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 application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

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. Members were advised that the update sheet contained details of minor amendments to some of the conditions as well as confirmation that the request for a larger contribution towards CCTV as part of the Section 106 Agreement had been agreed with the applicant.

 

He advised Members that since the application was deferred in February 2012 a noise report had been requested and that this had been completed by RPS and was attached to the committee report as an appendix. He summarised the findings of the report and advised Members that RPS had found the application to be acceptable subject to the provision of an acoustic fence.

 

Finally the Principal Planning Officer advised Members of the recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework and its impact on the proposed application. He confirmed that the NPPF had made no change to the Unitary Development Plan but stressed the importance of it in determining planning applications.

 

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

 

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

 

·         The previous debate prior to the deferral focused on noise, the number of dwellings, and the loss of employment land.

·         The noise survey vindicated the concerns raised as further measures had now been recommended. The previous recommendation was obviously therefore not acceptable.

·         The application still posed an economic threat to the future of Bromyard.

·         The proposed application was still contrary to UDP policies S1, S2, DR1, DR2, DR13 and LA2.

·         58 events over the short assessment period exceeded 60db.

·         The acoustic fence stood at 6m high, 1.5 times higher than a double decker bus.

·         A structure of this size could not be mitigated into the landscape.

·         How will the fence look in several years time, who will maintain it?

·         The closest dwellings to the industrial units will still need their windows shut at night to avoid sleep disturbance due to noise.

·         A letter had been received from a Senior Planning Officer stating that the employment land at Linton could not be delivered.

·         The inspector’s decision at the time of the land allocation was flawed as he did not know then that the employment land at Linton was undeliverable.

·         If the application is approved there will be no employment land in Bromyard.

·         Members should look to the emerging LDF and Localism Act in making their decision.

 

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

 

·         In 2006-2007 in the draft stages of the UDP the site at Porthouse Farm was still allocated for employment.

·         After the first draft the employment land was switched to Linton and the parcel of land being debated was allocated for housing.

·         This change was made in a period of approximately 6 weeks.

·         It had now been proved that the employment land at Linton could not be delivered, leaving Porthouse Farm as the only suitable employment land in Bromyard.

·         Would the Committee build housing adjacent to the employment land at Rotherwas?

·         The Leader of the Council had previously stated that the viability of businesses would not be jeapordised through the planning and regulatory processes.

·         The acoustic wall would be seen from miles around due to its height.

·         The application was contrary to Policy DR14 of the UDP as light would emanate from both the industrial unit and the rugby club, this would cause a nuisance to residents of the proposed houses.

 

The Committee opened the debate with a Member speaking in objection to the application. He raised a number of points, including:

 

·         The application had been deferred previously due to further information being required in respect of noise on the site.

·         There was a need to encourage businesses to grow and that therefore industrial land was needed in Bromyard, this would be jeopardised by the proposed application.

·         There were limited representations from the public but noted that the elected members and town council were representing the views of the local residents.

·         A letter from a Planning Officer had been received by Members recently which had described the employment land allocation at Linton as undeliverable, he stated that the letter was a concern and had an impact on the application being determined today.

·         The allocation of 127 houses on this site was not in the right place. The required homes for Bromyard could however be delivered through a number of parcels of land throughout the town.

·         The proposed acoustic fence was too visually intrusive at 6 metres high. It was noted that a fence this high could be damaged through high winds and concern was expressed in respect of who would be responsible for its upkeep once the development was completed.

·         The concerns raised by the local ward members in respect of light pollution were echoed. It was considered that the application failed to address the issue as to the impact of the existing external lighting from both the Polytec site and the Bromyard Rugby Club upon the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

·         There would be problems with noise and the mitigation measures proposed were not adequate.

 

In summing up he was of the opinion that the application should be refused as it was contrary to UDP policies DR13 in terms of noise, DR14 in terms of light pollution, and DR2 in terms of the land use allocation. A motion was moved and seconded to reflect this.

 

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised that the site in question was allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan and that the issues raised in respect of the employment land at Linton had no impact on the lawfulness of the allocation in the UDP of the site in question.

 

A member of the Committee noted the difficulties with housing being allocated near to employment land, she added that she had two large industrial facilities in her ward and that there had been a need to set up resident liaison groups due to the disturbances caused.

 

In response to the comments in respect of the allocated site for employment land at Linton the Assistant Director (Economic, Environment & Cultural Services) advised that Committee that a planning application for industrial development at Linton was withdrawn in 2008. At present no further application had been submitted at the site. Discussions were ongoing with a consortium of land owners in Linton in respect of the possibility of alternative land being put forward for industrial use.

 

Another Member addressed the Committee in support of the application. He noted that the RPS report was the third report addressing noise concerns and that all of the noise concerns had now been addressed through the additional noise attenuation scheme. He noted that the acoustic fence would have to be kept in a good state of repair but noted that this was addressed in the proposed conditions. Finally he requested that the landscaping condition be amended to require the planting of mature trees and plants to assist with the immediate screening.

 

In relation to the previous point raised, a Member of the Committee noted that the maintenance of the acoustic fence was addressed under condition 28. It was noted that Councillor Knipe had briefly left the room during the previous statement. The comments in respect of the acoustic fence were repeated in order to ensure that Councillor Knipe had not missed any points in the debate and was still entitled to vote in respect of the item.

 

In response to points raised by the Committee, the Assistant Director advised that:

 

·         At the meeting of 1 February 2012 the Committee had deferred the application for further information, this had now been received and with some amendments to the proposal it was now deemed acceptable in terms of noise.

·         The primary change to the application was the inclusion of a 6m high boundary fence to reduce noise. Whether the height and build of the fence was acceptable was a matter of judgment for the Committee to make.

·         The application site and the site allocated for employment at Linton were two separate sites and were not dependent on each other. This had been confirmed by the Locum Lawyer in her earlier statement.

·         The formal submission in respect of the LDF from Bromyard and Winslow Town Council which had been submitted on 28 November 2011 was welcomed. This submission suggested a change to the land allocation in respect of Porthouse Farm, although it was noted that this submission had not yet been tested and had not been before Cabinet.

·         The Committee were required to make a decision based on existing facts and policy and could therefore not make a decision based on the emerging Local Development Framework.

·         If in due course, the Town Council submission in respect of future land allocation at Porthouse Farm was accepted the land owners would still have the opportunity to object.

 

The Committee noted that the application would result in an allocation of 35% for affordable housing. This was welcomed and clarification was requested that this percentage would remain even if the final number of dwellings was reduced at the reserved matters stage.

 

It was noted that the concerns raised appeared to relate to economic development, noise, and the views of the local representatives. It was felt that the developer should have worked closely with the Town Council and Local Ward Members to bring forward a proposal that was acceptable to all.

 

In response to a number of questions from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         The proposed application was for outline permission with all matters reserved so the attached plans were solely indicative, however these plans indicated that the first row of houses would be 37 metres away from the acoustic fence, with the bund in between.

·         Conditions 27 and 28 of the recommendation were enforceable as they were deemed to be precise and clear and meet the legal requirements in respect of conditions.

·         The future maintenance of the fence was addressed in the conditions. The responsibility for the maintenance of the fence lay with the land owners. Any failure to maintain the fence would result in a breach of condition notice being served by the Council. It was further noted that there was no right of appeal to a breach of condition notice.

·         There was not a condition regarding light pollution. After visiting the site this was not seen as an issue. There was a field between the rugby club and the proposed houses so light emanating from the floodlights should not cause a concern to residents in the proposed dwellings.

·         The 35% figure proposed for affordable housing would remain even if the number of dwellings on the site was reduced as part of the reserved matters application.

·         There was a landscape impact as a result of the acoustic fence, however the fence would not be seen from the highway as the proposed dwellings would be allocated between the road and the fence. There would also be screening offered by the bund and the planting as referred to in the recommended conditions.

·         The condition could be amended to ensure mature planting on the site.

 

In response to the points raised in respect of light pollution, one Member of the Committee noted that the lighting on the industrial unit would be at a higher level than the six metre high acoustic fence and therefore it should be addressed appropriately through an appropriate condition.

 

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

 

• It was noted that night time was deemed as 11pm – 7am but young children would need to be asleep before then.
• The Committee should listen to the local people and the Town Council in light of the Localism Act.
• Housing in Bromyard was not opposed but it could be delivered on more appropriate sites.
• The UDP allocated Porthouse Farm for housing for 87 dwellings, the application requested in excess of 100.
• Bromyard Town was in a state of transition, the proposed application would jeopardise all of the future plans for the town.
• The proposed acoustic fence was an ugly structure and flew in the face of good design.
• Would people really want to live in such close proximity to an industrial site?

 

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) addressed the Committee in respect of the proposed motion, she requested that the Democratic Services Officer remind Members of the three reasons for refusal that had been proposed and seconded at the outset of the debate.

 

The Democratic Services Officer advised Members that the three reasons quoted in the motion to refuse the application were that the application was contrary to UDP policies DR13 in terms of noise, DR14 in terms of light pollution, and DR2 in terms of the land use allocation.

 

The Assistant Director (Economic, Environment & Cultural Services) reminded the Committee that they had to determine the application in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan. He advised that a refusal based on Policy DR13 would be difficult to defend as the technical evidence stated that with the mitigation measures recommended noise on the site was of a satisfactory nature and that noise emanating from the site would meet the appropriate criteria. He added that the issue of light pollution could be addressed through a suitable condition at the reserved matters stage, however he stressed that no issues in respect of light pollution had been raised during the consultation stage. Finally he addressed the issues in respect of Policy DR2, he advised the Committee that the application was for housing and the land allocation was for housing, therefore it would be very difficult to defend a decision based on non compliance of Policy DR2.

 

The Member of the Committee who moved the original motion for refusal based on the three grounds was given the opportunity to reply, he stated that he stood by the three reasons for refusal and did not make any amendments to the motion.

 

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised the Committee that they had been given guidance in respect of the reasons for refusal and it was her duty to advise them that if the application was refused for the reasons stated it would be a difficult decision to successfully defend at Appeal. She added  that although the starting point for costs was that each party bore their own costs, if the Council lost the Appeal and the Inspector was not satisfied that sufficient  evidence was available to support the refusal, and a costs application was made, the Council could be required to pay the applicants costs.

 

RESOLVED:

 

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.         Despite the noise mitigation measures that form part of the application, the occupiers of some of the proposed houses would suffer night-time noise from stillages within the open yard of the Polytec site contrary to policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

2.         T he occupiers of the proposed dwellinghouses would not enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity due to excessive light pollution from existing external lighting sited / installed on both the Polytec site and the Bromyard Rugby Club contrary to policy DR14 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

3.         Given reasons for refusal 1 and 2 above the location of the proposed residential development adjacent to the general industrial use of the Polytec site is considered to represent an incompatible land-use contrary to policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.