At the Commerce Park, Acheson & Acheson are putting in a planning application to extend their successful beauty products factory, closer to the boundary of the Commerce Park, in an area currently zoned for B1 office uses only, as it is close to houses on the edge of town. They held a consultation meeting earlier this week with local councillors and the Coalway Lane Residents Association, to discuss issues arising, including noise. I and other councillors will review the noise report and other documents and plans when they have been finalised.

Update: This is planning application ref. 2015/2871/FUL which is currently being considered. My submitted comments are below.

Commerce Park proposes less noise protection for residents

Plans have been submitted to remove two planning conditions that protect neighbouring residents from potential nuisance. In application 2015/1946/VRC, Prospect Land is asking Mendip to allow B2 (general industrial / workshops) and B8 (storage / warehousing) uses for commercial reasons. Currently, planning conditions 30 and 32 of the outline planning permission restrict development to B1 business/office use, to protect residential amenity. The Commerce Park is a good source of local jobs, services and income for many people. But the planning conditions are there for a good reason, so I have objected (along with dozens of residents), and asked Mendip to retain the planning conditions so that residents do not suffer noise from industry and warehousing being built too close to their homes. My submitted comments are below.

Submitted comments from councillor Adam Boyden:

2015/1946/VRC (1 October 2015):

This is my response as one of the MDC ward councillors for the residents living adjacent to the Commerce Park at Priddy Close and Wellow Drive, Frome. Concerns have been raised by the Coalway Lane Residents Association on this application and I have had a look into it.

I see that at the Commerce Park, plans have been submitted to remove two planning conditions that protect neighbouring residents from potential noise and other nuisance from development. I feel that the planning conditions 30 and 32 of the original outline planning permission that restrict development to B1 business use ‘in the interests of residential amenity’ are there for good reasons.

The original outline application 108277/005 was EIA development, with an Environmental Statement submitted which looked in depth at all the relevant likely environmental impacts of development on the environment, including the noise and air quality/dust impacts on local residents. The outline planning conditions were imposed on the outline permission as a result of the Council’s careful consideration of the ES and consultation responses, including I assume the potential for a range of nuisance impacts to arise from B2 and B8 uses close to existing dwellings.

The proposed removal/variation of conditions under section 73 of TCPA90 is within the scope of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended), (see here http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment/development-covered-by-the-regulations/) and changes to existing developments listed in Schedule 2.13, includes business parks in Schedule 2.10b under the ‘urban development’ category. Therefore an EIA Screening Opinion is legally required from the local planning authority under Regulation 5. Please can you ensure that the Council issues a Screening Opinion in line with the Regulations, and that it is posted on the planning application ‘documents’ page online.

I would assume that EIA should be required for the proposed variation/removal of conditions, and that it would be appropriately and proportionately scoped. Dust, odour, vibration, and light pollution are also likely to be significant environmental impacts of concern as a result of general industry and warehouses being sited close to residential dwellings, which the application proposes. I would therefore expect to see a suitably professionally competent assessment undertaken of the likely impacts on residents in relation to these issues, as well as noise.

The submitted noise report itself raises two concerns. Firstly that workshops proposed throughout the relevant area would lead to noise levels up to the current noise limits. The noise report itself recommends that workshops are not sited throughout the area that the applicant intends to site them. Further detailed noise assessment and masterplanning is therefore required in order to ensure that noise from B2 and B8 development is lower than, not at, the required levels, but this has not yet been undertaken. Secondly, the noise impacts arising from weekend working at the Commerce Park do not appear to have been assessed at all. The applicant’s agent’s covering letter does not acknowledge these outstanding issues and problems. This raises concern that the noise limits will be breached as a result of the application.

I therefore object to the current application, and will ask that the conditions remain in place so that residents are not exposed to noise from industry and warehousing too close to their homes.

Please can you ensure that this application is determined by Planning Board, in line with the Planning Board’s decision of October 2009 that decisions on planning applications in Commerce Park zones D, E and J are automatically considered by the Board rather than under delegated powers.

I look forward to hearing from you on these points, and am happy to meet you to discuss further if you would like.

2015/2871/FUL: (15 January 2016)

This is my response as one of the MDC ward councillors for the residents living adjacent to the Commerce Park at Priddy Close and Wellow Drive).  I was also pleased to be able to attend the pre-application consultation meeting hosted by Acheson and Acheson, although it would have been even more useful if the Noise report had been available at that time.  I support the application’s potential creation of skilled jobs for the area, and this type of development in principle, as the expansion of a successful local business should be encouraged and accommodated within the Commerce Park as a whole.  I request further information on a number of points:

1. Noise: the noise report does not appear to assess the noise levels that the nearby residents would be subject to as a result of the development, i.e. the impacts of development. It does not refer to or utilise the terms referred to in national noise planning guidance. It simply uses a previous master plan as a comparison but does not enable s stand alone assessment (which this is) to be made of the developments’ acceptability. I request the impact on noise levels be clarified through further assessment.
2. The visibility and visual impact on views from residential areas to the south west, i.e. Priddy Close and Wellow Drive. Currently there seems to be the potential for the extension building to be visually intrusive in views from these public streets and from residential properties. MDC Local Plan policy DP7 part 1a-b requires proposals for new development to demonstrate that they: a) are of a scale, mass, form and layout appropriate to the local context, and (b) protect the amenity of users of neighbouring buildings and land uses and provide a satisfactory environment for current and future occupants. The planning application does not appear to include any assessment (other than a brief assertion) of the impact on the (visual) amenity of adjacent residents due to the scale, mass and form of the development, and so further information should be provided to enable this impact, and the development’s compliance with policy DP7 (1a-b) to be assessed.
3. Renewable energy – the Energy Efficiency Statement states that solar panels will be included on the roofs of the extension building, but does not describe how many panels or the output or expected, and there is also no mention of solar panels in the plans, such as the roof plan, so it is not clear whether the apparent committment is real. MDC Local Plan policy DP7 part 1e requires new development to maximise opportunities for renewable energy generation on site. Further information should be sought on the extent of solar power generation proposed on site, and a meaningful renewable energy generation on site, which I would support, should be secured by inclusion on a revision to the roof plan and by planning condition, in accordance with policy DP7(1e). The applicants could also discuss the opportunity with Frome’s Community Renewable Energy Company, c/o Anna Francis, francisa@frometowncouncil.gov.uk, as they are seeking large roofspaces in and around Frome for the third phase of solar panel implementation.
4. In light of the CLRA’s response I request clarification on whether this application could properly be defined as Use Class B1 only.

If it cannot be defined as B1, and is also B2 and B8 development, I have to object in principle to the siting of the proposed development within a zone restricted for B1 use in planning conditions within the original outline planning permission 108277/005 as amended. That zone for B1 uses was set aside for uses that would not in principle cause any nuisance or loss of residential amenity to residents of Wellow Drive or Priddy Close adjacent to the site. This development could potentially give rise to precedent whereby other B2/B8 uses could be sited within the remainder of the B1 zone.

I also see that the applicants have not provided any update to the Travel Plan but have included an extract of the old framework, and do include for cycle parking and car share spaces. I request that the applicants provide a Travel Plan for the development in accordance with Local Plan policy DP9 so that sufficient measures can be introduced to limit the transport impacts of development. I would also request from the Council or County Council, a report on the effectiveness of the current Travel Plan Framework arrangements in reducing car use, and whether the funding and operation of a bus service between the Commerce Park and Frome is actually necessary, feasible and reasonable to require to make it effective.

Please can you inform me of the answers to the above queries, if any further information is forthcoming, and your final recommendations when made

 

   2 Comments