Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the potential increase in output would have a detrimental impact on the environment and potential noise increase.  

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 Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was requesting a variation to condition 4 relating to the hours of working and the delivery and removal of materials.  There had been a number of objections from the local residents and Cilcain Community Council but none from statutory consultees.  He drew Members attention to the late observations where information on a noise assessment that had been undertaken was reported.  It was proposed to increase the delivery hours from 8am to 6pm to 7am to 7pm and this would allow for the possibility of further employment in addition to the 50 workers currently employed on the site.  Controls were already in place for the site in relation to noise and dust in the form of an environmental permit which was regulated by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).  However, he added that the operator was in breach of a condition relating to height of materials stored outside the building as the mound was in excess of what was permitted.  If there was no evidence that the height of the waste was reduced, then the permit would be removed by NRW. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The proposal for an extra hour at the start and end of the day for external working and deliveries to the site from Monday to Saturday.  Increasing the hours would allow the continuation of the management of the specialised waste and would create further jobs at the plant, whilst safeguarding existing jobs at the site.  The site was located on an industrial estate and it was considered that the proposal was in keeping with other units on the industrial estate.  Highway access was good and it was felt that the proposal would have a negligible impact on neighbouring residents.  On the issue of dust, the report stated that there was no evidence of dust accumulation in the area and the application was compliant with national policy and the Unitary Development Plan.  There had only been an objection from Cilcain Community Council, which indicated that there had been improvements to the management of the site, and none from statutory consultees.  The Council’s Public Protection officer had indicated that the noise from the site was inaudible and had therefore not raised any objection.  Consultation responses did not relate to dust emissions being an issue.  The overall development constituted a sustainable development and Mr. Williams encouraged the Committee to approve the application.         

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern about the breach of the operating licence for the site and suggested that some conditions had been omitted from the recommendation in the report.  On the issue of dust, it was indicated that the operator should cease until the dust was no longer a problem so Councillor Thomas did not know why the operation on the site had not ceased as dust was a problem.  He said that in 2013 the applicant agreed to have a building on the site where lorries could tip tubes but the building had never been used.  One of the conditions related to HGVs only being able to go in forward to the site but the operator was in breach of this as vehicles were also reversing in.  Unloading of materials should also not take place outside the front of the site but this was also not complied with.  Councillor Thomas felt that the applicant had failed to address the noise impact from the site and he also referred to hazardous and dangerous waste being on the site which was not permitted.

            Councillor Mike Peers said that it was reported that the reasons for the application was to reduce a problem with late deliveries and to increase the throughput capacity to enable the operator to grow the business.  He sought clarification as to whether late deliveries was a material planning consideration.  He queried whether there was any evidence that the extra operating hours would create additional jobs as referred to in paragraph 7.04 and suggested that paragraph 7.08 indicated that the application had a total disregard for dust mitigation measures.  There was also evidence that the applicant was in breach of the conditions that had been imposed.  Councillor Peers was unable to support the application for increased capacity as he felt it would lead to a further impact on the environment.  In response about the late deliveries, the Housing & Planning Solicitor said that it was for the applicant to alleviate the problem which was an impact in planning terms. 

            The adjoining ward Member, Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke spoke against the application.  She felt that the applicant was in flagrant breach of conditions relating to:-

·         Unloading and loading outside the front of the building

·         Storing of materials and plant equipment in front of building

·         Height of waste material in excess of 3 metres at rear of the site

·         Vehicles reversing into the site

·         HGVs tipping on yard instead of in the covered building

·Clouds of dust leaving the site boundary without adequate abatement measures

·Storage and treatment of CRTs best available techniques as required by a directive

She felt that conditions had not been complied with since 2008 and in 2013, the Council had written to the applicant to remind them of the conditions and delivery hours and the impact that non-compliance would have on neighbouring residents.  Despite assurances, there had been no improvement on the site.  The area was rural and very quiet and the noise from the operation was clearly audible.  Councillor Davies-Cooke felt that the planning officer’s report was inaccurate and only briefly provided details of the objections from residents.  The application did not comply with a number of planning policies and there was no mention of the noise report by the applicant that had been assessed by an acoustic consultant advising that the issue of noise had not been addressed.  She queried why the stockpiles were such a significant size if the stock could be sold on as had been suggested by the officer.  The company was not complying with existing conditions and no enforcement action had been taken and there was therefore no assurance that the company would comply with noise and dust prevention measures.  She felt that the existing opening hours were adequate.  Councillor Davies-Cooke referred to a letter from the Environment Agency dated 17 January 2011 which referred to a review of how the site had been granted planning permission and the suitability of the site for such an operation.  This was a CRT site which was unique and there were no other sites of this type with these issues with planning permission for this type of operation.  She referred to background noise levels of 20 decibels and any noise which would typically be inaudible would become audible and therefore the suitability of the site in such a location was brought into question.  In the event that the company ceased trading and the site needing to be cleared, she asked whether the Council would be responsible for the cost.  She asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Richard Jones expressed concern on the issue of noise and indicated that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) identified the proposal may increase the volume of complaints.  He added that the size of the mound of waste was significant and felt that to increase the operating hours would make the situation worse.  Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to the issue of the NRW permit which he felt could be revoked until the applicant had addressed the concerns.  Once the applicant had complied with this, they could resubmit a proposal.  He spoke of hazardous waste on the site and concurred with the recommendation or refusal as he felt the increased hours would only increase the amount of the waste being brought onto the site. 

            In referring to previous complaints that had been investigated and the reference in the report to a previous operator, Councillor Chris Bithell sought clarification as to whether there had been any improvements since the new operator had been in place.  There were a number of aspects that he was uncertain about and queried whether the complaints previously made had been investigated and appropriately resolved.  He referred to a comment from the Head of Public Protection that the last period of monitoring had shown that the factory was not causing a nuisance or affecting amenity.  He also referred to the comments of NRW and queried whether they were in support of the application or not.  He felt that it would be helpful if the officer from Public Protection was in attendance to answer any questions raised by Members.  Councillor Derek Butler also referred to NRW comments and commented on the late observations.  He felt that if there were heavy metals in the area then the site should be policed and suggested that NRW should be monitoring the use of the site rather than the planning authority considering an application to extend the opening hours to make the site compliant. 

            In response, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that noise had been an issue on the site for some time but there had been a number of different operators in place.  An extensive amount of work had been carried out on the site and Public Protection colleagues had been working with the Environment Agency and NRW.  The operation at the site was audible but generally the overall noise with within appropriate limits.  The increase in hours related to daytime hours not night-time.  A condition was in place on the current planning permission that the operator could store materials at the rear of the site but he confirmed that the size of the mound was in excess of that permitted but an extension to the hours of operation would allow the operator to reduce the stockpiles.  He said that all of the material on the site was saleable products and in the past the waste had been designated as hazardous but this had been re-designated by NRW as no longer being hazardous.  He suggested that if there was not a marked improvement in the operation of the site, then NRW would suspend the licence and the operator would therefore not be able to bring new material onto the site. 

            Councillor Jones referred to the mound at the back of the building and queried whether it was washed material.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that a lot of the material was not subject to pre-washing and the mound had built up over time but the current operator could recycle it and put it back into the market.  Councillor Bithell asked how long the current operator had been in charge.  Councillor Peers said that the officer had indicated that the throughput capacity was not related to this operation but in paragraph 7.04 it indicated that the proposal would increase the throughput capacity to grow the business he sought clarification on this.    

In response, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) confirmed that the current operator had been at the site for 18 months.  He said that this application would address the problems relating to early and late arrivals but would also allow the business to expand and increase throughput through the site.  The Planning Strategy Manager asked Members to consider their reasons for refusal and whether approval of the application would generate any planning harm. 

In summing up, Councillor Owen Thomas said that the reason for refusal was that the proposal would increase the output and he was concerned about the environment and the impact of noise if the hours were increased.  He felt that the applicant was not complying with current conditions and therefore the inclusion of more conditions would not resolve the issues.  He referred to a site in Sandycroft which had been abandoned and the hazardous materials that had to be cleared by the Council and expressed significant concern at the cost to the taxpayer if a similar situation arose on this site.            

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the potential increase in output would have a detrimental impact on the environment and potential noise increase.