Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused because 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 seeking to extend the operational hours for the delivery of materials and also extend the hours under which external working was allowed.  The site was used for dismantling electrical equipment and the glass would be sent to unit 8 and the other items removed from the site. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He reiterated that there had been no objections to the proposal from statutory consultees other than Cilcain Community Council who even though they were opposed to the extended opening hours, had acknowledged that management of the site had recently improved.   

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern that if the operational hours were extended, more items would be brought into the site which would create more material to be transferred to the other site which would create additional waste outside.  He felt that both applications were linked and the problems that residents were experiencing would still occur.  Councillor Mike Peers concurred that increasing the hours would increase output to the other site and would increase the problems.  As the extension of opening hours for unit 6 had been refused, if the hours for this site were increased, this would result in the operator not being able to move the waste to the other site, and would therefore increase the stockpiles of waste on this site. 

            The adjoining Local Member, Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke, asked the Committee to refuse this application as they had done with the previous proposal and felt that this would be the fairest outcome for the community.  She said that the materials would not be able to be moved onto the other site if this application was also refused. 

            The Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that the operation at this site was different to that carried out on the other site but added that unit 8 was the main input for bulk deliveries and some materials were also moved from unit 6 to unit 8. 

            Councillor Thomas felt that the reason for refusal should be the same as for the previous application.  He said that at the site visit, Members had been able to see that fridges and other electrical equipment were unloaded on the road outside the front of the building and suggested that if the hours of operation were increased, then more items would be unloaded on the road.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that Councillor Thomas had suggested that the application be refused because of noise and environmental harm but then went on to say it was because equipment was unloaded onto the roadside.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that he had not heard any evidence of the harm that approving the application would generate.  In response, Councillor Thomas said that it would increase the waste on the other site as there would be more input into it and would therefore increase the problems.      

            RESOLVED:

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