A report will be presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AA”) in respect of a full planning application for a material change of use of Unit 3A at the Sapper Jordan Rossi Park, Otley Road, Baildon from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class B2 (General Industrial) in order to allow the chemical treatment of metal parts and the storage of associated chemicals – 17/04012/FUL.

 

Recommended –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

A report was presented by the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AA”) in respect of a full planning application for a material change of use of Unit 3A at the Sapper Jordan Rossi Park, Otley Road, Baildon from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class B2 (General Industrial) in order to allow the chemical treatment of metal parts and the storage of associated chemicals – 17/04012/FUL. Various plans and photographs were displayed.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of additional representations received further to the publication of his technical report; one in objection, which raised concerns in respect of toxicity and safety risks, and one in support.

 

Further to questions from Members he confirmed that:

 

·         Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should not duplicate processes that were governed by other agencies (such as the control of emissions or health and safety) and this was an application to amend the use class from B1 to B2. It was noted that an Environmental Permit would be needed if the size of the chemical bunds were increased.

·         The development area had been raised above flood level and compensatory storage provided when the units had been constructed.

 

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee as follows:

 

·         When this business park had been developed it had been promoted as a clean, modern development to fulfil a need for such accommodation in the district.

·         The applicant’s business was just the sort of company that the district needed but the objectors to the proposal had significant and relevant concerns that the planning process was unable to address.

·         There were a number of uncertainties in respect of the application; within the Assistant Director’s report it stated that ‘….it was not possible to make a judgement as to whether there is likely to be a statutory nuisance at the application stage. It is unlikely that any damage to buildings or stored stock, were it to occur, would be classed as a statutory nuisance and if there were to be an escape of fumes or chemicals that had the potential to compromise staff health, the resolution would be secured under health and safety legislation’; this appeared to be suggesting shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.

·         It also said that ‘…If the anodisation line were to be implemented or the treatment vats exceed 30 cubic metres then this would require review and a permit to operate may be required.’; but the volumes of toxic chemicals permitted had not been addressed.

·         The applicant had confirmed that he would not object to conditions to make the permission personal and to restrict the chemical treatment use in line with the details of chemical quantities submitted with the application but the letter referred to did not specify the quantities and did not state how many tanks were in the series.

·         The application should therefore be refused.

 

The Assistant Director clarified that the letter from the applicant included a schedule which stated the quantities of chemicals that would be stored and the permission would be restricted to these levels.

 

An Environmental Health Manager was in attendance at the meeting.  He explained that:

 

·         The concept of ‘statutory nuisance’ related to the effect on a plaintiff’s standard of comfort and was not able to address issues such as damage to stock and building structure.

·         Enforcement in relation to such processes was dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. Dependent on the amounts of chemicals being used/stored and the processes in question, the relevant enforcing authority was either the Local Authority or the Environment Agency.

·         COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) Regulations applied to businesses using hazardous substances and imposed various requirements including undertaking risk assessments and monitoring. Such businesses had onerous responsibilities to ensure that they were run safely.

 

Objectors to the application were in attendance at the meeting and said that:

 

·         They represented the adjacent business and other businesses located at the Business Park.

·         There were serious objections and concerns in respect of the risk to health of these proposals.

·         Considerable correspondence had been submitted to the Local Planning Authority but difficulties had been experienced in getting information.

·         It was considered that the initial application had been inaccurate and misleading; there had been no mention of extraction. There would be no monitoring of emissions and the drawings had been wrong.

·         It was believed that the risks from the chemicals had been understated; they had been portrayed as low risk but the data sheets submitted by objectors clearly demonstrated the risks to respiratory health.

·         The adjacent business was a B1 use which shared a wall with the business making the application and where these chemicals would be in use. The party wall was not a substantial structure and there was no extraction equipment in their unit.  It was questioned how would they be aware if gases were entering their premises.

·         They had been told that nitrogen would not be released but this was untrue.

·         Even on a small scale these were very dangerous chemicals.

·         Environmental Health had altered their stance; initially they had stated that they had no comment in respect of statutory nuisance now they said they could not say if nuisance would be caused.

·         The issues were not just about the storage of the chemicals.

·         The applicant had said that they understood the concerns being raised and would provide information but this had not happened.

·         The Planning Department had said that these issues were not within the remit of the planning process.

·         The occupiers of the adjacent buildings needed reassurance that they were safe.

·         Extraction would not deal with 100% of the emissions from the anodising process.

·         There would be a detrimental impact on other businesses.

·         The site had always been promoted as a high tech, Use Class B1, clean environment and the company had relocated for that reason. It was considered that this proposal would downgrade the site.  The continuation of the applicant company was not dependent on this process being undertaken on site.

 

The Environmental Health Manager explained that:

 

·         The initial ‘no comment’ response had been amended to indicate that it was not possible to say at application stage whether there would be a statutory nuisance.

·         Nitric and sulphuric acid were listed within EH40 (a Health and Safety Guidance Document) so it was accepted that there were issues in respect of workplace exposure levels.

 

He further responded to additional questions from Members:

 

·         The user had a clear duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act and this extended to third parties.

·         The manufacturers would produce a Product Data Sheet for the products used by the business and those products should be used in accordance with the information therein.

·         Anyone using these products had to be trained; the responsibility for this lay with the person running the business concerned. Some manufacturers of chemicals did provide training on the use of their products.

 

A Member of the Committee commented that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that LPAs should ‘assume regimes will operate effectively’ so if a matter was the responsibility of another agency this should not be taken into consideration when determining the planning application. The City Solicitor confirmed that non planning legislation was not a material consideration and that the onus was on the Authority to grant permission if an application accorded with the development plan unless material considerations suggested otherwise.

 

The Assistant Director confirmed that the application had been amended from the initial submission but had consistently remained for a change from B1 to B2 with the same schedule of chemicals. Additional plans had been forthcoming further to consultee responses and issues raised through representations.

 

The applicant’s agent made the following comments:

 

·         This company undertook high tech manufacturing which was what the Business Park was intended to accommodate.

·         At present the company had to send items away to allow finishing processes to be undertaken and they were then returned for checking.

·         The volumes of chemicals involved were listed on Pages 118 and 119 of the Assistant Director’s report.

·         Each case had to be dealt with on its merits.

·         The company would remain a high tech business and this proposal would not derogate the site.

·         Officers had explained the issues in respect of health and safety.  There had been no objection from the Environment Agency.

·         The other equipment located in the same unit was sensitive and required clean air to operate.

·         Relatively few changes were to be made externally and were deemed to be positive in effect.

·         The numbers being employed by the company were already increasing and it provided a significant number of apprenticeships and encouraged the recruitment of local people.

·         The company had thrived since moving to Baildon and was an epitome of what had been envisaged for the Park.

·         All the proposed conditions were accepted by the applicant.

 

The applicant also spoke in support of the development:

 

·         He was the Managing Director of the company which had been operating since 1966.

·         If the aerospace components manufactured by the company failed this could have extremely serious consequences so diligence was an absolute necessity.

·         The company had been located in this unit since 2013.

·         The 3D printing process undertaken required very clean air.

·         The proposal was very small scale and 20 times below the level at which a permit would be required.

·         The processes were very heavily monitored with 3 audits a year.  If there was any breach in the process this could lead to the company going out of business; it was vital that the processes were well controlled.

 

In response to a Member’s question he explained that the company had to work to AS9100 an aerospace standard. Revision D covered the issue of risk. The company had been the first to achieve the standard in the world; this required very strict systems and was a benchmark of how the company worked.

 

Members commented as follows:

 

·         Compliance with this quality control mechanism answered the issues in respect of diligence.

·         Assurance had been given that the correct procedures were in place.

·         The provision of apprenticeships was welcomed.

 

Resolved –

 

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways