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 on the submission and approval of a traffic management plan. 

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 22 February 2016.  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 gave a brief overview of applications 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 as they all related to the same site.  An application had been granted on appeal and was in the process of being implemented and the landfill site being constructed.  The use of the site would not change by these applications and the proposals were as a result of enforcement action with agenda items 6.1 and 6.3 being partly retrospective but this was not a reason to refuse the applications.   

This proposal was requesting a new access to the site which would be 250 metres away from the junction with the A494 trunk road; the existing access was approximately 50 metres from that junction.  The creation of the access had required the removal of several trees.  Welsh Government(WG) had initially issued a direction to withhold planning permission pending the submission of further information but this direction had now been lifted following the submission of a road widening scheme by the applicant at the junction between Pinfold Lane and the A494.  The creation of the new access would serve heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) with the existing access remaining in place for use by cars and light vehicles; it was felt that the proposal would be a significant highway gain.  A number of conditions relating to highways were being requested and the officer highlighted a comment in the late observations from a resident who had previously submitted comments during consultation; the concerns had been addressed in the report.  Highways had commented that the issues raised by the resident were insufficient to recommend refusal and therefore approval was recommended. 

                        Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Pinfold Lane served other commercial uses and industrial uses and the new access would be located 250m north of the existing access and was a major improvement to the existing arrangement.  There were no objections from statutory consultees and no outstanding objections on any of the planning applications and therefore he requested that the applications be approved. 

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that there were concerns about having two accesses to the site with the new access also being the egress point for the HGVs.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that the proposal met with highway requirements and would be located further away from residential properties.    

                        Councillor Owen Thomas expressed significant concern that the work had already commenced on this site before the planning application had been considered.  He felt that the concrete included at the access would affect the water flow of the ditch and he queried whether a pavement would be provided to protect pedestrians.  The Housing and Planning Solicitor understood the frustrations about the applications being retrospective, but he advised that this was not material to the consideration of the application.  Councillor Mike Peers queried whether the appeal inspector had considered the current access to be inadequate and had therefore imposed an additional entrance.  He referred to the road being an unclassified road with a 60 mph speed limit and commented on paragraph 7.04 where it was reported that two HGVs were able to pass but would need to modify their speed; he asked whether it was proposed that the speed limit on the road would be reduced.  It was also reported that HGVs wanting to exit the proposal site would need to wait for the travelling HGV to pass before exiting; he raised concern and asked whether this related to the current or new access.

The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, did not see how the introduction of a second access would be a highway gain when the existing access would remain open.  She asked who would police the site to ensure that HGVs only used the new access and raised concern because this was a very busy junction with many vehicles using Pinfold Lane as a shortcut to the A55.  Councillor Ellis also raised concern that the application was retrospective and queried whether the issue of flooding would be rectified.  She did not feel that two HGVs could pass on the lane as there was insufficient space.  She said that 18 of the 31 conditions had been amended and added that there was a need to ensure that the conditions set by the appeal inspector were followed.  Councillor Ellis sought assurance that the conditions would be policed by officers of the Council, and highlighted those relating to dust, noise, wheel washing and the transfer of operating hours from the original proposal to this application. 

Councillor Richard Jones felt that the fact that the application was retrospective was very material as it had an impact on local residents.  He felt that to receive requests to amend conditions that had been imposed on appeal did not generate a feeling of trust for the applicant and that reasons should be provided by the applicant of why the conditions needed amending.  Councillor David Roney said that it appeared that there was agreement amongst the speakers that the new proposals were an improvement and asked if a condition could be imposed to close the original entrance.  In referring to the comments of Councillor Thomas about concreting over the ditch to make the new entrance, Councillor Gareth Roberts suggested that this issue would be addressed by conditions 8, 9 and 10.  He said that he could not see any reason to refuse the application which he agreed would be an improvement on what was currently in place. 

                        In response to the comments made, the Senior Minerals and Waste Officer confirmed that the new entrance would be an access and egress for HGVs and reiterated the fact that a retrospective application was not a reason for refusal.  A pavement had not been put forward as part of this proposal, nor had it been requested by WG or Highways and therefore the Senior Officer did not feel that it was appropriate to include it as a condition.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that the application did not include a footway and the pedestrian movement associated with the application did not generate the need for a pavement.  The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer said that the Planning Inspector had approved the application on the information before him including the existing access which the Inspector felt was appropriate.  The applicant had asked the Planning Authority to consider an additional access and officers found the proposals to be acceptable.  She provided further information on the issue of vehicles needing to wait before exiting the site but felt that this was not an area for concern. The officer advised that the next application on the agenda had a condition attached to ensure that the new access was restricted to HGVs with the existing access being for cars and light vehicles.  She confirmed that this would be enforced by the Planning Authority.  The road widening scheme would need to be completed before the site could accept waste and she confirmed that a culvert would also be put in place which would alleviate any drainage issues and there were a number of conditions in place on this application relating to drainage.  The officer confirmed that this application was only for the access and the issue of the number of conditions that had been amended was relevant to the next application on the agenda and covered the whole of the site as reflected in the Section 73 application.  The ownership of the site had changed and the new owners wanted to regularise the operation of the site.  The applicant had not submitted the application on the basis of closing the existing access.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that moving the access for HGVs further away from the Pinfold Lane/A494 junction was a considerable highway gain and Highways did not have any objections to the proposal subject to conditions. 

                        In summing up, Councillor Butler suggested that the condition relating to the policing of the accesses to ensure they were used by the appropriate vehicles should apply on this application as well as on the next application on the agenda.  The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer advised that the applicant had submitted the application based on HGVs accessing and egressing the new access.  She explained that the condition applied to the Section 73 application which covered the whole of the site.  Councillor Butler reiterated his comments about the need for a condition relating to the access and egress of the new access by HGVs and the existing for cars and light vehicles.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that a condition could be included for an operational traffic management plan. 

            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 on the submission and approval of a traffic management plan.