Contact Officer: Mary Thompson Tel: (01865) 815901
ITEM PN7
PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2009
APPLICATION FOR THE RELOCATION OF OFFICES, DEPOT WITH VEHICLE WORKSHOP AND OVERNIGHT PARKING, AN EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING WASTE TRANSFER BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY WITH STORAGE AND PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS AND REFUSE DERIVED FUEL
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development
Location Overthorpe Industrial Estate Applicant Grundon Waste Management Ltd. Application No 06/00954/CM Division Banbury, Grimsbury and Castle District Council Area Cherwell
Introduction
1. This is an application to extend Grundon’s current site into land off Thorpe Mead, Overthorpe Industrial Estate, Banbury. This is in order to incorporate the activities currently situated at the company’s nearby Merton Road site and also to provide additional waste recovery facilities.
Location (Plan 1) (download as .doc file)
2. The proposed development site comprises 2.7 hectares of land on and adjacent to the Overthorpe Industrial Estate on the eastern side of Banbury.
3. An area of the site is in the floodplain as defined by the Environment Agency.
The Site and its Setting (Plan 2) (download as .doc file)
4. Grundon already occupy part of the application site for a waste transfer building. The other part of the site is currently being used for allotments. The use of land for allotments would continue adjacent to the new development.
5. The site was selected by Grundon following negotiations with Cherwell District Council, because Grundon’s existing Merton Road site is close to new areas of residential development. Relocating Grundons from the Merton Road site would improve the amenities of the occupants of this housing area.
6. The application site lies on the southern edge of Overthorpe Industrial Estate on land that gently slopes towards the River Cherwell and the railway line. It is located within 1 mile (1.6 kilometres) of junction 11 of the M40 and the A422.
7. Adjacent activities within the industrial estate include a high technology business, a coach company, car breaker’s yard and sewage works.
Details of Application
8. At present Grundon are operating over two sites in the area, one at Thorpe Mead and the other off Merton Road (see plan 1). They wish to extend the operations at Thorpe Mead to incorporate those at Merton Road, whilst also developing a new materials recovery facility (MRF). At present the Merton Road site has a vehicle depot and waste transfer site. The site on Thorpe Mead has a Waste Transfer Building which it is proposed would be extended.
9. The existing access onto Thorpe Mead Road (Plan 2) would be used for deliveries and collections from the Waste Transfer Building. The access into the allotments from Thorpe Way would be upgraded and a new haul road would be constructed across the allotments for use by all other traffic associated with the development.
10. The existing waste transfer operations deal with 75,000 tonnes of mixed commercial/industrial waste each year. The new MRF and ancillary developments would handle a further 70,000 tonnes of commercial/industrial and household waste.
11. There would be an average of 140 vehicle (70 in, 70 out) movements a day associated with the Waste Transfer Building using the existing access and an average of 184 vehicle movements a day using the new access to the MRF. This is a total of 324 vehicle movements per day on average.
12. The existing waste transfer building would be extended by approximately 12 metres but the volume and types of waste would not alter.
13. A new Materials Recovery Facility building is proposed which would be approximately 140 metres long, 46 metres wide and 15 metres tall at its highest point. In addition, an office and vehicle workshop is proposed to replace the facilities at Merton Road. This building would be approximately 66 metres long and 21 metres wide.
14. A covered storage area is proposed on the eastern side of the site. This would be approximately 21 metres by 16 metres and would be used for the storage of baled materials and waste coffee grounds.
15. A vehicle and container wash down area is proposed, and existing clinical and liquid waste transfer facilities would also be moved from the Merton Street site.
16. There would be provision for the parking of 56 cars and 33 lorries within the site and 2.4 metre high palisade fencing is proposed to securely enclose the area. A twin deck weighbridge and office would be situated by the new site access.
17. Part of the MRF building is proposed to be used for the production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). This allows waste which is not suitable for recycling to be processed further to provide a fuel that can be used in industrial processes such as furnaces, lime burners and power stations. This reduces both the amount of waste going to landfill and reliance on fossil fuels.
18. Part of the development site currently lies within the floodplain. An onsite flood compensation scheme has been submitted to lower land on the site to ensure that there is no overall loss of flood storage capacity.
Planning History
19. This application originally came to Planning & Regulation Committee on 11 September 2006. The report had a recommendation for refusal because of an objection by the Environment Agency on flooding grounds. The applicant had hoped to overcome the flooding issue through phased development with Phase 2 being constructed after the completion of the Banbury Flood Alleviation Scheme. Funding for the flood alleviation scheme was subsequently cut and it was not possible to recommend that permission be granted as there was no certainty that Phase 2 could be implemented. However, the applicant suggested that there may be alternative measures which could make the development acceptable in terms of flood risk and, as a result, consideration of the application was deferred to allow the applicant time to discuss the flooding issues with the Environment Agency.
20. The Environment Agency removed their objection in October 2007 and confirmed that it is possible to provide adequate mitigation measures to ensure that this development does not increase flood risk, even if the Banbury Flood Alleviation Scheme does not go ahead.
21. The application was not brought back to this Committee immediately after the Environment Agency removed their objection, because full details of the proposed flood mitigation measures had not been supplied. Further information was also sought in relation to the Environmental Statement, in response to concerns raised by a neighbouring business. This additional information was submitted in October 2008 and was the subject of a re-consultation exercise. The Environment Agency then objected to this additional information. As a result yet further information has been provided by the applicant. It is only now in April 2009 that the Environment Agency has indicated that they have removed their objection to this proposal.
Environmental Statement
22. An Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted with this application. The main issues covered are noise, air quality, landscape and visual impacts and highways.
23. An assessment of the impact of noise from the development has been undertaken. As a result of that assessment the proposal includes a 2.5 metre noise barrier between the new access track and the closest commercial building, to ensure acceptable noise levels at the building.
24. Air quality has been assessed and it has been found that the air quality in the area is acceptable. It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to breach National Air Quality Strategy objectives.
25. Analysis of the predicted affects on visual amenity show that there would be ‘high’ and ‘very high’ impacts on a number of local views. Planting would soften and filter the impact, rather than completely screen the development, and that planting has been proposed.
26. A survey of existing traffic movements into and out of the Merton Road site shows that closure of this site would result in a significant reduction in vehicle movements, especially heavy goods movements, along Merton Street and Bridge Street. The ES finds that the proposed development traffic onto Thorpe Way can be safely accommodated and dispersed through the local industrial roads.
27. The main conclusions of the ES are that appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the scheme to ensure that the development can be undertaken without causing significant harm to the environment.
Additional Information for the ES
28. Additional information was requested for the Environmental Statement following the first round of consultation.
29. The additional information received includes work on vibration. This considers the levels of vibration inside a neighbouring office/factory building that would result from vehicles on the proposed haul road. It concludes that it is unlikely that the levels would exceed the vibration criteria provided by the occupants of that building.
30. The additional information also included an ecology assessment. This concludes that the development would lead to the loss of low value habitats. It would not have a significant effect on bats, badgers and amphibians but would lead to the loss of a colony of common lizards. Proposals are put forward for the translocation of these. It is also recommended that bird and bat boxes are erected to improve the ecological value of the area and that works are timed to avoid impact on breeding birds.
31. A noise assessment was submitted to assess the noise impact of the new development on the neighbouring office/factory building. This concludes that even with the windows open for ventilation the noise resulting from the development would be within acceptable limits.
32. A supplementary air quality assessment has been provided to consider the impact of the haul road close to office buildings. This concludes that the increases in pollutants from the proposed development would be very small and the impact negligible. The dust assessment confirms that dust levels are not likely to be significant, but does propose that the access road and departing vehicles are kept clean to ensure that adverse impacts are not caused.
33. The additional information contained an addendum to the landscape and visual assessment. This proposes additional planting to mitigate the visual impact of the noise barrier.
34. A flood risk assessment has been submitted. This provides a range of mitigation measures including level for level flood compensation and surface water attenuation.
Consultations
Cherwell District Council
35. Planning - No objection subject to a number of conditions covering external lighting, environmental health, submission of details on landscaping, implementation of a noise barrier along track from Thorpe Way, mitigation to address impact on flood risk, environmental health conditions previously proposed for Merton Street site and details of a management plan for the handling of spent coffee grounds.
36. Environmental Health Comments - seeks clarification on the installation of noise barriers. Would like a detailed management plan for handling spent coffee grounds and would like the environmental health conditions drawn up for Merton Street to be imposed on this development if permission were granted.
37. Planning - Response to consultation on additional information letter dated 11 December 2008 - With regard to the ecology report submitted this is considered to be sufficiently thorough. The mitigation strategies for birds, bats and reptiles are reasonable and should be implemented. Would also like to see maintenance and enhancement of existing hedges and additional planting on the site boundaries. A suitable area for the translocation of the common lizard population should be found and surveyed to determine its suitability and current lizard population status. Comments on the full mitigatory strategy for the lizard population should be sought from Natural England. The updated winter bat survey of the mature trees should be carried out as recommended in the additional information if these trees are likely to be affected in any way by the development.
38. Environmental Health Response to consultation on additional information letter dated 14 November 2008 – Confirm that the additional information submitted indicates that there would not be an unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring premises (CTG’s premises) as a result of noise from the MRF. Concur with the report’s findings that vibration will not adversely affect CTG’s premises.
Banbury Town Council
39. Propose that (i) existing fencing is used instead of Grundon’s fencing, (ii) that an equivalent length of fencing be provided that matches the existing fencing in style and colour around the adjacent allotment site, (iii) that the existing gates be re-used and installed at a point on the section of fencing between allotments and the main entrance driveway along the concrete apron, (iv) that the section of fencing between Thorpe Way and the main entrance be of the same colour to that already installed, (v) that Grundon’s give permission for the main entrance road to be used to access the adjacent allotment site and (vi) that Grundon’s be made responsible for the clearance of rubbish to accepted standards.
40. Response to consultation on additional information18 November 2008 - No further observations.
Environment Agency
41. First Response 7 June 2006 - Objected as the applicant had not fully addressed the flood risk issues. Did not find the proposal to phase the development acceptable as it relied on Banbury flood alleviation scheme, which had not then been undertaken and would have left a residual risk of flooding. Flood risk cannot be adequately assessed without details of the whole development. Flood level of 90m above ordnance datum was previously given by the Environment Agency. The surface water drainage strategy was not detailed enough to allow sufficient assessment of the associated flood risk. The EIA said that there are no watercourses adjacent to site, but that the access crosses one. This should be addressed in the EIA.
42. Second Response 1 October 2007 – Withdraws the objection subject to a condition being imposed to ensure that compensatory flood storage works shall be carried out in accordance with details agreed. There should also be a condition for the submission of details of the construction of surface and foul drainage systems. A new waste management licence or possibly PPC permit will be required for the new materials recycling facility. An informative regarding the discharge of effluent into controlled waters is needed. Pollution prevention advice should be added as informatives to any permission given.
43. Response to consultation on additional information letter dated 11 December 2008 - Object. The flood risk assessment does not comply with the requirements of PPS25. In particular it fails to consider the effect of a full range of flooding events on people and property and to demonstrate that surface water will be managed sufficiently.
44. Second Response additional information email dated 1 May – Withdraw objection. Although the flood risk assessment demonstrated that the development would not increase flood risk up to and including the 100 year fluvial flood event with an allowance for climate change, there was some concern that the site might flood in a 1 in 20 year event and therefore be within the functional floodplain and not suitable for this type of development. However, further information submitted by the applicant has now shown that the site is not within the functional floodplain. Therefore previous objection on fluvial flood risk grounds is removed. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development would not lead to an increase in flood risk from surface water so objection on these grounds is also removed. However the detailed design of the surface water drainage scheme has yet to be agreed and should be required by condition. Conditions should also be imposed covering the flood risk assessment and mitigation measures and contaminated land.
Thames Water
45. No objection. Recommends that with regard to the disposal of surface water, the applicant:
· Looks to ensure that new connections to the public sewerage system do not pose an unacceptable threat of surcharge, flooding or pollution; · Checks that the proposals are in line with advice from DETR, which encourages the disposal on site without recourse to the public sewerage system; · Looks to ensure the separation of foul and surface water sewerage.
Archaeology
46. No objection, informative to notify applicant that they must inform the County Archaeologist if archaeological finds occur.
Fire Service
47. The fire service has been consulted due to the storage of refuse derived fuel as part of the proposal. No response was initially received.
48. Response to consultation on additional information 20 November 2008 - No objection. Recommend a planning condition for full sprinkler protection.
Health and Safety Executive
49. Do not advise against this development.
County Ecologist
50. The County Ecologist has raised no objection to this application but provided detailed comments on improvements to the landscaping scheme which would be incorporated into conditions attached to any approval. There is no description of the existing site or the allotments.
51. Response to consultation on additional information 12 November 2008 - As requested an ecological survey of the site has been undertaken in 2008. The report concludes that, ‘the development of the site will result in the loss of low value habitats. It should not have a significant effect on badgers, bats and amphibians but will result in the loss of a colony of common lizards. Proposals have been put forward to translocate this population to an area of rough grassland to the south (subject to access and site safeguarding). Other proposals have been made for the enhancement of the ecological value of the development site, such as the erection of bird and bat boxes and timing of works to avoid impact on breeding birds.’ As long as these proposals are successfully implemented I have no objection to the proposed development.
Transport Development Control
52. No objection as the site is located within an industrial estate with an adequate highway network. Suggest a condition for submission of details for the access onto Thorpe Mead.
53. Response to consultation on additional information 24 December 2008 – Development would be a benefit to highway safety as it will take HGVs from the Merton Street residential area to industrial roads. The highway network within the industrial estate is more suitable to take large vehicles than Merton Street. An amended vision splay plan should be submitted. The access road should be surfaced to prevent debris being carried onto Thorpe Way. Access should be constructed to OCC specifications and surfaced to avoid the spread of debris. The radii shown on the submitted access plan are not adequate and should be amended. Layout within the site is acceptable as two HGVs can pass each other. Concern has been raised about the tightness of the corner in the access road. However, it has been demonstrated that HGVs would be able to manoeuvre around this. Potential conflict could be overcome through a condition requiring a speed limit or calming measure, or through the widening of this corner.
54. Further response 8 April 2009 – Following the submission of a revised access plan showing a 6 metre radius on the left hand side and a 10 metre radius on the right hand side and a revised vision splay, Transport Development Control have confirmed that these plans are acceptable. These works will require a section 278 agreement, which can be secured through planning condition.
Representations
Crompton Technology Group Limited (CTG)
55. 1st letter - 7 June 2006 - CTG occupy the site adjacent to the proposed access road. They object to the creation of a new access road as they would then have Grundon’s development on 3 of the 4 sides of their site. The traffic on the proposed access road would cause an unacceptable intrusion into their working environment. Led to believe that the site was quiet and green and the surrounding land would remain as allotments. Road surface is already becoming a problem due to use by HGVs. Vehicle parking along Thorpe Way reduces visibility.
56. 2nd letter – 3 July 2007 - Strongly object to the proposal as they say it would cause significant damage to their business. They say there would be a significant deterioration of their immediate environment and within their unit due to noise, dust, dirt and litter. Would have no objection to the normal type of development one would expect to see on an industrial estate but this is different due to construction of additional roadways and high volume of traffic. CTG is an internationally recognised high technology business supplying critical products for nearly all MRI scanners produced globally. Workforce has doubled in last 3 years and has been recognised as Oxfordshire Business of the Year. Concerned about the impact of this development on the perception of visiting clients. Would never have taken up occupancy if had known about this scheme. Concerned that noise and dust would impair operations to the point of necessitating relocation.
57. Framptons Town Planning Consultants on behalf of CTG 7 June 2006 -Further comments have been received from Framptons acting on behalf of CTG. They have objected to the proposed construction of a new access road on a greenfield site. The development would materially, adversely impact on amenity of CTG in the occupation of their business premises in terms of noise, vibration and dust. Existing access is considered adequate for the activities undertaken by the applicant.
58. Cumming Anderton Architects on behalf of CTG - 4 September 2006 - Act for the owners of the site bordering the application site to the south west. The MRF building appears to be built in the existing flood plain and 2 metres from the boundary with CTG’s site. This 2 metre border would be inadequate to screen the large MRF building which would have an unacceptable impact on CTG’s site. Development would not be in accordance with policy on flooding.
59. Bond Pearce on behalf of CTG - 11 February 2008 - Believe that the planning application is not sufficiently detailed or complete. Flood risk assessment, assessment of vibration and air quality from haul road and consideration of biodiversity should be provided as part of the Environmental Statement. The landscape and visual assessment should also cover the noise mitigation wall. The traffic section of the ES should be expanded and include alternatives. More detail is needed about noise. Planning application is missing details on the proposed access road such as visibility splays, access road levels, dimensions and sight lines and details of the structure required to cross the existing drainage channel.
60. CTG Response to consultation on additional information November 2008: Object to the track of the proposed new exit roadway. This will run directly adjacent to factory and offices. The passage of significant numbers of HGVs will have an adverse impact on their business. Roadway would be disruptive in terms of noise, dust and vibration. Passage of vehicles outside of meeting rooms would adversely affect ability to communicate with major customers. Factory contains sensitive machinery which would be adversely impacted by vibration from HGVs. CTG is a very successful high tech company that is expecting to expand over the coming years. Would like a compromise to be found. Cannot understand why the exit roadway cannot be located further from their building.
Tadmarton Products Ltd
61. Wishes to record that they were not consulted as a neighbour who may be affected by this development. Concerned about the prospect of 385 lorry movements a day on Thorpe Way. Consider it is not adequate for this purpose and will almost certainty cause a major traffic jam. The site is in close proximity to housing.
Spital Farm Allotment Association
62. 1st letter: 6 June 2006 - The bird sanctuary and hedge on the northern boundary would be destroyed. Contrary to promises, extra ground and allotments near the main entrance would be taken. Inadequate safeguard against flooding of allotments, reference to be made to Environment Agency. Run-off water to be diverted to nearest watercourse i.e. allotment ditch – likely contamination.
63. 2nd letter: 26 July 2006 - Flooding – any outcome of current talks between Grundon’s and the Environment Agency would be pre-emptive and premature. Grundon’s have expressed no direct regard or intention to protect Spital Farm Allotments. Flood defences have yet to be determined following a public inquiry.
64. Response to consultation on additional information 25 November 2008 - Would like conditions to be imposed for (i) the provision of vehicular and pedestrian access gates to the allotment site off the new road at points marked on an attached plan, (ii) a new direct access off Thorpe Way at a point marked on an attached plan, (iii) erection of vandal proof fence along the whole length of the new roadway with close weatherboarding along the whole of the road adjoining allotment plots, (iv) new direct water supply from the metered supply in Thorpe Way, (v) removal of rubbish and re-instatement to allotments of the area hatched green on an attached plan, (vi) preparation of this area for cultivation, (vii) tile drainage of foregoing areas, (viii) transit of allotment members on and off the site to be protected by full public and private liability insurance.
Relevant Planning Policies (Annex 2 for list of policies) (download as .doc file)
65. The key policies are those related to waste management policy, flood risk, visual impact and landscaping, traffic and the site and location.
Waste Management Policy
66. RPG9 policy W4 states that waste planning authorities should aim for net self-sufficiency through provision for management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising.
67. RPG9 policy W5 states that a substantial increase in recovery of waste and commensurate reduction in landfill is required. It states that in diverting waste from landfill, priority should be given to processes higher up the waste hierarchy.
68. Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) policy W17 states that the suitability of sites for the location of waste management facilities should be assessed on the basis of having good accessibility from existing urban areas or new or planned development, good transport connections and compatible land uses. Compatible land uses include active mineral working sites, previous or existing industrial land use, contaminated or derelict land, land adjoining sewage treatment works and redundant farm buildings. Sites must also be capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria.
69. OMWLP policy W3 states that proposals for reuse/recycling will normally only be permitted providing that: (a) the site is close to the source of the waste and/or the market for the re-used/recycled materials; (b) the site is well related to appropriate parts of the transport network and located where the number and length of motorised journeys is likely to be minimised; (c) the proposal will not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic; (d) the proposal will not pose an unacceptable risk to the water environment; (e) the proposal does not conflict with Structure and Local Plan policies.
70. PSS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management states that waste should only be disposed of if it cannot be re-used or recycled, as these are higher up the waste hierarchy.
Flood Risk
71. The adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (CLP 1996) policy ENV8 states that in areas at risk from flooding, new development will not normally be permitted. Where development in such areas is permitted, appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures will generally be required as part of the development.
72. The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011 (CLP) policy EN14 states that in areas at risk from flooding, new development will not be permitted if the proposals would (i) result in a net loss of flood plain storage, (ii) impede the flow of flood water or (iii) increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
73. PPS25 Development and Flood Risk states that within the functional floodplain built development should be wholly exceptional and limited to essential transport and utilities infrastructure.
Landscaping and Visual Impact
74. OSP policy G2 states that all development should be of a scale and type appropriate to the area and not cause harm to the character and amenities of the area. In addition all development must incorporate a high quality of layout, design and landscaping.
75. OMWLP policy W5 states that waste treatment plant and buildings must be properly screened from the surrounding landscape.
Traffic
76. OSP policy T8 states that proposals for development should be permitted only if they provide adequate access and mitigation of adverse transport impacts.
The Site and Location
77. This site is ‘white land’ meaning it is not allocated in the CLP. Therefore there are no policies which deal specifically with this location.
78. This development is partially on land currently used as allotments. CLP policy R17 states that development on allotment land will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) reasonable replacement can be made in a suitable location or (ii) there is no demand for the allotments and existing allotment provision in the area is sufficient; and (iii) the land is not of value, or potential value to the community, taking into account the adequacy of open space provision in the area.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
79. The key issues which need to be considered are waste management policy, flood risk, landscaping and the visual impact of the development, traffic, use of allotment land and effect on neighbouring uses.
Waste Management
80. The proposal accords with RPG9 policy W4 because it would provide for the management of waste within Oxfordshire, contributing to sub-regional self-sufficiency. It also accords with RPG9 W5 as it allows the recycling of waste that would otherwise be landfilled, which moves it up the waste hierarchy in accordance with PPS10.
81. The proposal accords with OMWLP policy W3 because it is closely located to both the source of waste and the market for the materials. The site is well located to the transport network. The proposal should not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, smell, visual intrusion or traffic, because it will be an extension of an industrial estate where this type of development is to be expected. Indeed, the site is adjacent to a sewage treatment works. The proposal includes landscaping proposals and noise and traffic can be regulated by use of appropriate conditions.
82. The proposed development has good transport links and is located near compatible landuses, in that it is adjacent to an existing industrial estate and a sewage treatment facility. Part of the site forms part of the industrial estate and is currently being used for waste transfer activities. The remainder of the site is currently in use as allotments. However, its proximity to compatible land uses means that it is consistent with policy W17 of RPG9.
Flood Risk
83. The applicant has now provided a Flood Risk Assessment including a review of the Banbury Flood Model. They have also submitted a scheme which provides compensation for the flood storage lost as a result of this development. In the light of the detailed flooding information that has been provided, the Environment Agency have withdrawn their previous objections to this application.
84. As the Environment Agency have confirmed that this development would not lead to an increase in risk of flooding and that the site is not in the functional floodplain, I consider that the development complies with the relevant development plan policies CLP 1996 ENV8 and CLP EN14 and PPS25.
Landscaping and Visual Impact
85. This proposal is for development on an existing industrial estate. Although the proposed new buildings are large and functional in design, they would be of a scale and type appropriate to the surroundings and therefore accord with OSP policy G2 (a).
86. Although the development would be on an industrial estate, it would be on the southern edge of it and so would be visible from other areas. Therefore, it is important to have appropriate landscaping and screening if the development is to be allowed in order to accord with OSP policy G2 (b) and OMWLP policy W5. The applicant has provided a revised layout and landscaping scheme to ensure that any adverse visual impact is minimised.
Traffic
87. There are unlikely to be any adverse transport impacts as a result of this development as it is located on an industrial estate with a road layout that is designed for heavy use by large vehicles. There has been a complaint about general vehicle parking on the estate roads in a representation. However, this parking takes place outside the application area and is not something that can be dealt with as part of this planning permission. The transfer of the operations currently being undertaken at the Merton Street site to the new site will mean the removal of large vehicles from a road used by residents of new housing in that area. Transport Development Control originally expressed concern about the proposed layout of the new access. The applicant provided a revised plan which is acceptable. These works are outside the red line area and on the public highway. Therefore a section 278 agreement secured through a planning condition will be required. Subject to these works there has been no objection from Transport Development Control, the development is acceptable in transport terms and accords with OSP policy T8.
Allotment Land
88. Whilst the Allotment Association have raised concerns about the impact of this development they do not object in principle to the loss of this part of the allotment site to the development as the area retained for allotments is still sufficient provision for this part of Banbury. The use of former allotment land for this development has been decided upon in negotiation with both Cherwell District Council and the Allotments Association. Therefore this proposal accords with CLP policy R17.
Effect on neighbouring business
89. Representations have been received which object to this application. A company (CTG) occupying premises next to the proposed access road has objected on amenity grounds. They consider that the traffic on the access road to the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the working environment of the people employed there. Specific problems identified are noise, dust and vibration. It is suggested that the existing access is sufficient and could be used for this development. As an alternative the proposed new access could be located further from the CTG building.
90. The new access road is, however, necessary as the site is constricted and it would not be practical for traffic to travel around the existing Waste Transfer Building to reach the other facilities to be provided on the site. The applicant considers that the location proposed for the haul road is appropriate to serve the site. The Committee needs to decide whether the haul road is acceptable in this location. There has been no objection from the Environmental Health Officer to the access road in the proposed location close to the CTG building. To move the road further away from the CTG building would take further land from the allotments.
91. In my view this location on ‘white land’ adjacent to an industrial estate is appropriate for this type of use and conditions can be imposed to ensure that the development does not cause an unacceptable nuisance. There has been no objection from the Environmental Health Officer to this use on this site.
92. Noise, dust and visual impact are considered in the Environmental Statement. It has been shown that these impacts can be adequately mitigated against. CTG have suggested that the lorries on the access road adjacent to their premises could cause vibration that would cause damage to their sensitive equipment. As a result of this comment, the potential effect of vibration has been considered in the additional information provided, which also forms part of the ES. The ES has found it is very unlikely that levels of vibration caused by passing vehicles on the proposed new access road would exceed the criteria provided by CTG. However, the ES recommends that in order to ensure vibration is kept at a low level, the road surface is kept smooth and well maintained and that speed ramps are not used. These recommendations can be required as planning conditions. CTG are also concerned about the visual intrusion of waste lorries passing by below the windows of their meeting rooms and offices. However their offices are located on a general industrial estate where lorries pass as a matter of course. Therefore it is my view that the haul road in its proposed location would not cause an unacceptable effect on local amenity.
93. OMWLP policy W3 requires that proposals for recycling should not cause an unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic. I consider that this development would not cause an unacceptable nuisance to CTG as the potential nuisances have been evaluated in the Environmental Statement and could be controlled through the imposition of appropriate conditions. The impacts that would be experienced are those that should be expected on an industrial estate.
Other Issues
94. The Spital Farm Allotments Association have objected on flooding and run-off grounds. These issues have been addressed above in paragraphs71-73. They also mention that the bird sanctuary and hedge on the northern boundary will be destroyed. The County Ecologist has not objected to the removal of the vegetation intended to be removed and a condition can be imposed to protect and maintain the vegetation which is to remain. The County Ecologist has also confirmed that there is no record of any bird sanctuary near the site. The ecological assessment proposes mitigation for potential disturbance to breeding birds. These mitigation measures comprise of the provision of nesting boxes and a restriction of the timing of vegetation clearance to autumn and winter. The Environment Agency is satisfied that, subject to conditions, the development is acceptable in terms of flood risk and run-off.
95. Spital Farm allotment association have also suggested a number of conditions. The majority of these do not relate directly to the development but to the area to be retained as allotments. They include things such as drainage and ploughing of the land. These are issues which should be resolved in the negotiations between the Allotment Association, the landowner and the applicant in the sale of the site. They are not planning considerations. I suggest conditions could be added to cover the separation of the allotment site from the haul road and the arrangements for access into the allotments from this road.
96. Cherwell District Council suggest that a condition be imposed to provide suitable safeguards for any archaeological deposits that may exist on site. The County Archaeologist has advised that a planning informative would be sufficient to protect any archeological interest in the land.
97. Cherwell District Council has suggested a condition requiring the submission and approval of a management plan for handling spent coffee grounds. This condition has not been included in the recommendation as this is an issue that would be covered by the Environment Agency as part of the waste permit process.
98. The Environment Agency originally expressed concern that the application did not address how the new access road would cross the watercourse. Plans have since been submitted by the applicant detailing how this would be done and a condition could be imposed ensuring that the development is carried out in accordance with these plans. The Environment Agency have confirmed that they are satisfied with these plans.
99. Banbury Town Council have suggested a number of conditions in relation to the fencing of the allotment site. I agree that conditions could be added to ensure that the access to the site from Thorpe Way can also be used by allotment holders, and for the submission of details for the arrangements for the separation of the haul road from the allotment site and gating at the junction with Thorpe Way. The suggested condition for the fencing of the allotment site and use of existing fencing have not been added as they do not relate directly to the development and so would be unreasonable to require these.
Conclusions
100. This development is in accordance with policy on waste management. Although there have been objections by neighbours, the site is suitable for this type of development proposed and the surrounding industrial uses are compatible. It makes use of land no longer required for allotment use and previously developed land within an urban area. The proposals for landscaping and screening make it acceptable in terms of landscape policy and accord with transport policy.
101. Subject to the proposed flood compensation scheme, this development would not increase the risk of flooding and therefore accords with CLP 1996 ENV8 and CLP EN14 and PPS25.
102. Therefore, this development is acceptable in terms of the key policy areas and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS
103. It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to prior completion of a legal agreement requiring that waste management operations are ceased at Grundon’s Merton Street site once this development is built and operational the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to grant planning permission for application 06/00954/CM subject to conditions to be determined by the head of Sustainable Development but to cover those matters outlined at Annex 1 (download as .doc file) to this report;
(b) the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement recommended in (a) above was not completed within 10 weeks of the date of approval of the application.
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background Papers: Application for the relocation of offices, depot with vehicle workshop and overnight parking, an extension to the existing waste transfer building and the development of a materials recovery facility with storage and processing facilities for recovered materials and derived fuel. File 8.1/4640/3 and 8.1/4640/3 part 2 located in Minerals and Waste Development Control Team area at Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford. Contact Mary Thompson 01865 815901.
May 2009
|