Agenda item

            That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the amendments to the conditions and the reasons for the changes. 

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 explained that the application was linked to the previous application.  It was to amend three conditions relating to the inclusion of a new access proposed under application 054050 (condition 2), the restriction of the site access to that currently consented (condition 14) and to the improvements to the site access and the junction of Pinfold Lane with the A494 (condition 18).  She drew Members’ attention to the late observations where an amendment to paragraph 1.04 and to condition 14 were reported.  The full list of conditions had been made available to Members prior to the meeting.  The amendment to condition 14 would allow the operator to continue to use the existing site whilst constructing the landfill, providing sufficient time for details reserved by condition to be secured and for the construction of the new access to be completed.  Once constructed, the new access would be used as an access and egress point for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) with the existing access being used by cars and light vehicles only.  On the issue of condition 18, there had originally not been any requirement to improve the highway but Welsh Government (WG) had issued a direction that permission be withheld pending the submission of suitable information/evidence.  The applicant had now proposed highway improvements which were the same as the original application and included the widening of Pinfold Lane.  WG had now directed that any planning permission include a number of conditions to include adequate provision for vehicles to turn, wheel washing facilities and full details of highway improvement works to be provided.    The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer said that this was a Section 73 application and therefore was in effect a new planning permission for the whole site which was why there were a large number of conditions attached.  When considering the application, there was a need to consider all of the conditions applied to the applications for the site, not just the ones that the applicant was asking for variations on.  She understood Councillor Carol Ellis’ comment about the condition being proposed by a Planning Inspector which were imposed following a significant amount of deliberation and discussion.  The amendments proposed did not significantly or fundamentally change the controls at the site and in many cases there was a need for additional schemes to be submitted such as on the issue of landscaping and protected species to tie all of the schemes on the site together.  The Section 73 application would ensure that all of the conditions were appropriate and fit for purpose. 

Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  On the issue of road widening scheme, transport consultants had been employed by the applicant and they reviewed personal injury traffic accident data and demonstrated that no accidents had been recorded on the A494/Pinfold Lane junction over the past 10 years.  It was therefore felt that there were no road safety issues that required the provision of any road widening scheme but a scheme had been provided and it was felt that this would offer a significant improvement to the ability of two vehicles to pass.  There were no outstanding objections nor conflict with planning policy and therefore Mr. Amos asked Committee to approve the application.          

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would improve the area and on the issue of condition 18 and the requirement to submit a highway improvement works scheme within three months of the date of the permission, he asked whether there was a need to stipulate a timetable for this. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, said that it had been indicated that the Local Planning Authority would police the conditions but she expressed significant concern about how the provision of the conditions would be monitored.  The officer had provided an explanation of why the conditions had been amended and she taken on board that there were also new conditions.  She agreed with Councillor Bithell about the requirement for a timetable and asked for assurance that the condition relating to working hours from the original application would be transferred to this application.  The conditions relating to noise and opening hours had not been amended but Councillor Ellis queried why condition 23 relating to stockpiles had been amended.  On the original access, she asked whether a condition could be included where there was a height restriction to prevent HGVs going in and out. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that the report related to changes to three conditions but that these would have a knock on effect to other conditions.  He said that there had been 13 other amendments on conditions but he did not know why some were being proposed for change as they did not have any connection to the three conditions that had been referred to in the application. 

            The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer advised that condition 18 required the submission of a scheme including a timetable and required that the scheme be implemented as approved prior to the receipt of waste and therefore this was the same as for the original landfill permission.  The timetable would need to be agreed but it was difficult to include a timetable in the condition.  She noted the concerns raised by Councillor Ellis and confirmed that the Planning Authority would enforce that the HGVs using the approved access only.  The previous application required the inclusion of a condition for an operational traffic management plan and she suggested that this also be included for this application as it covered the whole of the site.  The issue of height restriction would also be covered by the traffic management plan.  The Senior Officer also noted the concerns about the condition relating to operating hours and noise and she confirmed that this would be as applied as in the original landfill permission.  On the issue of condition 23 relating to stockpiles, the original application restricted the storage of waste material to avoid waste being stored before it was disposed of.  The purpose of the transfer building which was the subject of the next application would enable the applicant to store waste material before it was disposed of which was why it was proposed that condition 23 be amended.  If Members resolved to refuse the transfer building, then condition 23 would not be needed.  In response to Councillor Jones’ comments, she explained why some of the conditions had been amended, particularly conditions 13 and 17 and she added that the amended conditions required the submission of an updated scheme.  The main changes were to secure a detailed compensation and mitigation method statement for Great Crested Newts which both Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Council’s Ecology Officer felt was necessary.  The only new condition was number 17 requested by WG to prevent the discharge of water onto the highway. 

            Councillor Jones proposed deferment of the application to allow further information to be provided on how the amended conditions related to the variations of the three conditions referred to in the report; this was duly seconded.  Councillor Ellis sought clarification on condition 21 relating to litter.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that it was his understanding that a full list of the detailed conditions was available in the Members’ Room and that this would allow them to be scrutinised in advance of the meeting.  It had been stated that the amendments had only been suggested where necessary and he did not feel that deferment of the application was necessary.             

            In response to Councillor Ellis’ query, the Senior Minerals and Waste Officer spoke of condition 21 and said that the original landfill permission required the submission of schemes, which had included the provision of a scheme relating to litter and therefore this had already been secured.  The wording was only to reinforce that the scheme also applied to this planning permission.  On the issue of ecology, a scheme had been agreed under the original landfill consent but there was a need to ensure that the scheme tied together the whole of the site and that was why an additional scheme was being requested. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that it was important to provide a single comprehensive permission for the whole of the site. 

            The Chairman asked Councillor Jones whether he wanted to withdraw his request for deferment following the explanation that had been provided.  He confirmed that he did not as the connection between all of the conditions was not clear. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was CARRIED.        

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the amendments to the conditions and the reasons for the changes.