Agenda item

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 following deferral at the last meeting. 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 proposed Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) comprised: a commercial and industrial waste materials recycling facility, a construction waste recycling facility, and a contaminated soils treatment facility.

All of the issues raised at the last meeting which formed the basis of a deferral were addressed in the report.  The officer made particular comments on the concerns that had been raised on the impact of the development on the Public Right of Way (PROW) by the Ramblers Association at the last meeting.  The PROW ran along the private estate road which would serve the development, and which also served a number of different industrial uses including Pinfold Lane Quarry which was owned by the applicant.  The road was already used by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and would have accommodated quarry traffic in addition to industrial traffic whilst Stoneybeach quarry was operational.  The Public Rights of Way (PROW) officer had not objected to the proposal on the basis of the impact of the PROW and advised, in particular, that it was common for a PROW to be used by vehicles where a right to do so existed.  Due to the width of the road it was considered that the development would have no greater impact on users of the PROW than existing users.  The applicant proposed to install a weighbridge and office facilities along the private road which could impact on the PROW and may necessitate a temporary closure whilst construction works were being undertaken.

Mr H. White spoke against the application on the following grounds: public rights of way (PROW) users would be affected by the quantity of lorry traffic; applicant failed to consider the issue in the environmental statement originally submitted and was not proposing any mitigating actions; impact of lorry traffic was unacceptable on the path; up to 12 lorries per hour on the path; modern policies supported PROW; 400m access track was recorded as a public path which was the width of former track and been progressively widened over time; constructive meeting with officers on site and clarified site history, definitive path line and how it had altered over the years by the developer.  Also he had drafted a condition should Members wish to have sight of it.

Councillor Butler proposed the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He said whilst he supported the application he did have some concerns on the weighbridge and agreed with the mitigation measures as outlined in the report.

Councillor Ellis also agreed with the areas of mitigation in relation to the weighbridge and suggested a barrier to protect to the public from vehicles turning.  On the highway improvement works which would be undertaken at Parry’s Quarry, there was concern from residents on air quality in the area and said there were no monitoring devices nearby.  They also felt the source of the waste should be local and had concerns on contaminated waste; residents wanted to know what it was contaminated with.  She also asked whether there was a need for another facility which would also produce noise, dust and light pollution.  On restriction of vehicle movements, the CMRIF facility would operate seven days a week and there was a fear this would generate more noise.  It was reported that the majority of the work would take place inside and she queried how that would be policed.  On the ecology report, a recommendation of an addendum to the report was advised.  There was also reference in the report to the harm to the great crested newts.

Councillor Peers commented on the 24 hours of operation which would take place within the building saying at some time during that 24 hour period there would be a need to open those doors and he agreed with Councillor Ellis that it would be difficult to monitor the operation.  He also commented on potential noise from vehicles reversing with the audible beeping sound.  A discussion took place on the site visit on the integration of the footpath with the moving vehicles and he felt a physical segregation was needed between the highway and the footpath and asked if that could be a condition.

Councillor Richard Jones felt the need had not been proven for the proposed development.  He commented on the close proximity of Ewloe Barns and Parry’s Quarry adjacent to the site who were undertaking the same processes.  Also, the Inspector initially said the landfill was not necessary.

Councillor Thomas commented that the footpath was dangerous with the number of vehicles on the track.  On the wheel wash, he said it would not work when the access to the site was a hard core access as it created white dirt and he suggested tarmac or concrete instead.  On noise and pollution complaints, he said it was clear it was not being policed and questioned whether this would continue if approved.  He concurred with the view of Councillors Ellis and Richard Jones on whether there was a need for another facility in the area.

Councillor Bithell supported the comments made on the PROW.  On the hours of operation, he felt it was confusing as some were 7am-7pm with other operations being 24 hours.  He felt it should all be 7am-7pm with no operations taking place on a Sunday.  The rules for the three different facilities in close proximity were different on each one.  He suggested that it should be 7am-7pm for 12 months with an application for an extension if no complaints had been received during that period.

Councillor Lloyd asked if a condition could be put on the application to ensure that the weighbridge was not a public one.

The officer explained that a condition was recommended, following discussions with the PROW officer, to require the marking out of the PROW along the private road and to secure extra signage which would encourage walkers to use the area identified for the different usage.  Signage would also help to reduce conflict of use.  However, this was a road that was already used for a number of industrial uses and there had been no evidence of any problems.  That use would continue irrespective of whether planning permission was granted or not.  The industrial use access was on the left hand side of the road with the other side being an active quarry; therefore a physical barrier between the vehicles and the PROW was not feasible.  She confirmed that PROW guidance highlighted was a material consideration and was properly considered in that way. 

On air quality, a condition was proposed to be included that would secure monitoring of dust from the site.  The applicant had been clear on the source of the waste; it was not intended to serve just Flintshire but a much wider area.  On contaminated waste, a condition was imposed to ensure material was transported to the site within enclosed vehicles to carry the contaminated soils.  The need for a facility was detailed in full in the report which the officer felt had been demonstrated, reiterating that it was not just a facility for Flintshire alone but the wider area and the facilities were not available anywhere else nearby.  The Inspector had also detailed the benefits that would be provided by the facility.

Conditions were also recommended to cover dust, noise and lighting concerns with appropriate monitoring.

On 24 hour work and the policing of it, the way in which the condition was written allowed for 24 hour work within the building but in general it did not allow activities to take place outside.  There were exceptions such as in an emergency.  Noise monitoring would take place and work in parallel with the hours of operation which would pick up any issues and ensure that usual operations were not taking place outside of the usual hours of operation which was 7am-7pm, with any complaints being investigated.  On reversing beepers, there was a condition to ensure HGV’s did not access the site outside of the hours of 7am-7pm. 

The Ecologist had asked for information as an update but the information was not forthcoming.  However, she felt she had sufficient information on which to form a decision.  On great crested newts, a suitable condition was recommended.

The condition on the weighbridge would restrict the use so it was not available to the public.  Improvements to the private road could be secured to address issues of dirt on the road.

Councillor Richard jones asked a question on Parry’s Quarry which had permission for commercial and demolition material but the report said this was not considered.  On need, he said Parry’s Quarry also had a contaminated soil site.  The officer explained that there was a permission at Parry’s Quarry to develop as a landfill site and that was in the process of being implemented.  If that continued then capacity for construction and demolition waste would not be available. On such waste, a lot of it was due to the availability of space at a particular point in time.  On contaminated soils, it was based on permitted facilities which had a permit from NRW.   There was no harm in having two sites in close proximity.

In summing up, Councillor Butler asked if the Committee could hear Mr White’s proposed condition in respect of the PROW.  The Senior Solicitor advised that this was not appropriate as it had not been seen by officers or Members prior to the meeting and full details of the proposed condition had been provided by the officer on mitigating the issues raised in respect of impacts on the PROW.  Councillor Butler said he still had some concerns on the PROW but officers confirmed that the PROW would be marked and provision for maintenance would be included in the condition in order to overcome the concerns outlined and to protect walkers in that area. 

            RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the legal agreement and the conditions outlined in the report of Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), including as detailed in the late observations.