Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for an extension to provide enclosed loading area to front elevation of materials recovery facility (no increase in annual throughput) and regularisation of as-built variations to the original planning permission for a materials recovery facility (10/03906/FU).

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for an extension to provide enclosed loading area to front elevation of materials recovery facility (no increase in annual throughput) and regularisation of as built variations to the original planning permission for a materials recovery facility.

Panel Members had visited the site prior to the previous meeting when the application was deferred to allow further consideration to be given to late information that had been submitted.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The site was originally granted planning permission in 2010.

·  This application was to regularise development which had taken place and was unauthorised; to grant formal planning permission for development that had taken place that and grant planning consent for new development.

·  The site plans and operation of the site were explained.

·  Proximity to residential properties was shown.

·  A late representation had been made from a local Ward Councillor which sought an additional condition not to bring in putrescible waste which could cause odour.

·  It was reported that the proposals should alleviate some of the issues that had caused concern for local residents.

·  There had been concerns that following the permission granted in 2010 that there had not been conditions on the kinds and volume of waste to be treated at the site.  There was a view from objectors and local Ward Members that there should be a condition in respect of this. It was reported that this could not be done from a legal perspective.

·  In summary of the application, Members were asked to consider retrospective permission for developments already done at the site and permission for the extension and whether these were acceptable in terms of design and to the amenity of local residents.

·  The application was recommended for approval

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns and objections ti the application.  These included the following:

·  Local residents had suffered years of odour and noise disturbance from activities at the site. 

·  Local residents had suffered illness due to odours from the site.

·  There was a history of non-compliance with regulations and a lack of conditions and enforcement of activity at the site.

·  The site was not suitable for processing putrescible waste and odour mitigation was inadequate.

·  The operator was in breach of their permit.

·  In response to questions from Members, the following was discussed:

o  There was still a pending ombudsman case with regards to operations at the site.

o  Not all breaches of the permit had been recorded as the Environment Agency was not always able to respond.

o  There had been reduced use of the nearby fishing pond and complaints from people using the nearby bus stop due to odour from the site.

o  There was noise disturbance during the night and there was an understanding the site shouldn’t be used through the night.

o  The odour was caused by the treatment of putrescent waste.

The Panel heard from a representative of the Environment Agency.  It was reported that the operator required an environmental permit which included conditions to minimise odour.  In 2013 it was determined that odour pollution was being caused and the operator was successfully prosecuted.  Following this some measures were put in place to reduce odour.  It was felt more could be done on order to reduce odour and this was being explored.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

o  The site used carbon filters to prevent odour.  It was not felt that this was enough.

o  Should the application be refused, current operations could carry on at the site without restrictions.  The application did request for odour management plans to be submitted.

o  Concern of the impacts on the local community and nearby traveller’s site.

o  Concern regarding the treatment of putrescent waste and a request for the applicant to accept a condition not to treat this kind of waste.

o  The application would alleviate the existing problems by enclosing the waste.

o  With regard to conditions to the application it was reported that enforcement action could be taken where these conditions were not met

Due to the significant impact on residential amenity a motion was made to refuse the application.  Following a vote this motion was overturned and Members moved to the vote on the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per the officer recommendation and conditions outlined in the report.

(Councillor R Finnigan requested that his vote against the recommendation to approve the application be recorded).