An outline application for the erection of up to 127 dwellings (35% to be affordable) with all matters except access to be reserved for future consideration.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a further information report in accordance with paragraph 5.13.10.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

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. He advised the committee that the principle of development on the site had been established in the UDP and had been reaffirmed in 2010 when the policy was saved. He added that the objection in respect of the allocation of the site for housing had been heard by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State at a Public Inquiry who had concluded that the land was suitable as a residential allocation.

In summing up he confirmed that the inspector had stated that there was no technical evidence to indicate that the allocation for residential use was inappropriate. He added that the application before the Committee was for outline permission and that therefore the only issues for consideration were the technical issues and the vehicular access.

Members were advised of amendments to three of the conditions contained within the Officer’s recommendation of approval for the application. It was also noted that following further consultation four additional trees had been added to the negotiated scheme.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davis, representing Bromyard & Winslow Town Council, and Mr McGladdery, speaking on behalf of some of the local businesses who had objected to the application, both spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hewitt, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor A Seldon, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The Town Council had debated the pros and cons of the application at length over a considerable amount of time.

·         The UDP could be amended by a resolution at Full Council.

·         The land had been designated for industrial usage prior to 2007.

·         The allocated industrial land at Linton was not, or was unlikely to be, deliverable.

·         The application failed to address three key points in respect of density, the increase in traffic along Tenbury Road, and noise.

Councillor JG Lester, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had proved beneficial and the attendees were thanked.

·         The application would have a detrimental effect on industry in Bromyard.

·         The application highlighted the issues resulting in siting two incompatible land uses in close proximity.

·         The applicant had worked closely with Polytec Holden, which was noted and welcomed.

·         The Inspector’s report stated that the site could accommodate 87 dwellings yet the application was for up to 127 dwellings.

·         The applicant was unable to predict further noise that could result of new machinery or operations at the nearby industrial estate.

·         The application was contrary to Policy H2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

·         Businesses on the industrial estate could be afraid to expand their operations due to neighbour concerns in respect of noise.

·         The proposed bund would not address the noise concerns adequately.

·         The original objections in respect of the application being contrary to UDP Policies DR2, DR13, H13 and PPG 24 still remains.

·         The Transport Manager’s comments in paragraph 5.23 of the report were disputed.

·         The application would result in the allocated land being detached from the rest of the town and would be contrary to policy DR1 of the UDP.

The debate was opened with a member questioning the suitability of the proposed access and questioning whether it had been subject to any objections as the report stated at paragraph 6.2 that no objections had been raised in respect of the access. The Member continued to address his concerns in respect of the application with particular reference being made to the lack of industrial land in Bromyard should the application be approved. He noted that there didn’t appear to be a strong policy case to refuse the application but felt that he would not be able to support it.

One Member of the Committee stated that he would be happy to move the recommendation subject to the resolution of three issues. He requested clarification in respect of the density of the proposed development; the speed limit on Tenbury Road; and further details in respect of the noise of the outdoor activities taking place on the nearby industrial estate.

The issue of density was addressed with the Principal Planning Officer explaining that the site had been found to be larger than initially thought at the deposit stage of forming the UDP Policy. He stated that detailed analysis had proved that a larger number of dwellings could be accommodated and that 127 dwellings on the site would result in a density of 32.63 dwellings per hectare. The Committee were reminded that the actual number of dwellings would be determined at the reserved matters stage.

In response to an issue raised by the previous speakers the Principal Planning Officer advised that it would be beneficial to include a condition requiring the access to be completed prior to the development being commenced; that the speed limit on the road would be reduced in the future; and that the public space concerns were addressed in condition 14 of the recommendation.

The Member still had concerns in respect of noise and felt that this could be addressed through an increase to the height of the proposed bund. In response to this point the Principal Planning Officer advised that the analysis from the Councils’ Environmental Health team had indicated that the bund was sufficient and that there would not be a requirement to increase its height. The Member therefore felt that he could not support the application in its current format.

In response to the issue raised in respect of industrial land allocation at Linton, the Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services confirmed that the Council were actively seeking alternative employment land at Linton.

The Committee continued to debate the application and noted that the current application was solely for outline permission and that the detail could be determined at a later date. They noted that affordable housing was required throughout the County and that the proposed development would help to regenerate Bromyard.

In response to a question regarding the local ward members’ input in the draft heads of terms, the Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services confirmed that the local ward members would be involved in the discussion regarding allocation of the Section 106 funds.

Further discussion took place in respect of the neighbouring businesses, it was noted that Polytec Holden had been consulted with but members requested clarification in respect of the number of other businesses in the vicinity and whether they had also been subject to the consultation.  It was noted that there were a number of different industrial uses on the nearby industrial estate and that some of them had objected to the application.

Further concern was expressed in respect of the noise concerns. Members noted that there were instances of ‘metal on metal’ noise during the site visit and that these noise disturbances would be difficult to control. It was also noted that the noise levels from the industrial estate could increase subject to a new business type moving into one of the existing units, it was felt that this future issue could not be addressed through the noise controls recommended.

In response to the noise issue, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the noise consultants had considered all of the units on the industrial estate and not just Polytec Holden. He also advised the Committee that the proposed conditions in respect of noise would also improve the noise issues for existing dwellings in the vicinity.

In response to a question regarding the policy issues in respect of the application, the Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services advised that the Committee should give significant weight to the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and that even more weight should be given as the issue in question regarding the allocation of the land had been tested through a Public Inquiry. He reminded the Committee that they should determine the application on its merits and should steer away from debating the UDP, the forthcoming LDF or the employment options in Bromyard.

Councillors A Seldon and JG Lester were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         There was a lack of empty industrial units in Bromyard

·         Specialised companies tend to build custom units as and when required.

·         The proposal of housing in Bromyard was supported but there were other, more suitable, sites.

·         The Inspector’s comments were in respect of 87 dwellings and not the 127 proposed within the application.

·         The ambient noise levels in the area were very low.

·         If forklift truck reversing indicators had to be silenced in the evenings it was evident that the bund would not work.

·         Concerned in respect of the long term prospects for Bromyard.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the Principal Planning Officer’s recommendation and subject to the additional conditions and amended conditions referred to in the Members’ Update Sheet and during the debate was lost.

The Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services and the Locum Lawyer - Planning and Regulatory discussed the legal implications in respect of the application being refused contrary to the Principal Planning Officer’s recommendation in accordance with paragraph 5.13.10 of the Council’s constitution. They were both of the opinion that a refusal would be difficult to successfully defend and felt that the Committee would benefit from further technical information in respect of noise issues and the viability and benefits of increasing the bund height. The Committee were therefore requested to defer the determination of the application pending a further information report.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred in accordance with paragraph 5.13.10 of the Council’s constitution pending a Further Information Report in respect of noise concerns and the viability and benefits of increasing the bund height.