Return to Agenda

ITEM PN8

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 8 APRIL 2002

BUILDING TO HOUSE A MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF)OFF MERTON STREET, BANBURY (APPLICATION NO 01/01033/OCC)

Report by Director of Environmental Services

1. S Grundon Ltd has applied for planning permission to erect a building to house a material recovery facility (MRF) at their existing depot off Merton Street, Banbury. As the name implies, useable materials are recovered from waste at a MRF.

Site Description and Planning History (refer to plan)

2. The site lies to the south east of Banbury railway station. The former Banbury cattle market forms the north eastern boundary. There is an authorised scrap yard to the south of the site also within Grundon’s ownership. The nearest waste transfer and recycling station to the depot is at Overthorpe Road belonging to Shanks Waste (refer to plan).
3. The site has been operating as a depot for over twenty years providing waste collection and disposal services throughout Cherwell District. Several other activities on the site would remain regardless of whether planning permission was granted or refused for the MRF. There are underground tanks for oil and waste and a tank which stores liquid food waste. Next to the tank is a sealed and locked clinical waste trailer. There is also an existing truck wash facility and an area for washing skips. Each of these activities would remain in any event and each is controlled by the Environment Agency, Grundons hold the appropriate licences. The land to the south east of the application area is also within Grundon’s ownership and currently operates as a scrapyard.
4. The site is not currently restricted by any operating or transport restrictions. Access to the site is from Merton Street via a private road. Other users of the road are Transco, De Boer, Frizzells Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and the rail operator.
5. The depot currently operates approximately 30 HGVs that collect waste prior to delivery either direct to landfill or for bulking up at a transfer station. There are currently around 80 HGV movements per day and 44 car movements.
6. The site lies within the East Bar Regeneration Area as designated by Cherwell District Council (CDC). CDC is working with a number of partners including the County Council, Railtrack and Chiltern Railways to create a new residential neighbourhood which also provides employment and commercial opportunities in those areas on the fringe of the town centre. The railway station is a key land use within the area; it is the intention to create a new multi-modal transport interchange based around an improved railway station. A planning application for mixed use development to include residential, office, mixed use live/work units and community facility was submitted for the former cattle market site in January 2001. The applicants have appealed against non-determination. The Government Office for the South-East (GOSE) have requested an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). No dates for the inquiry have been decided.

The Proposal

7. Grundons wish to build a MRF with a capacity to sort up to 48,000 tonnes of waste p.a. at the existing site off Merton Road in order to recover useable materials from the waste. In the long term the company wishes to provide a civic amenity site (CA) immediately adjacent to the MRF and suitable materials from the CA site could be recovered via the MRF. The MRF consists of mechanical devices that could recover aluminium, steel and other ferrous metals, paper, cardboard and plastics. Waste materials would pass through the facility and useful waste sorted along the way. At the end of the process the remaining waste would pass through a picking station where manual operators would collect any remaining recoverable materials. The operator states that up to 90% of the waste could be reclaimed if the waste stream was from a clean reliable source. This figure would fall to 20% if the waste is mixed waste. Any waste that could not be recovered would be bulked up and disposed of at a licensed landfill facility.
8. The building would be located on part of the area of the existing depot and on land adjacent. The building would cover an area of 3,630 m² and would be a standard type steel portal frame. It would be 9.5 m high to the eaves. The building would contain the MRF, offices (to replace those currently on site) and a vehicle workshop. The building would be laid out so that the entrance faced towards the railway line and industrial estate. All tipping of refuse from lorries and the operation of the mechanical grab would occur within the building.
9. The applicant states that the proposal would not lead to an increase in the number of vehicles entering or leaving the site or to a change in the type of vehicle. The traffic generated from the proposal would, in part, replace the depot traffic. The proposed traffic generation would be approximately 80 HGV movements per day and 44 car movements.
10. There are currently 50 full time staff employed by Grundons at the depot. In the event of the MRF gaining planning approval this number would increase to 68 full time staff.

Consultation Responses

11. Refer to Annex 1.

Comments of the Director of Environmental Services

12. As with any planning application, the application should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant policies are set out in Annex 2.
13. This proposal would provide the opportunity for waste materials that are currently landfilled to be reused in accordance with Structure Plan policy WD1 and Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP) policy W4. European, Government, Regional and Local Plan waste hierarchies promote the reuse and recycling of waste materials above landfill, which is identified as the worst option.
14. The Government’s "Waste Strategy 2000" recommends that waste proposals should be selected upon the principles of Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) and the proximity principle. BPEO requires a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The proximity principle means that waste should be disposed of as near to the source of waste as possible. This proposal fits well within the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle, as the MRF would seek to deal with Banbury's waste, thus reducing the need to transport waste further afield. However, in spite of the benefits of the proposal I have some concerns about whether this is the most appropriate location for such a development. It is in close proximity to a mixed use proposal (thus conflicting with the implementation of the Cherwell Local Plan Deposit 2001 Draft (CLPDD) and is adjacent to the floodplain.
15. Oxfordshire Structure Plan (OSP) policy G1 encourages new development to be in the country towns which includes Banbury. In addition it urges the best use of land and buildings within built up areas to reduce the need for the development of green field sites. This proposal accords with policy G1. However, it is questionable whether it is of a scale and type appropriate to the site and its surroundings as required by policy G2. Policy EN1 reiterates this stating that the nature, size, location or cumulative effects of a development should not have an unacceptable environmental impact.
16. This proposal offers many opportunities in terms of waste minimisation and reduction. OSP policies WD1 and WD2 seek to encourage such facilities to enable Oxfordshire to deal with its own waste. Policy W3 of the Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan sets out some criteria for assessing recycling facilities. I will outline these in turn.
17. W3 (a) "The site is close to the sources of the waste and/or the market for the re-used/recycled material." The proposal accords with W3 (a) as the MRF would seek to treat waste from Banbury.
18. W3 (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." The site lies within central Banbury and as waste will be transported from local sources motorised journeys will be minimised, and it also fits well with the proximity principle. If a less central location were found it would increase the overall distance travelled to collect Banbury’s waste. More details concerning transport will be discussed below.
19. W3 (c) "The proposal will not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic." I am aware that a proposal such as a MRF will give rise to certain levels of noise, dust etc. The issue is whether these can be acceptably controlled by condition or not. It appears, having looked at the details of the proposals and having made a site visit to Grundon’s MRF at Beenham near Reading, that it is possible that noise, dust, fumes and smell issues could be controlled by condition. However, the applicant has not provided any information that proves that noise, dust, fumes and smell issues can be properly controlled. The Cherwell EHO confirms that insufficient information is to hand on noise and dust. Therefore, there has not been a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure as required by BPEO. All operations of the MRF would take place within the building including the tipping of refuse lorries and the operation of the mechanical grab. All openings to the building would face towards the railway line. The proposal would certainly cause a visual intrusion. I will discuss this issue in more detail when I consider policy S5.
20. Traffic is also a concern. Middleton Road and Bridge Street are already heavily congested during weekday peak periods. Cherwell District Council (CDC) consider that the proposal would be likely to result in increased traffic congestion in this already congested area. The Banbury Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy (BITLUS), an initiative of OCC and CDC, must be a consideration in determining this application. BITLUS’ policy is to reduce traffic flow along Middleton Road and introduce measures to promote sustainable transport. The applicants state the proposal would not result in an increase of traffic from the site. HGVs travelling to the MRF would replace existing traffic, although I am concerned that if several of the other uses on the site remain, in addition to the MRF, traffic may exceed stated levels. In any event if planning permission were granted a condition should be attached to it to restrict traffic movements. Any planning permission for the development would be dependent on the signing of a routeing agreement to reduce HGV movements along Middleton Road.
21. A key emphasis of the East Bar Regeneration Area designation is to ensure that the cattle market site and the Grimsbury area are well connected to the rail station and the town centre. As part of this it would be important to ensure that a pedestrian/cycle link can be established adjacent to the site on Grundon’s land and over the railway. I would certainly not want this application to jeopardise such a proposal. If the proposal were to be approved Grundons have agreed to enter into a legal agreement between CDC, OCC and themselves to safeguard and fund such a link.
22. W3 (d) "The proposal will not pose an unacceptable risk to the water environment." CDC raised concerns that the site lay within the Oxfordshire floodplain and development in the area would be contrary to policy ENV8 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan. However, the applicants have undertaken a survey showing ground levels above Ordnance Datum and the Environment Agency are satisfied that the site does not lie within the floodplain and they have no objection to the proposal.

23. W3 (e) "The proposal does not conflict with Structure and Local Plan policies." The proposal conflicts with policy S5 of the deposit draft Cherwell Local Plan (CLP).
24. Policy S5 of the deposit CLP seeks to promote the area between Brittania Road, Edward Street and Swan Close Road and Merton Street as a mixed use area. CDC strongly objects to the proposal concerned that it would prejudice the implementation of this policy by consolidating industrial bad neighbour uses on the site. CDC considers that notwithstanding Grundon’s permitted and established use of the site recycling in this location would be incompatible if this area of Banbury is to be regenerated and people are to be encouraged to live in the area. In the event that the redevelopment of the cattle market for residential uses is not achieved the District residential land supply would be adversely affected and more green field sites would potentially have to be released. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 advises that in identifying sites to be allocated for housing in local plans, authorities should follow a search sequence starting with the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by an urban housing capacity study. This area is one that should be considered for housing first as set out in PPG3.
25. In spite of its merits I am concerned about the long term implications of this proposal in this location. If the MRF were to be built it would be a permanent building, which would result in a substantial physical barrier between the cattle market development and the railway line and its height and mass would dominate the surrounding land. In addition, the developed site would be incompatible with the adjacent cattle market development.
26. CDC have met Grundons on several occasions to discuss an alternative site for the MRF. However, these discussions have not yielded any results.

25. In conclusion I consider that although the proposal accords with some OMWLP policies to promote re-use and recycling I am concerned that the granting of permission for this proposal would jeopardise the long term future development proposals of this part of Banbury.

Environmental Implications

26. These are set out in the report.

Financial and Staff Implications

27. There are no financial or staff implications other than those that would arise if the applicant appealed to the Secretary of State against any refusal of planning permission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

28. The Committee is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the development proposed in application no. 01/01030/OCC as it would severely prejudice the implementation of Draft Policy S5 of the deposit Cherwell Local Plan 2011 by consolidating industrial "bad neighbour" uses on the site, would have an adverse visual impact and may have an adverse noise and dust impact and would be incompatible with the proposed residential and mixed uses for this location.

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services