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 Assistant Director Economic, Environment & Cultural Services addressed the Committee prior to the case officer’s presentation. He drew their attention to four matters, namely the Planning Inspectors decision regarding the previous application; issues regarding costs; the relationship between the UDP and the LDF and localism/neighbourhood planning and the decision making process.

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application covering a number of issues, including:

 

·         There were 7 trees on the site which would be protected through tree preservation orders.

·         The application was for outline permission with only the access to be determined at this stage.

·         The shortfalls of the previous unilateral understanding were explained and members were advised that this had now been replaced with a Section 106 agreement which was enforceable,

Updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. The Principal Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the response from the Independent Noise Consultant who had found six reasons why he considered the noise report commissioned by the Town Council to be unsound.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Page, representing Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Wilson, the applicant’s agent, 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’s sound engineer had responded to the comments in the Members’ update sheet with the following points;

•               PPG24 had been used as it was the main document referred to in the report. The NPPF which had replaced PPG24 did not contain guidance for the control of noise. The NPPF guidance also stated that applications should be approved or denied following consultation with local inhabitants, had this been done?

•               The Colin Waters report was not referenced in the AVT report, however the Colin Waters report was also based on PPG24

•               The substitute background survey location was agreed with Mr Thorne of Acoustic Associates, a consultant employed by the applicant.

•               The noise control measures would not reduce the intermittent noise from the fork lift trucks and therefore the +5dB penalty should still be applied.

•               BS4142 should not be used when both the background and rating noise levels are both very low. In this case only the background noise level was considered as very low so BS4142 was still appropriate.

•               PPG24 and BS4142 both considered external noise levels. BS8233 was used to assess internal noise and was not used to assess the impact on amenity and therefore was not used.

·         The 2007 Inspector’s report stated that it would be an economic disaster if future complaints led to a move from Polytec Holden.

·         The application could be refused if material planning considerations outweighed the benefits of the application. Noise was a significant and material planning consideration.

·         The minutes from the UDP working group shows that officers were concerned about noise levels.

·         In February 2012 permission was sought for the application with just a 4 metre bund to reduce noise, a committee deferral led to a 6 metre high acoustic fence being added.

·         The acoustic fence had a surface of 8000 m² and would therefore clearly have a visual impact.

·         There were other suitable sites for housing in Bromyard.

·         The Town Council had compiled a list of 20 companies who were interested in developing the site for employment use but had not been able to do so.

·         The Inspector had approved 87 dwellings on the site. If development is approved on the site it should be limited to 87 dwellings.

·         The 2005 noise report detailed a dispute in respect of noise criteria between the Environmental Health department and the noise consultant.

·         The employment land at Linton had now been withdrawn and had resulted in no employment land at all being allocated in Bromyard.

·         The density of the site was too high at 44 dwellings per hectare.

·         The affordable housings would be located nearest to the source of noise and would act as an additional noise buffer. The Strategic Housing Officer also shared this concern.

 

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

 

·         The application was controversial with the land originally being designated for employment.

·         The Inspector made a decision based on two assumptions, that there was alternative employment land and that the issues regarding the neighbouring land use could be overcome.

·         The noise attenuation measures suggested in February 2012 were insufficient and resulted in the application being deferred for further measures to come forward.

·         When the application was bought back to the Committee it was accompanied by a unilateral undertaking which had been proved inadequate by the Inspector.

·         The Planning Committee had highlighted weaknesses in the case at both previous meetings.

·         The lack of a five year housing supply as required by the National Planning Policy Framework did not mean that every application had to be granted.

·         The employment land at Linton had not been deemed undeliverable and no new employment land was forthcoming.

·         The application site was changed from employment land on the grounds that the noise issues could be mitigated.

·         Polytec Holden were currently in the process of expanding their operation.

·         Dwellings on the site would need double glazing and alternative ventilation as windows could not be left open due to the noise. Residents would not be able to enjoy their gardens.

·         Affordable dwellings would be nearest the source of noise and act as a buffer.

·         The Inspector considered that the scale of the acoustic fence was not excessive.

·         At 6 metres high the fence would have to be of substantial structure to avoid wind damage.

·         The cost of maintaining the acoustic fence would also be substantial.

·         The Inspector had stated that the decision to purchase dwellings on the site would be left up to the purchaser. This may not be the case for affordable homes.

·         Some concern was expressed regarding the enforcement of the proposed Section 106 agreement.

The debate was opened with a member of the committee speaking in objection to the application. He voiced a number of concerns relating to the following issues:

 

·         The Town Council had taken advice from Mr Humphries QC who had advised that BS4142 was the correct methodology when the predominant noise was industrial. A fact that had been agreed by the Principal Planning Officer in his letter dated 9 July 2010.

·         The Planning Inspector who had considered the Unitary Development Plan had permitted residential development for 87 dwellings on the site.

·         Development on the site could endanger the future of Polytec Holden, Bromyard’s largest employer, employing over 320 people.

·         There was no alternative employment land in Bromyard as the Linton site had now been proved to be undeliverable and the Panniers Lane site had recently been withdrawn. Bromyard should not be deprived of this vital employment land.

·         The Unitary Development Plan required an 8/20 80/20 [Amended at Planning Committee Meeting of 17 July 2013] ratio for housing and employment land, therefore Bromyard would require nearly 1 hectare of employment land if the proposed site was developed for housing. This was a material planning consideration as confirmed by Mr Humphries QC.

·         The application was premature as the future development plan was due to come before full Council in the next month.

·         The site size was stated as 3.7 hectares in the Unitary Development Plan, however the proposed site was now 3.9 hectares with the additional 0.2 hectares being adjoining employment land which had been incorporated into the site, this was contrary to policy E5 of the UDP.

·         The Inspector had concluded that 87 dwellings with a 0.8 hectare buffer zone would be acceptable; however the proposed buffer zone had now been reduced to 0.5 hectares. This resulted in a density of 37 dwellings per hectare which was considered to be too high.

·         The report was unclear regarding the long term maintenance of the 6m acoustic fence and the SUDS ponds.

·         The indicative plan showed 23 of the 44 affordable houses to be nearest the source of noise. It was considered that the affordable houses were being built as a noise buffer.

The Member then moved that the application be refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

·         Noise: with particular reference given to Unitary Development Plan Policies DR2 and DR13; National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 123; and Core Strategy Objective 8.

·         Lack of employment land: with particular reference given to UDP policy 6.3.5; NPPF paragraphs 7, 9, 17, 21, 37 and 158; and Core Strategy Objective 6.

·         Prematurity: Granting permission on the site may predetermine Core Strategy decisions about the scale and location of employment land in Bromyard.

·         The application site: It was not clear whether the application site was valid given that it incorporated 0.2ha of adjacent “safeguarded employment land”, contrary to policy E5 which only allowed the use of such land for another purpose “where the site or premises concerned can be shown to be unsuitable for other employment uses”. It was further noted that the 0.8ha buffer zone recommended by the UDP Inspector had been reduced by almost 40%. This was likely to have a significant detrimental effect on residential amenity, contrary to UDP policies DR2 and DR13.

·         Density: The UDP Inspector had envisaged 87 dwellings on 2.9 hectares at a density of 30dph however the application requested 127 dwellings on 3.4 hectares at a density of 37 dph. This was considered to be overdevelopment of the site.

·         Maintenance of open space, SUDS ponds and acoustic fence: The long term maintenance was not clear and was therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 176. Furthermore it was not considered appropriate for the Council to take responsibility for the open space and the children’s play area at a cost to the County’s residents.

·         Affordable housing: The proposal appears to place 23 of the 44 affordable houses nearest to the source of noise therefore forming a secondary noise barrier to the remainder of the development.

The motion was seconded by another member who spoke in objection to the application. He concurred with the previous speaker but also voiced concerns in respect of visual impact as a result of the erection of a six metre acoustic fence between the application site and the neighbouring Polytec Holden site.

 

Members continued to discuss the application and had concerns regarding the lack of employment land in Bromyard following the withdrawal of the Panniers Lane site form the LDF. Concern was also expressed regarding noise from the Polytec Holden site with Members being concerned for the future of the business if the dwellings were erected on the neighbouring site.

 

One Member voiced his concerns regarding the possible refusal of the application site which had been allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan. He noted that the Council had already been ordered to pay costs of £27000 following the refusal of the previous application on the site and warned that the costs could be significantly higher if the current application was refused.

 

Another Member of the Committee questioned why the application site had been designated for housing in the UDP and considered that this may have been a bad decision at the time. He echoed the concerns regarding possible costs if the application was refused but considered that this was not a good basis to determine the application.

 

In response to questions raised during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer advised that although the proposed fence was 6 metres high, the bund immediately in front of it was 4 metres resulting in just 2 metres of visible fence. He advised that the owners of the Polytec Holden site had not objected to the application and that the current application for the expansion of the Polytec Holden site was purely an expansion on its existing site.

 

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

 

·         It would be a social and economic disaster if Polytec Holden withdrew from Bromyard as a result of the proposed development.

·         The proposed residential development was clearly in the wrong place

Before the vote the Head of Neighbourhood Planning addressed the Committee. He noted that the previous application had been refused on three grounds, namely: noise; impact of the lighting from Bromyard Rugby Club; and inappropriate land use. He noted that a number of different reasons had been put forward by the Committee in this instance. He also voiced concern that an application on an allocated housing site in the UDP could be refused, however he advised that he would not request a Further Information Report if the Committee were minded to determine the application.

 

RESOLVED:

 

THAT the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

Noise: The application was contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies DR2 and DR13, paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Objective 8 of the Draft Herefordshire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031.

 

Lack of employment land: The application was contrary to UDP policy 6.3.5; NPPF paragraphs 7, 9, 17, 21, 37 and 158; and Objective 6 of the Draft Herefordshire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031.

           

Prematurity: Granting permission on the site may predetermine Core Strategy decisions about the scale and location of employment land in Bromyard.

 

The application site: It was not clear whether the application site was valid given that it incorporated 0.2ha of adjacent “safeguarded employment land”, contrary to policy E5 which only allowed the use of such land for another purpose “where the site or premises concerned can be shown to be unsuitable for other employment uses”. It was further noted that the 0.8ha buffer zone recommended by the UDP Inspector had been reduced by almost 40%. This was likely to have a significant detrimental effect on residential amenity, contrary to UDP policies DR2 and DR13.

 

Density: The UDP Inspector had envisaged 87 dwellings on 2.9 hectares at a density of 30dph however the application requested 127 dwellings on 3.4 hectares at a density of 37 dph. This was considered to be overdevelopment of the site and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding locality contrary to policies S1, S2, DR1, H13 and H15 Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Maintenance of open space, SUDS ponds and acoustic fence: The long term maintenance was not clear and was therefore contrary to Polices S1, S2, DR2, DR4, and DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan as well as NPPF paragraph 176. Furthermore it was not considered appropriate for the Council to take responsibility for the open space and the children’s play area at a cost to the County’s residents.

 

Affordable housing: The proposal appears to place 23 of the 44 affordable houses nearest to the source of noise therefore forming a secondary noise barrier to the remainder of the development. This would be contrary to Policies DR1 and H13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and constitute poor design in relation to the National Panning Policy Framework contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policy H13.