Decision details

This was an application for the erection of 5no. industrial units (up to 90,951m² of commercial floorspace) (Use Classes B2/B8 and E(g)(iii)) with ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)(i)) with associated parking, ev parking, gatehouses, cycle shelters, attenuation pond, landscaping and all associated engineering works and highway works, including site clearance and enabling works on land off, Hadley Castle Works, Hadley, Telford, Shropshire.

The application was before Committee at the request of Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council and the Ward Councillor.

A site visit took place on the afternoon prior to the Planning Committee.

Councillor G Offland, Ward Councillor, supported development and employment but not at the cost of the health and wellbeing of local residents.  She raised concerns regarding the layout of the bays facing residential properties, highway congestion on the A442 and along Hadley Park Road, noise, pollution, hours of operation, conservation and heritage.  She asked that the application be deferred until the further consultation currently ongoing had been concluded and the concerns of residents were considered further.

Councillor P Millward, Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council, confirmed that the Parish Council did not oppose investment, development and jobs, but raised concerns in relation to the impact on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of local resident from noise, pollution, dust and a 24-7 operation of the facilities which would destroy a peaceful way of life. Material considerations were overlooking, loss of privacy, scale, dominance, highway safety, noise, dust, fumes and wildlife conservation.  He questioned the evidence of workforce availability for the creation of 1850 jobs.  It was requested that this application be deferred for further consultation.

Mr D Sellwood, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns in relation to how the assessment in relation to 24-7 noise and disturbance had been produced and validated.  As the end user was not currently known, he raised further concerns as to how mitigation would be achieved and in relation to policy BE1 no significant adverse impact could yet be demonstrated and there was yet to be an end user.  Further concerns were raised in relation to the mass and height of the buildings, visual impact on residents and the street scene and tree screening was inadequate. He questioned the scale and orientation of Unit 1.  It was asked that the applicant change the design to make it more marketable and make this a non 24-7 hour development.

Mr S Clerk, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application which had been extensively discussed with the planning team, stakeholders and consultees who had found the proposal acceptable.  The site had been identified as a strategic employment area on the adopted Telford and Wrekin Local Plan and was previously developed land and had a long history of employment.  The development would host modern facilities to meet the needs of the occupiers and advanced discussions were taking place with interested parties.  There would be approximately 2000 jobs created across the site and would bring an economic boost to the area.  There would be no net loss in relation to biodiversity and the ecological officer supported the application on that basis.    The height of units 3 and 4 had been reduced and unit 3 set back with green land buffers.  A submission of a noise report would be conditioned prior to the occupation of each unit together with operating hours.  A S106 Agreement had been agreed in advance with contributions of £450,000 towards highway improvements, £75,000 towards bus stops and an unmeasured sum towards Thomas Telford Locks.  It was hoped that investors would be on site before the end of the calendar year.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for a site that extended to 46 hectares of strategic employment land in a SP1 industrial area in a highly suitable location.  The principle of development had already been established.  In relation to policies B2, B8 and E(g)(iii) the end users were currently unknown but a condition would be imposed to submit details of use class, a business model, parking levels and proposed working hours prior to occupation in order that this was detrimental to the amenity of local residents and there was adequate parking provided. Mitigation measures would be put in place with regards to noise and odour with reports being submitted prior to occupation of the units and any required mitigation measures being put in place.  The impact on amenity had been extensively assessed and details could be found in the report.  No significant detriment had been found in relation to separation distance, landscaping, scale and design and the shading assessments were acceptable.  The Built Heritage Specialist had approved a less than substantial harm on the Hadley Locks and desilting works and the installation of local viewing platforms and interpretation boards were considered to be public benefits alongside the mitigation measures of the landscaping bunds around the locks and the benefits of the proposal outweighed the less than substantial harm.  There were no objections from the Council’s highways, drainage and ecology teams.  S106 contributions had been requested in relation to highways and travel plan monitoring.  The biodiversity net gain did not apply as the application was submitted prior to the legislation changes.  On balance the application was considered to accord with national and local planning policy.

During the debate, some Members spoke of the value of the site visit undertaken prior to the meeting and highlighted the natural barriers and the Locks that could be a visitor attraction with the proposed improvements that could be made.  It was asked if improvements could be made to the sports area and the poor playing surface which could be a valuable community amenity.  Due to the number of public attendees it was considered that there was still a lot of fears in relation to the application and it was asked that the application be deferred for one cycle for conversations to continue.  Other Members considered that the site was a strategic employment area and there would be industrial development on this land.  It would be difficult to find reasons to refuse the application but not all issues had been mitigated against.  On site 1 it was considered that the loading bays by the residential area were the wrong orientation and it was asked that further consideration be given to this.  Further thought was required on the size of the buildings, the 24-7 operation near to residential properties and air quality.  It was suggested that the application be an outline application in order that individual details of business operators could come forward.   It was asked why the bus stops were costing £75,000 and why RAF Shawbury was a consultee to the application.  A further request for a deferment came forward in respect of traffic management particularly on the roundabout on the A442.  Other Members raised concerns regarding ecology and heritage in relation the canal and the locks and if environmental management plans would be in place in relation to water pollution and habitat structure in order to assure residents there would be no detriment to the area.

The Planning Officer noted the comments in relation to the sports area, although contributions towards this were not appropriate via this application but the developer could contact the Parish Council in terms of what could be achieved but this could not be done via the S106 Agreement.  In relation to noise, due the development coming forward being speculative, a noise report would come forward with each individual unit that applied.  In relation to the reorientation of Unit 1, although it was noted that the loading bays were near to the residential properties, the nearby residential properties would look out onto the attenuation pond and the loading bays would be enclosed by a 6m high fence which would also provide noise mitigation. If the loading area was flipped, in order to achieve the necessary footprint, the development would need to come closer to the residential area and their outlook would be onto the buildings and a balance had been made on visual aesthetics.  The funding for the bus stops was to scope the extent of the work and that this could be satisfactorily received and this was based on worst case scenario.  RAF Shawbury had been a statutory consultee due to the height of the proposed buildings.  Traffic impact had been assessed by both Highways England the local highway authority and up-to-date modelling had been used.  A condition in relation to ecological construction would be put in place which would require a management plan.

Following the debate Members proposed and seconded that the application be deferred.  

On being put to the vote it was, unanimously:

RESOLVED – that the application be deferred in order for further details to come forward in relation to times and hours of working, the reorientation of the buildings in order to mitigate noise and visual impact, confirmation from highway officers that the roundabout would be accessible/part time traffic signals, further information on the bus stops and the concerns of residents taken into consideration.