Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

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.  She explained that the applicant was in the process of implementing the planning permission granted for the site and this application was for the erection of a waste transfer building which would reduce the impact on the amenity for issues such as noise.  She provided details of the size and height of the building which had been revised and compared the building with a nearby telecommunications mast which was 23.5 metres high.  Concerns had been raised about the height of the building but the officer stated that the nearest residential properties were 140 metres away and the distance was considered to be too large for the transfer building to be overbearing on these properties.  The views from Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane, which were between 700 and 1,000 metres away, would be more distant and would only be of the top of the building.  The provision of the building would reduce the impact of the site on the area and would therefore be an overall planning gain.  The officer added that the applicant could operate without the transfer building but its provision would allow them more control.    

            Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  It was felt that the facility would improve the efficiency of the site and the reduction in vehicles accessing the waste tipping area would reduce the potential disturbance in terms of dust and noise that may otherwise occur.  All of the delivery vehicles would use the new HGV access and there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the application was compliant with planning policy.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would be an improvement and would reduce some of the problems that could otherwise have occurred and would be a planning gain.  The height of the building was a concern but other buildings and structures in the area were more prominent.  The site would be used for industrial purposes and screening was already in place and therefore there would not be an impact on the neighbouring residents.  Councillor Ian Dunbar sought clarification on the distance of the building from the nearest residents. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, noted the conditions but said that she still had a number of concerns relating to the visual impact from Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane.  On the issue of noise control, she asked that all schemes be submitted to the Council before any work commenced on site.  She hoped that the compliance with conditions would not need to be undertaken by herself, the adjoining Ward Member or members of the public as she felt it was the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the conditions were all complied with. 

            Councillor Richard Jones sought clarification on how many waste transfer stations there were in Buckley and sought assurance that any litter from the site would be cleaned up.  Councillor Mike Peers said that a lot of time was spent consulting on drawing up conditions which were agreed by all parties but then applicants submitted applications to change them.  He felt that the conditions should be imposed and asked whether it was possible to condition that the agreed conditions were not the result of an application to amend them at a future date.     

            In response to the questions raised by Members, the Senior Minerals and Waste Officer said that the nearest properties were 140 metres away from the building.  The views from Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane would only be of the top of the building because of the mature vegetation that was in place and a condition had also been included restricting the colour of the building to holly green.  A scheme for noise control was already in place for the whole of the site and on the issue of compliance with conditions, the officer advised that the Local Planning Authority would actively monitor the site up to eight times a year to ensure compliance with conditions at that time.  She added that outside of those visits, there was a reliance on the public to let the Council know if they were aware of any breaches to what was permitted.  However, she explained that the site was opposite the Council depot at Alltami and therefore officers could raise any concerns they had.  The officer indicated that she would check how many permitted sites there were in Buckley.  She explained that the purpose of the proposal was to reduce the impact on the amenity and on residents and would minimise the number of vehicle movements and would therefore be a vast improvement.  She noted the concerns raised by Councillor Peers about conditions imposed on permissions and concurred that Members and officers worked hard to draw up conditions that would provide control for the Council. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that there were a number of ways to ensure the conditions were monitored and enforced and these included the Minerals & Waste Team, the Liaison Committee and Natural Resources Waste as they needed to be satisfied that the site was run appropriately before they issued a permit.  However, he agreed with the Senior Minerals & Waste Officer that there was also a reliance on the public and Members to raise any issues with the Council.  He added that the conditions included in the permission of the application met the test and were definitive and enforceable.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that Members and the public should not be relied upon to check on the compliance with conditions and said that it should be the Enforcement Team with Members being an extra form of communication if necessary. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell felt that all the issues raised had been addressed but spoke of the expectation that planning conditions would be adhered to.  However, if they were not, then the public could raise concerns with Members who could refer the matter to the Enforcement Team. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).