objectors supported the business but wanted measures to control traffic levels.  A travel plan was therefore required to ensure mitigation was provided.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Reference was made to the provisions of policy RA6 that development should not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of design and mass, noise, dust, lighting and smell; and should not generate traffic movements that cannot safely be accommodated within the local road network.

Potential traffic and noise nuisance were identified as the key issues.  Several members commented on the importance of a travel plan being in place.  It was proposed that officers should be authorised to grant permission subject to an acceptable travel plan and assurance that noise levels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109