Mixed use development comprising residential (115 units), employment (office, industrial and warehousing), retail and supporting infrastructure including new access off College Road, roads, footpaths, open spaces, landscaping, parking and re-opening of part of canal.

Mixed use development comprising residential (115 units), employment (office, industrial and warehousing), retail and supporting infrastructure including new access off College Road, roads, footpaths, open spaces, landscaping, parking and re-opening of part of canal.

The following update was reported:

§             The recommendation was amended to authorise officers, upon completion of the planning obligation, to issue planning permission subject to conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the key factors of the application and advised that officers, on balance, recommended approval of the application.

The Head of Planning and Transportation noted that a lot of time had been spent by officers on the application and made the following points:

·             It was reported that officers stood by the recommendation of approval but it was acknowledged that the issues were finely balanced, between the technical conflict with policy E5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 (UDP) and the benefits of the scheme.

·             The site was a safeguarded employment site and the Sub-Committee had to determine whether the loss of employment land to non-employment uses was acceptable given the other potential gains, such as the benefits in restoring the adjoining section of the canal.

·             It was noted that the application had been deferred a number of times and officers did not feel that there were any further facts that could be established about the proposal.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, commented that it was abundantly clear that the application was contrary to policy E5 and the site contributed to meeting demand for employment land in Hereford north of the River Wye.  In response to questions from Councillor Vaughan, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·             It was not known whether representatives of Advantage West Midlands (AWM) had visited the site.  He added that AWM would have considered the strategic level issues, informed by the regional economic and spatial strategies; and

·             Whilst no factual evidence had been provided, the applicant had shown correspondence to officers to demonstrate that insurers had concerns about the ability to insure the site given the condition and security of the existing buildings.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, asked for clarification about the economic development issues.  In response, the Economic Regeneration Manager reported that:

·             The authority maintained a property register and this indicated the availability of c. 56,000 sq ft of office accommodation and c. 170,000 sq ft of industrial premises in Hereford north of the river.  However, this did not take into account rental costs or the quality of the units.

·             The applicant had suggested that c. 24,000 sq ft of space would be required for the relocation of businesses from the trading estate but Economic Regeneration estimated the figure to be nearer c. 38,000 sq ft; the discrepancy due to the applicant not including external space requirements in the calculation, such as car parking, turning areas etc.  Nevertheless, it was apparent that there was sufficient space elsewhere, if only in quantitative terms.  However, it was also apparent that it would be difficult for some specific businesses to relocate, e.g. car sales.

Councillor Wilcox felt that there were three major features of the application: the need to ensure that there was adequate employment land to ensure that businesses were relocated and to ensure that there were opportunities for economic growth in the future; the need to determine whether a suitable balance could be achieved between the commercial/industrial interests and the residential elements of the scheme; and whether the benefits of the application outweighed the disadvantages.  He made a number of related points, including:

§             Councillor Wilcox said that he had met the Chief Executive of Edgar Street Grid Herefordshire Limited (ESG) and it was indicated that ESG would be prepared to withdraw their objection to the application subject to the Section 106 Agreement providing ESG the first right of refusal for the remaining c. 4,000 sq m of employment units, to enable the relocation of businesses displaced by the Edgar Street regeneration, and subject to fixed rental levels for five years for those businesses.  It was noted that this would be at variance with the proposal to fix rental levels for three years for existing Holmer Trading Estate businesses but it was hoped that this could be addressed through further negotiations.

§             It was noted that mixed commercial/industrial and residential uses could be incongruous but Councillor Wilcox considered that this scheme was acceptable on balance given the layout and the mitigation measures proposed.

§             The principal benefits of the scheme were noted, including the restoration of the canal (particularly as the canal basin formed an integral part of the ESG proposals), the affordable housing provision in a sustainable location, the improvements to the local highway network, and the financial contributions to enhance general community infrastructure.

§             Councillor Wilcox commented that the trading estate was run down and semi-derelict but noted that, although a number of tenants had been offered heads of terms for new units, a number of existing businesses maintained strong concerns about the proposal.  He felt it imperative that the authority, in conjunction with the Local Ward Members, sustained efforts to address the employment issues identified.

§             Councillor Wilcox noted that the proposal was balanced finely but felt that the application could be supported given the opportunities that it provided to redevelop the trading estate into a modern facility and improve local infrastructure.

Councillor Vaughan felt that a statement made in the report by the Economic Regeneration Manager was an important consideration, namely that 'the site is currently a viable business location for those businesses on the estate, and contributes to meeting the demand in the north of the city for lower quality employment units'.  He noted that the scheme would displace existing successful businesses and the future was uncertain for many of them, particularly as they did not consider that there were any suitable alternative sites in the locality that suited their specific requirements.

Councillor PJ Edwards said that, to stimulate economic regeneration of the city, Hereford needed areas for start up businesses and hoped that this would be factored into future planning policies.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that any planning permission granted, through conditions or the related legal agreement, would require the phasing of the development to ensure that the majority of the employment floorspace was developed out in the earlier phases; he added that contributions would also be phased.

Councillor SJ Robertson noted the need to improve the estate but commented on the importance of employment land to local families and felt that the impact of the proposal on the local highway network, combined with other approved developments, had been underestimated as roads in the area were already at capacity.

Referring to examples in the Three Elms Ward such as Bulmers and Sun Valley, Councillor PA Andrews commented on the problems associated with industrial and commercial uses being located in close proximity to residential properties.  She also commented on the conflicting policy issues and the difficulty of relocating existing businesses.

Councillor GFM Dawe noted that the protection of employment land through policy E5 and the continued existence of local businesses were significant considerations.

In response to questions from Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Economic Regeneration Manager confirmed that the alternative sites referred to included the Three Mills Trading Estate and that, whilst there would be a reduction in the amount of land allocated to employment uses, floorspace would be 'like for like' through more efficient use of the remaining space.  Councillor Blackshaw felt that the scheme provided an important opportunity to modernise the estate and clean up the adjoining canal.

Councillor H Davies commented on the requirements of policy E5 and did not feel that the identified benefits outweighed the fundamental policy considerations.  She also expressed concerns about the mixed-use approach of the scheme and the potential for problems arising from incompatible uses.

Councillor WJ Walling drew attention to the officer's comment in the report that 'A number of the existing buildings on site whilst remaining structurally sound, are in relatively poor condition and are coming to the end of their useful commercial life' and felt that this was a significant point.

A motion to approve the application failed.  A motion to refuse the application, for the reason given in the resolution below, was then agreed. 

In response to comments by members, the Head of Planning and Transportation advised that a refusal reason based on highway grounds would be impractical given the professional view of the Traffic Manager and the identified benefits of the scheme.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

The proposed development will result in the loss of safeguarded employment land to non employment uses and there are no substantial benefits to residential or other amenity in allowing the alternative forms of development nor is the site considered to be unsuitable for employment uses.  As such, the development is contrary to Policy E5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Head of Planning and Transportation advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Planning Committee given the reasons put forward by members.]