Agenda item

Change of use of agricultural land to a haulage depot (sui generis) and the construction of an HGV workshop, associated yards, depot infrastructure and access.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Board as the Officer Recommendation was contrary to the Parish Council’s. The Recommendation was for approval.

Trudoxhill Parish Council had recommended refusal for various reasons including that it is was a rural parish that valued the agricultural community and greenfield setting and was wary of setting a precedent in converting productive agricultural land to other use.

Other consultees, such as the Highways, Drainage and Environmental Protection Officer’s, had no objections, subject to various conditions. There had been 27 letters of objection and 20 of support. Objections included:

• Development should not take place on "Green Belt" land.
• Loss of agricultural land for food production and countryside preservation.
• Noise and disturbance, vibration, poor air and light pollution to the detriment of residential amenity.
• Fumes and noise from the vehicles will have a negative impact on the environment and on the health of neighbouring residents.

Comments from the letters in support included:

• Would provide a long-term base for a well-established local transport business which is very important to the long-term future of this family grown business.
• Important investment and growth to support the local quarry and construction industry and wider economy.
• Will secure local jobs and enable the business to expand and create further employment opportunities.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that the proposal was considered to be provided in a manner and a scale that was appropriately sensitive to the location and surroundings, especially given the specific locational needs of haulage business related to the local quarries, its benefits to the rural economy and the lack of a suitable alternative sites in the district. All technical matters had been adequately addressed, including highways, environmental protection and drainage, and there were no objections from statutory consultees. The residential amenity concerns had been mitigated by the provision of an acoustic fence, landscaping, the site layout and conditions that had been shaped by the noise impact assessment and Council’s Environmental Protection team. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation.

The Committee was then addressed by 4 objectors to the application. Their comments included:

• ‘Green Belt’ land should not be built on for this purpose. There are other brownfield sites located away from residential areas which would be more suitable.
• The development would devalue the properties of local, hardworking families by 10 to 20%. They should not be penalised so that an industrial unit can be built next to their residential properties.
• This size of development should have had a consultation process.
• The impact from noise, fumes, lorry washes, car parking and external lighting would be massive for the local residents.
• The 24-hour operation will affect the mental and physical health and well-being of the local residents.
• Policy CP1 is clear that development in the open countryside should be strictly controlled.
• The acoustic barrier will be obtrusive and will not help much as the prevailing winds are from the Southwest.
• If approved, it will set a precedence for other industrial units to be built on agricultural land.

The Committee was then addressed by 2 speakers in support of the application. Their comments included:

• The business needs space to expand and it has developed an excellent apprenticeship scheme.
• The site is well screened from the roadside and is almost entirely hidden.
• Vehicle movements will be limited to morning when the lorries leave, and they will have returned before peak time. It will not be a 24-hour operation.
• The applicants have a strong reputation for safety and it is a green rated operator by the DBSA.
• It is a family business which is looking to expand the apprenticeship workforce, employing local people.
• Concerns from residents are understood and the design and layout has been carefully considered to minimise any disruption.

On behalf of Trudoxhill Parish Council, a speaker then made the following points:

• The application had been refused twice before.
• It is agricultural farming land and should stay that way.
• The local families will be severely impacted.
• There are other industrial units nearby which would be more suitable.
• The land is outside the Parish plan and the Parish Council are concerned that, if granted, it would set a precedence and this area of Frome would become industrialised.
• It would cause light pollution on the edge of the Cranmore Chase AONB.

The final speaker was the applicant’s agent who made the following comments:

• It is a family business currently employing 12 people and there is a desire to expand. The current rented site was not suitable for expansion.
• There has been a long search for alternative sites. The planning officer has assessed the application as sound and acceptable.
• Residents’ concerns have been taken into account and the proposed workshop would be 15 metres from the nearest residence.
• There is already substantial activity in the vicinity and the impact of noise and lighting will be controlled by conditions.

During the discussion which followed, Members made a number of points, including the following:

• Had a viability assessment been carried out on other sites in the area, such as Commerce Park? The Planning Officer confirmed that no viability assessments had been carried out but added that Commerce Park was not a possibility as the business was ‘land heavy’ and not clean.
• The existing site was a difficult place to try to run a haulage company from. The proposed site was close to the main road and would not necessitate lorries to have to travel through any villages.
• The site is greenfield land, not Green Belt.
• The acoustic screen is a fence of 3m high rather than a bund. There was concern that winds from the Southwest would cause noise and dust disturbance to the residential amenity nearby.
• Concern about drainage to Marston Pond which was already silting up.
• Concern about loss of agricultural land and effect on bats and wildlife.
• Had the previous Highways Officer’s concerns been overcome? The Highways Officer advised all concerns and been checked and the applicants had supplied a transport and access statement which had addressed all issues.

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Kay and seconded by Councillor Martin Dimery that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

• Insufficient information on traffic movement and safety thereof
• Inappropriate manner, scale and location
• Biodiversity loss
• Loss of amenity to local residents.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost with 5 votes for and 7 against.

The Team Leader – Development Management reminded Members that many of the concerns raised were addressed by the tight conditions that would be applied if the application was approved and that in the Officers’ opinion, the harms identified were not outweighed by the economic benefits.

At the conclusion of the debate Councillor Barry Clarke proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation set out in the Report. This was seconded by Councillor Philip Ham. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve was carried by 7 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/2387/FUL be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation.