Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for changes to existing materials recycling facility, extension to waste transfer building (no increase in annual waste throughput), two storey extension to offices and amended site layout with additional landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for changes to an existing materials recycling facility, extension to waste transfer building (no increase in annual waste throughput), two storey extension to offices and amended site layout with additional landscaping.

Site photographs and plans were displayed at the meeting and the Panel had received a position statement on the application in March 2014.

Further issues highlighted regarding the application included the following:

·  Members were informed that late information had been received from local residents and MAS Environmental Health Consultants.  This information had not been circulated due to lateness and a Member requested that the item be deferred in the interests of fairness and reasonableness as it was considered that the late information could be vital in determining the application.  As representatives of the Environment Agency were in attendance for the item, it was suggested that the application be considered and if necessary a decision could be deferred to the next meeting of the Panel.

·  The site was based within the greenbelt and was safeguarded for waste management within the development plan.

·  The proposals included an extension to the main recycling building which would help to minimise noise and odour pollution and an extension to the office block which would enable the operator to remove portakabins from the site.

·  Details of internal operations within the building and how these would contribute to the reduction of noise and odour pollution.

·  Changes to movements of vehicles within the site to reduce noise.

·  Environment Agency permission was required and they were responsible for monitoring the site.

A local resident spoke in objection to the application.  Concerns raised included the following:

·  Significant impact on nearby properties due to waste odours.

·  The location was not suitable for such a facility.

·  The Environment Agency had conceded that there was always a potential for odour.

·  The odour prevented people using the outdoor areas of their properties and excessive smells had made people physically ill.

·  The wagons using the site were excessively noisy and also caused odour pollution.  There were over 100 visits per day and this led to queuing traffic.

·  The opinion of MAS Environmental Health Consultants was that the nuisance was likely to continue.

·  In response to questions from Members it was reported that there had been over 100 complaints regarding operations at the site and there had been meetings with the Chief Planning Officer and representatives of the Environment Agency.  There was also an outstanding ombudsman case.

Further to Members comments and questions, discussion included the following:

·  Further to concern that the facility was operating outside planning consent, it was reported that the waste treated there was covered within the planning and Environment Agency permissions.

·  The proposals would not permit additional volume of waste to be treated at the site.

·  A suspension notice had previously been served at the site but was subsequently lifted as a result of mitigation works.  Further problems could result in the permit being revoked but the Environment Agency felt that all that could be done to prevent odour at the site was reasonable.  It was inevitable that there would be some odour but the site had an Odour Management Plan and was used as an example of excellent practice.

·  Responses to complaints and the process for carrying out odour assessments.

·  A further suggestion to defer the decision to allow officers to respond to the late information which was submitted.  There was some concern expressed by officers regarding the late information as MAS Environmental Health Consultants had previously carried out a study that supported the site and that the late submission was more opinion than evidence based.

It was moved to defer the decision to a future meeting of the South and West Plans Panel.

RESOLVED – That the decision on the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow further consideration of the late information submitted.