Agenda item

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

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 September 2015.  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 Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was within a well-established industrial estate in the Buckley Mountain ward.  She provided details of the location of the site and explained that the remainder of the industrial estate was in the ownership of other land owners.  The site was located close to the boundaries of the Buckley Claypits and Commons Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Deeside and Buckley Newt Sites Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  A number of late observations were reported which included objections from two local residents and an officer comment that an additional condition regarding drainage should be included.  Concerns had been raised about dust and noise levels as a result of the proposal and also about the retrospective nature of the application.  The officer reminded Members about Technical Advice Note (TAN) 9 and the obligation by the Local Authority to regularise the planning situation on the site.  A main issue for consideration was whether the proposal was an acceptable use of the land and the officer had concluded that it was, subject to conditions.  The existing waste management facility was allocated in the Unitary Development Plan under policy EM3. The proposal included land to the south of the existing industrial estate outside the allocation. The expansion of allocated sites is supported by policy EM5 subject to a number of detailed tests. The site would require a permit from Natural Resources Wales as regulator for issues such as dust and noise pollution and conditions attached to an approval of the application were reported. 

                        The officer explained that the transfer building extended above the tree line and a condition to paint the building in green to blend in with the trees was included.  Concerns had been raised by local residents and Buckley Town Council about the access to the site but the officer advised that the access was private and onto the A494 which was a trunk road.  The Trunk Road Agency had been consulted on the application and they did not have any objections but had requested a number of conditions including restricting the number of vehicles that could access the site to 104 and the provision of a wheel wash facility.  Conditions relating to ecology had also been included in the recommendation to secure the implementation of proposed mitigation and to ensure the necessary detail was submitted.  Additional landscaping was also to be provided and no objections had been received from statutory consultees on the issue of ecology.  The late observations included the suggestion of an additional condition on drainage.  The officer explained that part of the site had previously been used for landfill and a land investigation had been undertaken in support of the application and NRW had requested a condition to ensure that contaminated land was adequately addressed.  In conclusion, the officer said that the proposal would enable waste to be managed sustainably and the proposal complied with TAN21.           

                        Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, which he felt complied with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He said that the proposal to extend the existing waste management facility would create 12 new jobs and would allow sustainable waste management which would increase recycling rates.  The nearest houses were 200 metres away and it was felt that the impact on these properties was negligible.  Mr. Williams suggested that the proposal was not detrimental to highway safety and did not affect the amenity of the area.  He suggested that there would be a greater impact if the site was changed to B8 use which would not require planning permission.  Concerns raised about ecological issues and contaminated land had been addressed and in conclusion, Mr. Williams said that the application complied with national and local policy and constituted a sustainable development.        

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He expressed significant concern that the application was retrospective but acknowledged that it was the correct location for such a proposal.  He suggested that any landscaping that was included should consist of mature trees to minimise the impact of the building for nearby residents.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, also raised significant concern about the application being retrospective and about the fact that the Council were notified by a member of the public that building work on the site had commenced without permission.  The stockpile of waste at the site was up to about 14 metres when the Committee visited the site earlier in the week even though permission was sought for up to 5 metres and a wood pile was approximately 18 metres high which Councillor Ellis felt was a health and safety issue.  She highlighted the conclusion at paragraph 8.01 and suggested that appropriately worded conditions would not protect the amenity of the residents or the landscape and wildlife in the area.  She added that the building was too high. 

            Councillor Mike Peers suggested that the conditions were too vague and suggested that further detail was required.  He queried whether conditions would be complied with as the applicant had not applied for permission and had started to erect the building without consent.  He queried whether the building would be demolished if permission was refused by the Committee.  Councillor Peers raised concern at the type of waste that was to be stored inside the building and queried whether the provision of a sprinkler system was to be included.  Clarification was sought on the incursion over the site boundary and on the drainage solution for surface water on the site which was referred to in paragraph 7.28.  Councillor Peers suggested that the final sentence in paragraph 7.09 should read that ‘further landscaping would be secured by condition’.            

            Councillor Alison Halford said that the applicant had failed to apply for permission for the extension to the existing waste management site and that even though the development would create jobs, the decision needed to be balanced against the impact of the proposal on residents.  She queried whether the applicant would be asked to remove the building if the application was refused and highlighted the significant number of local resident comments reported in the late observations. 

            In referring to the request for more detailed conditions, Councillor Richard Jones indicated that officers had previously provided information on the conditions in Member Services.  He suggested that two additional conditions should be included for the provision of fencing and highway movement but suggested that it was difficult for the Enforcement Team to carry out checks on whether conditions were complied with. 

            In response to the comments made, the Housing & Planning Solicitor reminded Members that it was acceptable procedure and practice for an applicant to submit a retrospective application and this was not a valid reason for refusal.  Regarding the issue of whether monitoring compliance with conditions may be difficult because of available resources, this was not a reason to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd raised concern about the height of the stockpile and queried whether the environmental permit had already been issued by Natural Resources Wales. 

            The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer confirmed that detailed conditions were included in Member Services.  A condition on landscaping was included but she could not confirm whether mature trees could be provided as had been suggested by Councillor Butler.  She appreciated that there were a large number of conditions in the report and added that account could not be taken of previous failures to comply with conditions or the submission of a retrospective application when determining the application but it was hoped that this proposal would regularise the use of the site.  The stockpile height had been in excess of five metres when Members visited the site and therefore the applicants had been written to and they had advised that it would be reduced.  The officer explained that fire prevention measures needed to be detailed and undertaken in line with the permit issued by NRW which would also cover the monitoring of dust and noise.  She also acknowledged the comments about the height of the building which extended above the tree line.  She felt that conditioning that the colour of the building to be green would allow the building to blend into the landscape.  The officer reminded Members that the proposal was for waste management on a site which was adjacent to an existing site for waste management and which was included in the UDP for employment use under policy EM3 and identified as an area of search for waste management under policy EWP 6 and whilst some of the site extended outside the UDP allocation it was considered that the proposal complied with policy EM5. She referred to a planning contravention notice that had been issued and advised that further action would depend on the outcome of this application and if the application was refused, then enforcement action would be progressed which could culminate in the removal of the building.  On the issue of the development boundary, the red line boundary had been amended since the submission of the application to include an additional area of land to the south of the proposal site, adjacent to the SAC.  She confirmed that there were only two local residents who had submitted late observations but they had been reported separately to allow the issues to be considered individually.  If Members disagreed with the height of the building, the officer suggested that the Committee could either refuse the application or defer the decision pending the possible submission of a revised application with a reduced building height but she explained that the applicant had requested the height of the building as it was not unusual for the proposed use.  On the request for further conditions by Councillor Jones, the officer indicated that the provision of fencing and highway movements were both covered in the detailed conditions.  She confirmed that the buildings would be more prominent in winter but would be viewed in the context of an industrial estate setting.  She added that an environmental permit had been issued for the site.   

In response to a query from Councillor Marion Bateman, the officer explained that the applicant intended to store residual waste at this site before moving it to another site in Abergele. The officer confirmed that any contractual arrangements with the Council in respect of waste management should not be relevant to the planning decision.  

The Planning Strategy Manager advised the Committee that the site was allocated in the UDP for employment use and indicated that the provision of conditions by the Council and the monitoring of the site by NRW would ensure that the site was operated appropriately.                           

            RESOLVED:

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