AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 14 Date 10.07.13

Area East Committee – 10 July 2013

Officer Report on Planning Application: 13/01142/FUL

Proposal: Erection of offices, concrete batching plant, storage of aggregates and formation of a new road. Parking for staff and associated vehicles (GR 361494/131432)

Site Address: Land At Camp Road Dimmer Lane Dimmer

Parish: Castle Cary

CARY Ward (SSDC Member)

Cllr N Weeks Cllr H Hobhouse

Recommending Case Officer:

Nicholas Head Tel: (01935) 462167 Email: nick.head@southsomerset.gov.uk

Target date: 4th July 2013

Applicant: Mr Andrew Hopkins

Agent:

Mr Gary Adlem Greencroft Church Lane, Sturminster Newton DT10 1DH

Application Type: Major Other f/space 1,000 sq.m or 1 ha+

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The report is referred to the Committee at the request of a Ward Member in order to give full consideration to representations made particularly in relation to traffic and highway issues. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 15 Date 10.07.13

The site is located 1.5m to the south west of Castle Cary, and forms part of an industrial estate immediately north of the Dimmer Recycling Centre. Within the industrial area, and immediately to the west of the site under consideration is the former incinerator building, now used for various engineering purposes; to the south of the site are various industrial businesses. The site is currently undeveloped and bordered by hedges to the east and the north. Permission is sought for the erection of a concrete batching plant, together with ancillary offices, storage space and the formation of an access road and parking area. HISTORY The greater site has a long and complex planning history, having initially used as a military camp. Relevant to this application: On the adjacent land immediately to the south of the site: 99/01314/COL - The use of land for the siting of a "caravan" (as statutorily defined) as permanent living accommodation (certificate of lawfulness) - permitted, July 1999. On the adjacent land immediately to the west of the site: 97/00178/CPO - The erection of a single storey industrial unit for animal cremation with associated yard area. 02/01774/CPO - Modification to existing plant by addition of heat shield at animal incinerator – permitted. 03/02402/CPO - Extension and rearrangement of animal incinerator together with ancillary works. 90/00323/FUL - Use of land for industrial purposes within use classes B3 to B7 -

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 16 Date 10.07.13

permitted with conditions, and subject to a S106 Agreement securing highway works. Condition 4 states: "To safeguard the overall distribution of employment the site hereby approved shall only be used to accommodate bad neighbour industry, i.e. those uses that fall within the Special Industries Classes B3 - B7 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. 07/03955/COL - The use of land for industrial purposes in alleged breach of conditions of decision notice 90/00323/FUL dated 08.07.90 - refused Appeal lodged, and then withdrawn on advice of Counsel, who advised appeal could not be defended. 08/03008/COL - The use of land for industrial purposes in alleged breach of conditions of decision notice 90/00323/FUL dated 08.07.90 - approved August 2008. The Certificate of Lawfulness stated: The existing use of the land for which a certificate is sought as described in the application form (as amended by letter dated 15th August 2008), namely, "B2 General Industrial Use" is permitted by planning permission number 90/00323/FUL dated 8th July 1998, which said permission has been implemented and remains valid, subject to the conditions and limitations of such permission. POLICY Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of determining current applications the local planning authority considers that the relevant development plan comprises the saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review and the saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan. The policies of most relevance to the proposal are: Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006): ST3 - Development Areas ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EC3 - Landscape Character EP2 - Pollution and Noise EP3 - Light Pollution EP9 - Control of Other Potentially Polluting Uses Policy-related Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012): 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 17 Date 10.07.13

Goal 1 - Safe and Inclusive Goal 2 - Healthy and Active Goal 3 - Healthy Environments Goal 5 - High Performance Local Economy Goal 7 - Distinctiveness Goal 8 - Quality Development Goal 10 - Energy Goal 11 - Environment CONSULTATIONS Castle Cary Town Council: The Council opposes the application, making the following observations: - the development appears to have increased in size since the previous

(withdrawn) application, with associated increase in vehicle movements, and the likely damage to people, property and infrastructure;

- the validity of the submitted transport statement is questioned in relation to numbers of trips and the time the survey was undertaken(poor weather, reducing traffic flows);

- the noise survey indicates how ineffective a proposed noise barrier would be; - the neighbour living in the industrial area will be directly affected by low frequency

noise; the noise barrier would create problems by trapping smoke from his stove; - the removal of a bund will have an impact on this resident and on the residents of

Alford; - concerns were expressed in relation to road safety, inadequacy of the

surrounding roads to take the extra traffic (even after any upgrades to road surfaces etc), air pollution due to cement dust and the shortage of information relating to the increased capacity of the plant.

Highways Authority: In terms of planning policy I understand that the Dimmer Camp site is covered by a blanket B2 planning approval dating back to 1990 and that this application relates to part of that original approval. The planning officer will also no doubt be aware that a previous application was submitted recently for a similar use (e.g. 12/03158/FUL) but this was withdrawn by the applicant before it was considered by the Area East Planning Committee. Although before the application was formally withdrawn the Highway Authority expressed a number of concerns in an email dated 15th October 2012 about the associated traffic impact of the development being proposed at that point in time. Following on from this, a meeting took place at the SSDC offices in Yeovil when the various issues were discussed and this led to the production of a revised Transport Statement which was submitted to the Highway Authority for consideration at the end of December 2012. This revised Transport Statement was examined in detail by the appropriate team within the Highway Authority and deemed to be generally acceptable as it dealt with the issues raised earlier in the year. Having regard to the current application, a copy of the revised Transport Statement (TS) accompanied the package of information submitted to the LPA and for completeness the TS, along with the Town Councils comments dated 10th May 2013 and the recently produced 'Care4Cary' report were the subject of a formal audit by my colleagues in the Strategic Planning Team based in County Hall. The outcome of the audit whilst noting the concerns expressed by local residents, found that the current traffic flows along the B3153 (approx 300 vehicles per hour - two way) are well below the level at which the Highway Authority would normally consider to require intervention and consequently

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 18 Date 10.07.13

there are not considered to be traffic impact grounds for a recommendation of refusal to be made to the LPA, although a suggestion was made that the LPA may wish to consider the provision of a freight management plan to alleviate some of the concerns expressed locally (and a suggested planning condition is given below). As such and in light of the above, I would not raise an objection to the application subject to conditions. SSDC Area Engineer: In agreement with surface water being collected and recycled for batching plant use. SSDC Landscape Officer: I note the above application seeking the construction of a concrete batching plant. I am aware that the land has an employment use. The proposal lays alongside existing employment structures, and is contained within a single field. This close correspondence with existing built form provides a suitable context for further employment development, hence there is no landscape issue with the principle or scale of development proposed here. However, there will be an increased built profile evident within the site, and this increased visual profile should be countered by an appropriate planting scheme. Such a scheme should provide visual containment by creating new woody boundaries to the north and east of the site, whilst the existing hedgerow to the south should be supplemented by additional tree and shrub planting. I also note an intent to cut the proposal a little into the rising ground, which I believe is the correct approach here. If you are minded to approve this application, could you please condition a detailed landscape proposal, for submission and approval pre-commencement. SSDC Environmental Protection Unit: Noise The proposed development is 120 meters from an existing residential property [caravan] which is itself adjacent to existing industrial units. The applicants’ noise assessment has used the BS4142 British Standard to assess the likely noise impact from the batching operation on the dwelling. It has concluded that, with the proposed noise attenuation barrier in place, the noise impact from the development will not be significant. I concur with this assessment. However the resident of the dwelling in question has raised concerns with me regarding this barrier, which is 4 meters high and only 3 meters from the façade of the dwelling. I have acknowledged the residents' concerns, particularly with the issue of smoke dispersion from the dwelling and share them. I therefore recommend that should the application be approved that the acoustic barrier not be installed, subject to the inclusion of the conditions I propose below. The further comments below relate to the likely noise impact on this single residential dwelling closest to the application site. I note that concerns have been raised about possible noise impacts further afield. I do not share these concerns. The batching operation should be inaudible to barely audible at the next nearest residential property. In the report the applicant has proposed that the actual batching operation takes place within an enclosed area. The report provides an estimate of the noise that could be expected at the residential dwelling. This assumes that the plant wall performs as expected and reduces the noise from the batching activity by 16 dBA. In which case the noise from the actual batching operation would at the residential dwelling would be approximately 51 dBA. In an operation of this nature other noise sources will be present, for example the movement of HGV onsite, loading and tipping of aggregates, conveyors and mixers. However the batching operation is likely to be the most significant noise source. Without the 4 metre noise barrier being in place, these noise sources are likely to have

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 19 Date 10.07.13

an impact on the residential amenity of the dwelling in question. The World Health Organisation recommends an acceptable external noise level of 55dBA Leq(16hr). Based on the information provided this level will be achieved. Therefore, given this noise level, the nature of the site and that this dwelling is already adjacent to existing industrial units, I do not believe it would be appropriate to recommend refusal. Should the application be approved I recommend that the following conditions be applied.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a sound insulation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and completed to its reasonable satisfaction. The approved scheme following its installation shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained.

Noise from the operations carried out in any building or otherwise on any part of the subject land shall not exceed 55 dB(A) Leq (12 hr) as measured 1 meter from the façade of the nearest residential property.

Dust All cement batching operations are subject to separate regulation under the Environment Permitting Regulations 2010. This department is responsible for regulating a number of cement batching installations in South Somerset. It is our experience that well managed installations do not cause significant dust problems offsite. SSDC Ecologist: (in response to previous, withdrawn application: same report submitted): I'm satisfied with the extent of surveys undertaken and reported in 'Ecological assessment and survey report' (Fieldwork, 22 Aug 2012) and am in general agreement with the report's conclusions. In summary, the site is in current or recent agricultural use and a field survey by a professional ecologist has confirmed that there isn't any significant nature conservation issues associated with the site itself, provided the existing native boundary hedge is retained. There are 'Local Wildlife Sites', including the Carymoor Environmental Centre, in the vicinity but these are of sufficient distance from the site to make it unlikely that they will suffer any significant impacts. I have no recommendations to make. Environment Agency: No objection, subject to condition and informatives. REPRESENTATIONS 63 letters have been received. Many are lengthy, and raised very detailed issues around the major points set out below. They have all been given detailed consideration, and referred on to the relevant consultees for further advice where appropriate. The objections raised can be summarised as follows: - Noise impact: the site requires acoustic barriers to shield residents from the

impact of noise, and the removal of these is queried; this relates to the caravan on the immediately adjacent site, as well as to residential properties in the area;

- Dust Impact: dust will harm amenity of local residents; and also impact negatively on the activities of the Carymoor Environmental Trust and other nature conservation sites operating on the landfill site and in the area;

- Visual/Landscape Impact: The development will harm the character and appearance of the locality, landscape and setting;

- Highways Issues: There will be a negative and harmful impact on the local highway network, in particular the B3153; additional vehicles will lead to highway safety harm;

- The hours of operation raise concerns; - Possible light pollution raises concerns;

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 20 Date 10.07.13

- Property values will be negatively affected; - Justification: Other sites should be considered: the proposal should be justified

in this locality; benefits to the local area should be demonstrated; - Concrete Production: The proposal encourages the use of concrete which is

harmful to the environment; - Local Engagement: The applicant has not engaged with the local community; - Water–borne Pollution: Runoff from the site will harm local watercourses; - Tourism: The development would have a negative impact on tourism. Lydford on Fosse Parish Council: Objects to the proposal on the basis of the impact of HGVs along the B3153, which is already heavily trafficked. In response to the revised plans, removing the acoustic screen, the PC commented that a condition regarding a sound insulation scheme for the dwelling should be applied and it should be installed and completed prior to the development commencing. Also recommended a condition requiring a maximum noise level not exceeding 55dB(A)Leq (12hr). CONSIDERATIONS Principle of Development As set out in the certificate of lawfulness issued in August 2008, the site has a lawful implemented use of Class B2 of the Use Classes Order (General industrial - Use for industrial process other than one falling within class B1). The proposed concrete batching plant falls within the B2 Use Class (Use Classes B3 - B7 were subsumed into this use class in 2005), and the principle of development is therefore accepted. Visual and Landscape Impact The visual and landscape impact has been assessed by the Council's Landscape Architect (see above). The erection of an industrial installation of this character and appearance is not considered incongruous, given its locality well away from residential development and within a large industrial area. Its accommodation within the greater landscape can be achieved without an unacceptable impact on the landscape character and appearance, and is considered to accord with the requirements of the NPPF and saved Policies ST3 and EC3 of the Local Plan. Impact on Residential Amenity (a) Acoustic Issues Discussions with County planning officers indicates that there is no requirement for the retention of the acoustic measures previously required, as this use has ceased. The Council's EDP Officer has assessed the proposal in detail, involving testing and consideration of submitted acoustic assessments. He is of the view that no special acoustic measures are required in respect of the impact on residential properties in the wider area. As regards the caravan on the adjacent site, the proposal for an acoustic barrier has now been rejected on the basis of other harm that might be caused. Bearing in mind that this is a site with a B2 use class, it is not unreasonable to accept that the sound levels discussed by the EPU Officer (55 dB(A) Leq (12 hr)) should be used the maximum, and included in a condition. (b) Dust The issue of dust has been raised. Given the distance of the nearest residential dwellings, it is not considered that dust dispersal from the plant would cause an amenity

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 21 Date 10.07.13

problem that would warrant refusal of the application (as advised by the EPU officer). (c) Other Amenity Issues There are no dwellinghouses (other than the caravan within the industrial area) within 500m of the site. It is not considered that any overlooking, overbearing or other amenity harm can be identified that would indicate a refusal of the application. (d) Caravan The mobile home on the site adjacent to the application site (i.e. within the industrial area) has an established lawful use, granted in 1999. The Council's EPU Officer has visited the site on numerous occasions, and taken into account the detailed concerns raised by the occupant. As set out above, it is not considered that there is any amenity reason for refusal of the application, on consideration of the residential amenity of the caravan occupant. Impact on Ecology A detailed ecological assessment of the site has been submitted. Whilst the development of the concrete batching plant will inevitably impact on space available for certain species, it is not considered that harm would result to habitats or to protected or notable species. Additional planting will boost biodiversity. It is not considered that there is any ecological reason to refuse the application. Impact on the Highway Network and Highway Safety The numerous concerns of local residents and other bodies have been drawn to the attention of the Highways Authority. As noted by the Highways Officer, these concerns have been considered in detail, and the submitted information has been subjected to a technical audit. The considered view of the Highways Authority is that the existing road network is capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the development, and that there is no highway safety or other reason for recommending refusal of the application. Hours of Operation The applicant has proposed the following hours of operation: Weekdays: 7 am to 6 pm Saturdays: 8 am to 1 pm. No operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays. These hours have been considered by the EPU Officer and are considered reasonable, not extending late into the evening. A condition is proposed to enforce them. Light Pollution The impact of lighting at night needs to be considered, and it is proposed that a condition be included requiring the approval of any external lighting. Concerns of Town Council These have largely been addressed above, but the issues were raised with various consultees, whose consultation responses are as reflected in this report. The comments on the change in scale of the proposal are noted (i.e. from the previous application to the

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 22 Date 10.07.13

current one). However, only portion of this large B2 site is proposed to be used, and the extent of the development is not considered unreasonable. Concerns of Lydford on Fosse PC Application of a sound insulation scheme to property not in the applicant's ownership is not practicable, and such a condition would not be reasonable. However, the EUP Officer has requested a condition (included below) relating to maximum sound levels. Concerns of Residents The numerous letters of objection have been considered in detail, and where necessary, referred to the primary consultees (highways, EPU, landscape, etc) for further advice. The substantive objections fall into the clear categories set out above, and are covered in the assessment of the proposal in the body of the report. Issues not expressly dealt with include: Impact on Property Value: Assumed future impact on value is not a planning consideration that would warrant refusal of the application. Consideration of Other Sites: The site is a designated B2 site appropriate for a concrete batching plant; there is no onus on the applicant to demonstrate a need to develop in this locality, or give sequential consideration to other sites. Concrete: The batching of concrete is a lawful activity, within the use class allocated to this site; it is not considered there is any reason to refuse the application based on objections to the production and use of concrete. Engagement with Local Community: Whilst such engagement is to be encouraged, in this instance there is no change of use proposed, and the lack of such engagement is not considered a reason for refusing the application. Demonstration of Local Benefits: The site is designated for this use; there is no reason to justify the activity on the basis of local benefit; however, the development will provide some level of employment locally. Water-borne Pollution: The Environment Agency is satisfied that the development can be accommodated without harm, subject to conditions. Tourism: The site is a designated industrial site which has to be factored into any consideration of the tourist potential of the area - no change of use is proposed. Conclusion The proposed development seeks to use an existing B2 industrial site for a land use that falls within that use class. The principle of the land use being therefore acceptable, the application has been assessed on the basis of the likely impacts, as set out above. It is not considered that any demonstrable harm has been identified that would warrant refusal of the development proposed. Notwithstanding the objections received, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. S.106 AGREEMENT Not relevant. RECOMMENDATION Grant permission. 01. Notwithstanding the objections raised, the site, being designated for land uses

within the B2 Use Class, represents an appropriate location for the establishment

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 23 Date 10.07.13

of a concrete batching plant. The proposal, by reason of its scale, design and siting adequately respects the character and appearance of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to highway safety, residential and general amenity. No demonstrable harm has been identified in respect of pollution (whether noise, light or environmental pollution), or the natural and ecological environment that would warrant refusal of the application. In these respects, the proposal is considered to represent sustainable development, and accords with the aims of the NPPF and saved Policies ST3, ST5, ST6, EP2, EP3 and EP9 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990. 02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: the drawings ref. 12.02B, 12.03, 12.04A, 12.05, 12.06, 12.07A.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 03. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any changes proposed in existing ground levels. All planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The scheme of landscaping shall include additional planting along the northern and north-western boundaries as indicated on the submitted site plan ref. 12.02B. Once approved, the scheme shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the setting and to accord

with the NPPF and Policies ST3 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006. 04. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a

scheme to dispose of foul and surface water and concrete waste water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved, and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: To protect the local land and water environment, and to accord with the

NPPF. 05. The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan (Gary Adlem

drawing number 12.02B) shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 24 Date 10.07.13

other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy ST5 of the

South Somerset Local Plan, 2006. 06. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a

freight management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy ST5 of the

South Somerset Local Plan, 2006. 07. No external lighting shall be installed or erected on the site unless as part of a

scheme, details of which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of lighting should seek to minimise external lighting and avoid spotlights particularly any visible from the public highway. Once approved, such lighting shall only be erected and used in accordance with such scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character of the area and in the interests of preventing

light pollution in accordance with Policies ST6 and EP3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

08. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless details of the

external surface materials to be used for all buildings, structures and fences/walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, such details shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and to accord

with the NPPF and saved Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

09. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless details of the

means of construction and surface materials for the internal access roads and parking/turning/loading areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details, once approved, shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: In the interests of environmental amenity and to safeguard the character

and appearance of the area in accordance with the aims of the NPPF and Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

10. The hours of operation of the development hereby permitted, including any on-site

maintenance, washing-down or other operations, shall be restricted to the period between 7 am and 6 pm on weekdays (Monday - Friday); and between 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays. The site shall not be operated on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the aims of the

NPPF and Policy ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

AE

Meeting: AE03A 13:14 25 Date 10.07.13

Informatives: 01. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice of the Environment Agency (a copy

of which was sent to the applicant's agent) which can be viewed on the Council's website: www.southsomerset.gov.uk.