Proposed development of two buildings (4 units) for small business B1 and B8 use - light industrial.

Proposed development of two buildings (4 units) for small business B1 and B8 use - light industrial.

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, made the following comments:

·         The value of the site inspection that had been undertaken was noted.

·         There were difficulties associated with industrial uses close to residential properties.

·         Councillor Andrews felt that Building 1 (in the northwest corner of the site) was acceptable but Building 2 (in the southeast corner of the site) was not, due to the detrimental impact of the development on the privacy and residential amenity of adjoining properties.  Therefore, she proposed a split decision on this basis, to approve Building 1 but refuse Building 2.

·         Although Building 1 was considered acceptable, she asked for additional conditions to ensure that any hedges damaged during construction were replaced and for suitable treatments at the site to prevent gulls and other birds from using the buildings as roosting sites.

Councillor AM Toon, also a Local Ward Member, supported Councillor Andrews and felt that Building 2 would exacerbate the noise disturbance experienced by occupiers of adjacent properties and the proximity of the building would have a significant impact on residential amenity.

Councillor PJ Edwards acknowledged the concerns of the Local Ward Members, especially the proximity of Building 2 to the boundary with adjoining properties, but was concerned that a split decision might not be sustainable on appeal.  He suggested that additional conditions might make the development more acceptable to the immediate neighbours and noted that there were a number of ways to prevent birds from roosting on the buildings.

Councillor DB Wilcox drew attention to the comments of the Environmental Health & Trading Standards Manager and noted the need for the recommended conditions to be adhered to.  However, he also felt it imperative that noise limits were established in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents.  He questioned whether a split decision could be reached and suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant, specifically to ascertain whether they would be prepared to amend the application to omit Building 2.

The Development Control Manager responded to a number of issues raised by members as follows:

§             The site lay within a designated area safeguarded for B1, B2 and B8 employment purposes with the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

§             The proposed uses were considered compatible with residential areas; B1 related to offices or light industry appropriate to a residential area and B8 related to storage or distribution.

§             The main source of noise from such development tended to be from the parking and circulation area.  As the building was close to the boundary and doorways had been relocated, the building itself would act as a buffer to noise generated from this area.

§             He considered that the approval of one unit and the refusal of the other could be difficult to sustain on appeal.

§             The conditions could be reviewed to ensure that the noise attenuation measures and bird proofing were sufficient.

Councillor Andrews outlined the impact of the trading estate on local residents and their concerns about this development, particularly in respect of the height of the buildings and potential for noise disturbance.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that, subject to additional emphasis on noise mitigation measures built into the rear framework of both buildings, the application was acceptable.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented that the scale of the development surprised him initially but, given the established use of the land for employment purposes and the proposed conditions, he also supported the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Wilcox noted that industrial and residential uses in close proximity did not sit happily with each other but the impact could be mitigated through conditions.  The Legal Practice Manager briefly outlined the differences between public and private nuisances.  Councillor Wilcox noted the statutory nuisance provisions.

Councillor Toon maintained that the scale of the buildings would have a detrimental impact on adjoining residential properties.  Given the difficulties of controlling noise nuisance once businesses were established, she noted the need for robust conditions on any planning permission granted; reference was made to the example of Gelpack.

Councillor AT Oliver felt that the site was cramped and the development should be refused as it would have a detrimental impact on health and safety considerations.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

§             The building ridge height would be 5.47 metres and the eaves height would be 4 metres.

§             There was sufficient room for vehicles to pass each other.

§             It might be difficult to establish relevant background noise levels given the levels of noise generated by Sun Valley and by Gelpack.

RESOLVED:

That 

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve Building 1 (northwest corner of the site), subject to the conditions detailed in the report and additional conditions in respect of boundary treatments, noise attenuation measures and bird proofing (and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services);

(ii)         The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse Building 2 (southeast corner of the site) subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

§               The building in the southeast corner of the site would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties due to its siting and scale and therefore is contrary to policies DR1 and E8 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(iii)    If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve Building 1 and refuse Building 2, subject to such conditions and reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.]