Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 February 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The Senior Minerals and Waste Officers detailed the background to the report explaining that the application was in line with local and national policy and guidance and was in an area identified for employment use in the UDP.  The principle of the development was acceptable and the proposal had been considered in detail along with the potential impact from noise and odour on neighbouring residential properties.  Statutory consultees had raised no objection to the application and, with the proposed mitigation measures in place, the recommendation was to approve the application. 

            Mr. K. Harris spoke against the application.  He explained that his property was next to the application site and one of the bedroom windows of his property overlooked the site.  The height of the window meant that he would still be able to see the site over the proposed four metre screening.  The screening would also cast shadows over his garden except in winter when the trees would be without leaves and he would be able to see the digester from his garden.  He raised concern about the proposed trees to be planted as the deeds to his property specified that he was not able to plant trees due to a possible subsidence problem.  The odours which were currently emitted from the site were nauseating at times, and Mr. Harris felt this would increase.  He also raised concerns about a large highly flammable gas storage facility next to his house. 

            Mr. R. Carter, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application complied with policy and the proposal was supported by Welsh Government sustainable development policy.  He spoke of the job creation in the principal employment zone and reiterated the comments that the site was allocated for employment use in the UDP.  He said that there had been concerns about the visual and noise impacts on local residents and amendments to the proposal had been made because of those concerns to reduce the impact.     

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that the proposal was compliant with policy but raised concern about the impact on the residents.  He asked whether any offers had been made by the applicants to buy out the owners of the neighbouring properties.  He felt that the impact had not been fully addressedwith and that further advice was needed before Members made a decision on the application.  The Principal Solicitor advised the Committee that the issue raised by Councillor Heesom was not relevant for their deliberations and that the application should be determined based on the information before them.      

Councillor D.E. Wisinger proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the company had been on the site for a number of years and employed several people.  He said that compromises had been made by the applicant which had resulted in amendments to the proposals such as painting the units to fit in with the landscape.  An independent assessment had been undertaken on the issue of landscaping and the 4 metre high conifer hedge which was originally proposed had now been amended in the plan for a 7.5 metre strip of native shrub and tree species between the site and the properties.  On the issue of noise and odours Councillor Wisinger said that all of the units would be sealed so it was hoped that there would not be any smells, and conditions were proposed to monitor the noise and odour levels. 

Councillor W.O. Thomas referred to slurry tanks and asked if the same guidance that the tips needed to be a certain distance from residential properties had been taken into account in consideration of this application.  The Development Manager replied that planning permission was required for slurry tanks which were within 500 metres of residential properties. 

Councillor A.M. Halford asked if conditions 6 and 7 could be changed to give more support to the residents.  She said that there was a duty of care to the people who lived next to the facility and she hoped that the noise would be controlled and the smells eradicated.  Councillor R. Lloyd referred to the state of Factory Road and asked if there were any proposals for the Council to adopt it.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control advised that the road was adopted and that she could raise the concerns with the Head of Streetscene about its condition.  Councillor Heesom sought assurances that the correct distances had been applied between the site and the properties and said that he understood that the units should be sited at least 250 metres from any dwellings.   

In response to the comments made, the Senior Minerals and Waste Officers said that the noise and odour levels would be monitored and would be controlled by set limits.  On the issue of odour, the Environment Agency would be the primary regulators as the site would require a permit.  She said that there was no minimum distance limits stipulated in national or local policy about the siting of the units from neighbouring properties.  She reminded Members that the full conditions had been placed in the Members’ room for their information.  Following a query from Councillor M.J. Peers, the officer said that discussions had taken place with the agent about the location of the storage tanks, and due to the way the process worked, it was the only place to put the tanks to minimise the impact on the properties. 

On being put to the vote, there was an equality of voting and the Vice-Chairman (in the chair) used his casting vote to approve the application. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.