For:      Mr J A Baxter, Tyrells Distillers Ltd., Tyrells Court, Stretford Bridge, Leominster, Herefordshire, HR6 9DQ

 

Ward: Bromyard

The Principle Planning Officer said that the application was deferred for a site visit at the last meeting to enable Members to make an assessment of the proposal and, in particular, its impact on highway safety and the surrounding road network.  He said that the applicants had submitted a further detailed statement prepared by a Planning Consultant which compared traffic movements on a monthly basis with the ADAS use of the site.  He provided the Sub-Committee with the following updates which had been received:-

 

Objections

 

A detailed letter has been received from Felton and Preston Wynne Association.  They comment that there has been limited public consultation and that the determination of the application is a ‘done deal’.

 

They comment that the fact and figures provided by the applicant are inaccurate and misleading and that they have informed the Planning Department of this fact.

 

In this respect they advise that contact was made with ADAS who confirmed that the number of employees at the site is normally a maximum of 19 on any one day.

 

They also comment that hardly any HGV traffic is generated by ADAS and that there are one or two open days per year.

 

The number of people to be employed by the proposal is also questioned, noting that there is no mention of staff working in the bio fuel plant or running the farm.  Mention is also made of the creation of a visitor centre and the traffic it would generate.

 

The letter then goes on to discuss the intent of the applicant to develop the site further in the future.

 

It then goes on to refer to the bio diesel plant and the fact that the comments in the agenda refer only to the distillery.

 

Finally the letter questions the reasoning for the proposed new access when there is no history of accidents along Rosemaund Drive.

 

A letter has also been received from Mr Westoby, Hollywell House, Church Lane Hampton Bishop.  He also queries the accuracy of the numbers of employees currently employed by ADAS.  He also comments that local landowners will not be willing to give up their land for the improvement of passing places as recommended by the Transportation Manager.

 

Support

 

Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce have written in support of the application noting that the business has strong sustainable principles at its core.  It comments that the company is a leader in its field and that the proposal will contribute to the rural economy. 

 

It does not consider that the objections relating to traffic movements are substantiated and notes that the applicant is agreeable to the conditions regarding highway improvements that have been recommended.

 

Correspondence has been received from Mr John Hodge, a current ADAS employee at the Rosemaund site he comments that whilst ADAS were farming on the site there was a consistent flow of traffic onto the site regarding the movement of sheep and cattle and also some deer, as well as deliveries of farm inputs.  There were up to 400 finishing cattle on site at any one time with all cattle moved on and off site as there were no breeding stock on site.  ADAS also had up to 700 breeding ewes on up to 4 or 5 off site areas, which were regularly transported to and from the Rosemaund site to offsite grazing and were finishing around 1200 lambs per annum.  In addition to this ADAS had a breeding herd of 100 hinds, with 100 deer finished annually.  All internal stock movements were carried out using Landrovers and stock trailers, with all cattle sales and some sheep sales being carried out using lorries.  My estimate is that we were carrying out somewhere in the region of 350 vehicle stock movements a year when we had these numbers of stock, along with the daily checking of stock on off site fields.  We were also caring in somewhere in the region of 200 - 300 loads of grass silage and maize a year using tractors and trailers and around 60 loads of straw over the summer period.

 

Finally, the applicant has provided additional information about the amount of potato crop required by the distillation process and the amount capable of being grown on the land at Rosemaund.  This is as follows:

 

Rosemaund has over 400 acres. We have to rotate crops and cannot grow year after year of potato, and so would plant every 4 years ie approx 100 acres of potatoes per year. At a yield of 15 tonnes per acre (which would vary year on year) this would give 1500 tonnes per year. As you know, our distillery is a small scale, artisan plant, employing up to 5 people so even when we reach our capacity I would only require roughly half that amount (16 tonnes per week to produce 3600 bottles of potato vodka, or 800 tonnes potatoes per year).

 

The view of the officers was that there was a discrepancy between the information  about employee numbers provided by ADAS in the report and supplied to the objectors.  The discrepancies had arisen from quoting historic and current employee numbers.  ADAS involvement in the site was decreasing and this may have accounted for the variation.  Nevertheless, the objectors figures of 19 employees would mean that the proposal would account for a 20% increase on the current situation.  The case officer remained of the opinion that even at this level there was no justification to refuse the application.  The objectors had commented about fact that figures did not include the bio fuel plant or the running of the farm but the case officer understood the bio fuel plant was included.  Reference to the running of the farm was misleading because the lawful use of the land was agricultural and could continue without planning permission.  It was also likely that the figures for the existing use of the site did not reflect this.  The comments from Mr Hodge provided an insight into this.  There was also the fact that Information from the applicant about cropping levels and the amount of potatoes required for the distillation process demonstrated that the proposal was capable of being served by the land without the importation of further crops.  If this proposal was to be sited on an industrial estate, as suggested by many of the objectors, potatoes would then have to be moved by road on a regular basis.  The implication of this would likely be more traffic movements by tractors hauling trailers than would arise from the application.  Finally, the suggestion that the improvement of passing places would require third party landowners to give up their land was incorrect.  Such improvements would have to take place within the limit of the public highway.

 

Councillor A Seldon one of the Local Ward Members thanked the applicants and locals for providing all of the additional information but expressed concerns about a complex industrial process within the heart of rural Herefordshire which was surrounded by a network of narrow rural roads.  Serious reservations had been raised by the objectors about the ability of the road network to cope with large commercial vehicles and generally about highway safety along the C1118 and its junctions with the A417 and A465.  He shared these concerns and was of the view that the application should therefore be refused.  Councillor B Hunt, the other Local Ward Member supported this approach.

 

The Sub-Committee discussed the various aspects of the application including the cases put forward in support and against it.  The Principle Planning Officer did not consider that there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application given the comparisons which could be made with an agricultural use and the favourable views of the transportation Manager. He suggested however that condition No. 9 attached to the approval could be altered slightly to require the applicants to undertake an appropriate highway survey and to implement any necessary improvements which were identified, prior to commencing operations.  The Sub-Committee was agreeable to this approach.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to development commencing only after a full survey of the C1118 has been completed to identify the preferred location for improvement to passing places, the survey shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Officers and the use hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details; and subject to the following conditions:-

 

1 –   A01 (Time limit for commencement )

 

         Reason:  Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country

           Planning Act 1990

 

2 -     A09 (Amended plans)

 

         Reason:  To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans

 

3 -     DO3 (Site observation – archaeology)

 

         Reason:  To allow the potential archaeological interest of the site to be investigated and recorded.

 

4 -     G04 (Landscaping scheme (general))

       

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

5 -     G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general))

 

         Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area

 

6 -     H03 (Visibility splays)

 

         Reason:  In the interests of highway safety

 

7 -     H05 (Access gates

 

         Reason:  In the interests of highway safety

 

8 -     H06 (Vehicular access construction)

 

         Reason:  In the interests of highway safety

 

9 -     H17 (Junction improvement/off site works)

 

         Reason:  To ensure the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway

 

Informatives

 

1 –    N03 - Adjoining property rights

 

2 –   HN01 - Mud on highway

 

3 –   HN05 - Works within the highway

 

4 –   HN10 - No drainage to the discharge onto highway

 

5 –   HN22 - Works adjoining highway

 

6 –   N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

 

7 -   N19 – Avoidance of doubt