Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused because of the potential for additional impacts on residential amenity from increased working hours and Sunday working.  

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this was a Section 73 application to vary three conditions (4, 10 and 26) attached to planning permission 052359 which had been approved in October 2015.  Since the application had been submitted, the applicant had withdrawn the request to vary conditions 4 and 26 and therefore only variation to condition 10 remained.  The applicant had asked for a temporary permission of six months to allow the impact of the requested changes to be assessed.  The original submission had requested working hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday with no Sunday working and the variation of condition was seeking working hours of 6am to 7pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 5pm on a Sunday.  The officer explained that concerns had been expressed by Buckley Town Council and neighbouring residents about the impact on the amenity.  A noise assessment had been submitted with the application and had included spot noise assessments at Parry’s Cottages, Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane and these had been found to show that the noise associated with the workings would not exceed background levels.  It was felt that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity.  A condition had been included to limit the noise levels which would be monitored and enforced by the Planning Authority and the officer suggested that the condition attached to the original permission also be carried forward to this proposal if approved. 

            In response to a question from Councillor Chris Bithell about the request for temporary permission, the officer confirmed that the working hours would revert back to those currently permitted at the end of the temporary period and a further application would need to be submitted to vary the condition on a permanent basis.

            Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that a temporary permission of six months was appropriate to assess any impacts and that a request for a permanent change could be refused if necessary. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, expressed significant concern that the public needed to advise the Council of any issues with the site and suggested that the applicant was not complying with the current working hours imposed.  She said that there had been a number of complaints about the site relating to the height of the stockpiles which she felt was a fire hazard.  She added that the site had previously accepted food waste from the Council for which they did not have a permit or planning permission and she said that this was a health hazard and had been reported by the public.  Councillor Ellis had also raised the issue of receiving food waste by letter to the Council but had not yet received a response.  She said that she could not approve the application and that the applicant was not adhering to the current conditions which meant that the public were not being protected. 

            Councillor Mike Peers felt that the views of the Local Member should be considered and concurred that the application should not be approved.  He queried the justification to vary the condition for six months and spoke of the noise that neighbouring residents would experience if the working hours commenced at 6am and that consideration should be given as to where the traffic would be coming from to arrive at the site from 6am.  Councillor Peers felt that the current conditions should be adhered to and that a valid reason was required for why a 6am start was necessary along with working hours on a Sunday which were not currently in place.  He felt that any benefit to the applicant would be outweighed by the impact on the residents and queried why a Traffic Impact Assessment had not taken place.  Councillor Alison Halford agreed with Councillor Ellis and said that she would not support the proposal.  Councillor Richard Lloyd indicated that it was reported that Sunday working would be to carry out repairs, maintenance and testing on the site and queried why this could not be undertaken during the working hours on Monday to Saturday.  Councillor Gareth Roberts commented on the views of Councillor Ellis and suggested that if permission was granted for six months, then the applicant would comply with conditions for that period so that a request for permanent variation would be considered favourably.  He felt that refusing the application was justified.  Councillor Marion Bateman said that assurance had been given that any breaches of condition would be looked at when reported to the Planning Authority; she asked if any action had been taken for breaches of condition already reported. 

            In response to the comments made, the Senior Mineral & Waste Officer confirmed that at the end of the six month period, the applicant would need to reapply for a further extension to the working hours.  She confirmed that complaints had been received about the site but reminded the Committee that this application was only to vary the working hours for the site not for issues relating to dust or litter.  Any previous breaches were a matter for the Enforcement Team and Natural Resources Wales as they were responsible for the provision of a permit to allow the site to operate.  The temporary variation of working hours for six months would allow the Planning Authority to assess the impact on the local amenity.  The officer was recommending a condition about noise limits so that if any issues of the limits being exceeded were raised then these could be considered.  She added that the purpose of including conditions was to enable the Planning Authority to take action if the workings were causing a nuisance.  On the issue of Sunday working, she explained that the application was seeking permission for vehicles to be able to access the site and tip waste on a Sunday in addition to carrying out testing, repairs and maintenance.  In response to comments about breaches of conditions, officers had visited the site on a number of occasions and monitoring by both the Council and NRW took place and when breaches were identified, these were raised with the operator.  On the issue of traffic movements and the impact on residents, the officer indicated that vehicles to and from the site went in different directions and therefore the main consideration was the impact of on-site vehicle movements which had been assessed.  It was not felt that a traffic impact assessment was necessary and the officer advised that concerns had not been raised by Environmental Health Officers. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that most complaints about the site had been addressed but he apologised to Councillor Ellis for not replying to her concerns about food waste on the site.  He indicated that officers accepted that there had been issues about compliance but said that no objection had been received from Environmental Health and that permitting the additional working hours for a period of six months would allow the situation to be monitored. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that there had been problems with the site but that the issue of any breaches of condition had not been raised by the Local Member, Adjoining Ward Member or Buckley Town Council in their consultation responses.  He agreed that conditions needed to be addressed and enforced but added that Members should deal with the application before them and he reiterated his support for approval for a temporary period of six months. 

            Councillor Richard Jones felt that a variation of condition was not the application before the Committee today and queried whether the applicant should have reapplied.  The officer advised that a Section 73 application could be approved, refused or used to change the wording of conditions.  The applicant had withdrawn their request to vary conditions 4 and 26 and therefore these would remain as had been originally permitted.  She felt that this was an acceptable way of dealing with a Section 73 application. 

            Councillor Ellis said that Councillor Bithell had stated that no comments on non-compliance with conditions had been made in the consultation responses.  Councillor Ellis indicated that she had made her comments verbally to officers when attending County Hall and had therefore not included them in her written response. 

            On being put to the vote, the application for approval was LOST.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor sought a reason for refusal from the Committee.  Councillor Jones said history of non-compliance and Councillor Ellis felt that noise was also currently an issue for residents.  The Solicitor advised that history of non-compliance with other conditions was not a reason to refuse this application.  He shared Members concerns about breach of conditions but he reiterated that this was not a material consideration on this application and added that any reasons for refusal needed to be for valid planning reasons as an invalid reason could leave the Council open to applications for costs in any subsequent appeal.  Councillor Ellis went on to indicate that there was a perceived nuisance and extra noise from current workings on the site and said that there were currently a number of complaints from residents.  The Planning Strategy Manager advised that there were no outstanding enforcement issues relating to the site.  Councillor Ellis then proposed that the reason for refusal should be on the grounds that the extra working hours would increase the perceived noise experienced by nearby residents; this was duly seconded.  The Solicitor suggested that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee to clarify the wording for the reason for refusal.                  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused because of the potential for additional impacts on residential amenity from increased working hours and Sunday working.