Outline application (access for consideration) for mixed use development of residential and business units.

The Consultant Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. 

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and had assessed the impact of a proposal on the surrounding area.  He drew Members’ attention to further  objections received from Minsterley Parish Council.

The Principal Planner referred to the Conditions and drew Members’ attention to the following amendments:

Condition No. 1 – The words “access arrangements” to be deleted; and

Condition No. 4 – The word “business” to be added before premises. 

Mr D Jones, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor S Lockwood, representing Minsterley Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Nick Hignett, local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Although objecting in the main to this application, there were some issues that had arisen from a previous submission that appear to have been addressed, at least on paper.  In particular, the risk that this proposal represents to flooding in this area had been considered and the suggestion that the risk of flooding to properties in nearby Linden Fields might be reduced was welcomed.  Although this would only be proven if and when the site was completed;

·         His main concern, which had not been addressed with this current application, was the possible impact that this development may have on the adjacent factory.  Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that any new development should not result in existing businesses and facilities having unreasonable restrictions placed upon them as a result of development permitted after they had become established.  Müllerwho took over the factory in 2013 was now by far the largest employer in the area.  Noise generated from the factory will be detrimental to the residents of the proposed new homes and he was concerned that this would impact on Müller’s ability to operate the site both now and in the future.  New machinery had been installed during the past few years and the factory operated 24/7.  Some of the loading bays are immediately adjacent to the perimeter fence - articulated vehicles reverse up to this loading area and this along with forklift trucks is not always a quiet procedure.  He noted that a noise assessment would only be requested at the Reserved Matters stage; however, a noise assessment at this stage may well have indicated that measures such as acoustic fencing would not be adequate;

·         The indicative layout was not suitable.  As a Brown Field site, this area, adjacent to a major factory complex should be used for light industry purposes;

·         The proposed access road was located at the wrong end of the site being at the edge of a curve in the highway.  For safety reasons it should be relocated at the top end of the site;

·         He requested that the application be refused in its current form.  However, if Members were minded to approve this application, he requested that conditions be attached to ensure safe access and egress onto the A488 and inclusion of a footpath along the roadside length to ensure pedestrian safety in this area of the village.

Mr S Drummond, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to a question from a Member, he explained that the social housing would be provided by Connexus with a mixed tenure of rent and shared ownership.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members acknowledged the need for affordable housing but expressed concerns regarding the proposed illustrative layout of the site given the close proximity of the housing shown to the Müller factory.  Members also noted in the illustrative layout that vehicles accessing to the proposed business units area would have to drive through the proposed housing area.   Concerns were also expressed regarding the proposed access onto the A488.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred to a future meeting to enable the applicants to submit further information on the potential impact of noise and traffic movements associated with the adjacent industrial/commercial premises on the health and wellbeing of the proposed dwellings, given that the illustrative site layout shows a desire to locate dwellings and their gardens immediately adjacent to the boundary with those premises, unlike the illustrative land allocations shown in application 18/03583/OUT and considered by the Planning Appeal Inspector, and to clarify the highway safety design considerations for the proposed access and its location. Further information is also sought on the rationale for the proportions of housing and commercial development shown on the illustrative layout.