Change of use of building 1 from agricultural building to storage; change of use and adaptation of old factory building (building 2) from offices and storage to offices, storage and manufacturing.

 

Provision of a sprinkler system comprising the erection of a water tank and pump room building.

 

Erection of a 26 metre stack together with the provision of ducting and other associated infrastructure, together with the removal of roof mounted fans from production plant (building 3).

The applications were approved in accordance with 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.

 

He advised that there were three separate applications that had been presented to the Committee in one composite report. The first application had been deferred previously by the committee due to further information being required regarding odour and traffic issues. As a result of the deferral the applicant had now agreed to amend the traffic management plan which was subject of an earlier application to require all HGV’s to leave the site in a Northerly direction. In respect of the odour issue related to the production of popcorn, the Principal Planning Officer drew members’ attention to the comments of the odour consultant.

 

He advised Members that the second application was a retrospective application for a water tank and pumphouse for a sprinkler system on the site. He added that the primary concerns in respect of the application appeared to be the visual impact of the water tank, although he was of the opinion that this had been addressed through condition 2 of his recommendation.

 

The third application was for a 26 metre high chimney stack which had been identified as a consequence of an earlier permission requiring the applicant to reduce odour resulting from the production of potato chips. He advised Members that the three year commencement condition should be replaced with a condition requiring the chimney stack to be completed within a specified period.  Upon consultation with the applicant, a period of eight months was considered to be reasonable, and an appropriately worded condition to reflect this was suggested. He also drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update Sheet and noted that there had been two letters received regarding odour from the manufacture of popcorn and not one letter as previously stated.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Ford and Mr Block, two of the neighbouring residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Worrall, representing the applicants, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MJK Cooper, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

 

·         That he supported Tyrell’s as a brand and a company.

·         That Tyrell’s should not expand its existing site any further due to the impact it would have on the neighbouring residents.

·         Any proposal needed to be sustainable.

·         He had no objection to the water tank application subject to it being painted a suitable colour.

·         He could not support the second application as it was an expansion to the current enterprise.

·         He could not support the chimney stack application as there were more sustainable methods of filtration that had not been fully investigated. The stack would also have an unacceptable impact on the landscape.

 

A member of the Committee opened the debate by speaking in support of the three applications. He did however note that it was a difficult balance between the needs of the applicant and the concerns of the local residents. He gave a brief background to the site and acknowledged that Tyrells farm had always been a large agricultural operation and that prior to potato chip manufacture the farm was a large scale potato farm. He had some concern that the amendment to the Travel Plan resulted in all vehicles passing one of the neighbouring resident’s home and requested clarification regarding any time restrictions when heavy goods vehicles could enter or exit the site. In summing up he stated that moving Tyrells was not the answer as the brand was established and marketed as a Herefordshire farm diversification and was a brand that the County could be proud of. If forced to move site they may consider moving outside of the County which would be detrimental to the County as a whole. He added that the applicant had worked with the Council to mitigate the impact of the applications and that the three application should be approved.

 

In response to a series of questions from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed the following:

 

·         That the traffic plan did limit the number of night time HGV movements to and from the site.

·         There may be an engineering solution to the highways issue but that would have to go through a traffic regulation order which was a completely separate consultation process and therefore its outcome could not be guaranteed.

·         The Traffic Management Plan was the subject of an earlier planning permission which had already been approved.   The applicant had volunteered to amend the plan accordingly as a result of discussions with the planning department, however the production of popcorn would result in a minimal addition to vehicle movements to and from the site.

·         Any future applications would have to be determined on their merits, it would however not be correct to try to prohibit any further planning applications through a legal agreement as part of any of the three applications being determined today.

·         Could an informative note be added to the resolution advising of the Committee’s concerns in respect of future development on the site.

Members discussed the report and agreed that they had no real concerns with either application 1, which was for a change of use, or application 2, for the provision of a sprinkler system comprising the erection of a water tank and pump room building, however they did have concerns about the third application which requested a 26 metre chimney stack and other associated infrastructure.

 

One Member of the Committee felt that the chimney stack, at 26 metres high, was too large and would have a detrimental impact on the rural landscape. She stated that it was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies LA2, LA3 and E8 and should therefore be refused.

 

Other Members of the Committee supported all three of the applications, although they noted the concerns of the neighbouring residents they were of the opinion that their concerns did not outweigh the need for the applications to be approved. It was noted that Tyrells were now an established worldwide brand with their products available around the globe.

 

Members continued to discuss the applications and were unified in their opinion that Tyrells should, if feasible, remain on their existing site as it was key to their marketing and success. One Member stated that in his opinion the chimney stack was not the key issue but the disturbance to neighbouring residents was. He was concerned that the eight vehicular movements permitted throughout the night could result in neighbouring residents being disturbed every hour. He requested that the Council negotiate a quiet period where no vehicular movements were permitted to or from the site between the hours of 2400 – 0600. Other Members of the Committee also echoed the concerns in respect of traffic issues throughout the night but requested that the quiet period be extended to 2200 - 0600.

 

The issue of odour was also raised by a Member. He asked for details as to the weather conditions when the survey was undertaken on April 3 2012. he noted that different weather conditions would clearly have an effect on the results of the survey.

 

In response to the issue of a restriction on night time vehicular movements, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised the Committee that Tyrells already had a valid planning permission on the site and that due to the minimal increase in traffic movements associated with the applications the Committee were currently determining it would not be possible to restrict movements further. It would however be appropriate to consider this matter if a further application was submitted which resulted in an expansion of the site and additional vehicular movements.

 

The Committee noted that the applicant was present during the debate and had clearly been made aware of the concerns in respect of the issue of vehicular movements at night.

 

Councillor Cooper was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

 

·         The Committee needed to listen to the real concerns of the neighbouring residents and the Parish Council.

·         Tyrells had already stated that they would try alternative filtration technologies; they should be required to do this prior to the chimney stack being built.

·         Mrs Ford was not the sole objector to the applications; there were clearly a number of neighbouring residents who share her concerns.

 

The Committee voted on all three applications separately. All three were approved in line with the separate resolutions as set out below:

 

RESOLVED

 

In respect of application reference N120896:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

           

2.         Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 8, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2010, the development hereby approved shall be limited to the installation of two kettles to be used for the manufacture of popcorn.

 

Reason: In order that the local planning authority can consider the implications of any further intensification in the production of popcorn and to comply with Policies DR4 and E8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

3.         The Transport Management Plan previously approved under condition 13 of planning permission DMNW/100313/F shall be amended to ensure that HGV traffic leaving the site is directed in a northerly direction along the B4457.  This shall include the provision of an additional directional sign as shown on drawing number 2893/161. The amended Transport Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within 3 months of the date of this permission.  The continued traffic movements in and out of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting local amenities and having regard to highway safety in accordance with policies DR1, DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

Reason for Approval

 

The proposal represents a small element of the overall use of the site and it takes place concurrently with the main business of crisp frying.  It has been demonstrated that there will be limited traffic movements associated with the proposal and it is not considered that its cumulative impact with the existing use of the site would give rise to a demonstrable increase in the risk to highway safety. The proposal accords with Policies DR3 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

It is considered that the manufacture of popcorn does not, in isolation, give rise to nuisance through odour and consequently is not considered to be detrimental to residential amenity.  Production is taking place on a small scale and this can reasonably be limited through the imposition of a condition to limit production to the two kettles that have already been installed.  The proposal accords with Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

The proposal is an addition to an existing, well established site.  It uses existing buildings and is of a small scale in comparison to the use of the site as a whole.  The proposal therefore accords with Policy E8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

In respect of application reference N121877/F:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         C06

 

2.         Within three months of the date of this permission the water tank and associated pump house building shall be painted dark green to match Building 6 and shall be maintained as such in perpetuity.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with Policies LA2 and E8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

Reason for Approval:

 

The installation of a water tank, pump house building and sprinkler system in relation to the existing operation of the site is considered a minor addition to the built form of the site.  Provided that the water tank and its associated pump house building are painted a dark green colour, they will not have a demonstrable detrimental impact on the landscape character or its appearance.  The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies E8 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

In respect of application reference N121981/F:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         C01

 

2.         C06

 

3.         The chimney stack and pump house building hereby approved shall be coloured a matt grey/blue colour, the precise detail of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its installation.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In order to mitigate the visual impact of the development and to comply with Policies E8 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

4.         A detailed site-wide landscape and ecological assessment and management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within six months of the development hereby approved being first brought into use.  The provisions of the management plan shall be implemented in the first planting season preceding its written approval and shall be maintained thereafter.

 

Reason: In order to provide some compensation for the visual impact of the development and to comply with Policies LA6 and NC8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

Reason for Approval:

 

The chimney stack has been proposed in order to address acknowledged concerns about odours emanating from existing fryers.  It has been concluded that a chimney stack is the most practical solution and that there are no other alternatives that will address this problem in the short term.

 

The stack will result in the introduction of an industrial feature that is not characteristic of the rural setting of the wider area.  However, it is considered that these changes are localised, primarily due to the topography of the land, the fact that the site is located in a natural depression, and as a consequence of the groups of trees and hedgerows that either serve to screen the site or provide a backdrop to it from public vantage points.

 

The visual impact of the chimney stack will not be completely mitigated either through screening provided by existing vegetation or through the imposition of a landscaping scheme, but it is considered reasonable to seek some landscape and biodiversity enhancement to compensate for this.

 

On balance, the need to mitigate the odour emanating from the site outweighs the visual impact that the chimney stack will have and therefore the proposal whilst having a localised visual impact contrary to the aims of Policies E8 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan is considered to be acceptable.