Return to Agenda

ITEM PN5

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 17 OCTOBER 2005

MINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING APPLICATION

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Development proposed:

Waste transfer building and operations and replacement workshop in conjunction with the existing landscaping contractors yard and offices.

Location: Hickman Bros Landscaping Ltd, Shipton Hill, Fulbrook, Burford, Oxon

Applicant: Hickman Bros Landscaping Ltd

Application No: P05/1419/P/CM District Council area: West Oxfordshire

 

1. This application seeks to regularise existing waste activity. This is the sorting of materials such as soils and concrete/kerb stones which the applicant brings back to the site from landscaping contracting jobs because he can use them again. In addition two new buildings are proposed together with expansion of skip waste business.

 

2. A majority of the site currently has permission for a landscape gardeners yard and wood chipping business. Materials from contracting jobs which can be reused are taken back to the site for processing. This includes soils which can be used again, timber, and flagstones/concrete which can also be crushed and used in future jobs. This waste sorting aspect of the development is unauthorised.

 

3. The applicant states that the annual throughput of waste could be up to 25,000 tonnes per annum. Only inert and non hazardous waste would be processed at the site. The proposal would result in 2-3 new jobs being created. Waste related traffic movements would amount to an average of 20 journeys per day (10 loads) with a maximum of 40 journeys per day (20 loads).

 

4. This current application is a resubmission of an application which was first submitted early in 2005. The first application was withdrawn following negotiations between the applicant and officers in the light of public objection. Several sections of the application were re-drafted and additional information included.

 

5. The site is located in an area of open countryside in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Access to the site is directly off the A361 approximately 0.5km (0.3 miles) north of Fulbrook and approximately 2km (1.3 miles) north of Burford. The site lies in an exposed hillside location at the brow of a hill.

Site and its setting (plan 3) (download as .doc file)

 

6. The site is currently used as a landscape contractors yard. It is well screened with mature trees and hedges. The closest property is approximately 200 metres from the site. On the site there is the main office where the landscaping business is run from and a parking area. There is also a vehicle maintenance building/workshop and a storage area to the south with storage racks for hard materials to the north. Concrete crushing, top soil screening and wood chipping currently take place on the site. To the east of the site is an area of land which is used for nursery beds.

Background

7. West Oxfordshire District Council granted planning permission for the use of the site as a landscape gardeners yard and wood cutting business in 1985. Before this the site had been used for the storage of timber, sawing of wood and storage and sale of hardcore and clinker. Since 1985 the business has expanded and facilities such as a plant nursery have been established to enable the running of the landscape contractors business. Hickman Bros Landscaping is now a nationally known firm.

Details of development

(Plan 1 - download as .doc file)
(Plan 2 - download as .doc file)
(Plan 3 - download as .doc file)


8. There are a number of different aspects to the development. Additional land to the east and the south of the permitted landscape gardeners premises is being used for related business activities. The applicant seeks retrospective planning permission for this use.
   
   
9. A building is proposed for the sorting of waste along with a portacabin to provide a temporary office for the waste reception area, a weighbridge and concreting of the yard. The dimensions of the proposed waste sorting building are 36 metres in length, 15 metres wide with a ridge height of 8.5 metres. The applicant states that this building is necessary because if waste is to be handled at the site in line with the requirements set down by the Environment Agency the sorting must take place in a building.
   
   
10. Linked to the waste sorting activities is a proposal to increase the number of skips which would be contracted out. This would include hiring to non-contracting clients in the local area such as businesses and residents undertaking building or garden improvements. The applicant says that the skip hire part of the business would serve Burford and the surrounding area within a radius of about 10-15 miles. He regards it as necessary expansion to finance the new building required to house waste sorting arising from his core business.

 

11. It is proposed to demolish the existing vehicle maintenance workshop and construct a new one just to the south of its current location. The proposed workshop would be larger than existing. It would house the plant and vehicles now used by the business. The dimensions of the proposed building are 22.5 metres in length, 22.5 metres wide with a ridge height of 7.9 metres.

 

12. Finally, general site operations also need to be brought into planning control. The WODC permission states that no plant, machinery or motor vehicles shall be stored, operated or parked on the land except within the proposed building. However, some operations take place outside, for example crushing of hardcore and timber chipping. The applicant seeks approval for the activities shown in the locations on the application plans.

Consultations

West Oxfordshire District Council

13. Strongly object based on the impact the proposal would have on the local highway network and the character and appearance of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Contrary to policies BE3, BE4, BE5, CO6 and T1 of the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan and policies BE2, BE3, NE1, NE4 and T1 of the emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and the aims and objectives of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan.
    
    
14. The full Parish Council responses are available in the Members’ Resource Centre along with other parish responses. The main points from the Parish Councils and Burford and District Society are summarised below.
15. Fulbrook Parish Council

• The applicant has breached restrictive planning conditions imposed in 1985, one of which was to restrict the nature and extent of the development with a view to preserving the attractive nature of the area. In 1990 they extended that site without planning permission.
• The applicant has attempted to start a new business in contravention of important regulations.
• The applicant has failed to prove a demand for a new waste transfer station in this area.
• The environmental impact of such an operation in terms of increased heavy traffic, noise, dust, smell and wind blown rubbish will be substantial.
• The proposed activities and development would change the nature of this rural site dramatically.

16. The realignment and reduction in height of the buildings is an improvement but the building will still be visible in winter and will have an adverse impact on the AONB. Heavy traffic through the village and on surrounding roads will increase if more waste is to be processed. The maximum radius for waste collection should be 15 miles from the site, thus excluding Oxford and Cirencester. The site should also be restricted to Hickman’s skips. Concern that some activities on the site have been allowed to continue without planning permission. Noise from the crushing operation is a concern.

Swinbrook Parish Council

17. No objections.

Burford Town Council & Milton under Wychwood Parish Council

18. No comments received.

Burford & District Society

19. Concerned about the traffic implications of the development as the company predicts an increase of 10 loads per day but cannot say how many of these trips will go through Burford and Fulbrook.

Cotswolds Conservation Board

20. Oxfordshire County Council should judge whether this proposal complies with the primary purpose of the designation of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty i.e. to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Area.

Environment Agency

21. No objections.

Thames Water

22. No objections.

Transport Development Control

23. The proposed single means of access to the site is acceptable as is the proposed priority junction arrangement. The A361 is a principle road and the additional vehicle movements stated in the application would result in a less than 0.5 per cent overall increase in the traffic flow on the A361, therefore the impact could be considered to be negligible. Although the development would increase the number of HGV’s across Burford Bridge this is not significant enough to merit a reason for refusing the application. Several years ago there was a proposal for development in the Rissington area which indicated more than 100 daily HGV movements across the Burford Bridge. Although the highway authority raised a highway objection to the development, the planning inspector did not support the highway objection.

County Ecologist

24. No objections.

Third party representations

25. Representations were received both objecting to the development and supporting it. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Members Resource Centre at County Hall for Members of the Planning & Regulation Committee.
    
    
26. Below is a list of the points raised both for and against the development

• Noise, specifically from the chipping and crushing operations
• Smell
• Dust, would be made worse by high winds at the hillside location
• Litter, would be blown around by the wind
• Site is located in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. SEERA policy (South East England Regional Authority) states that development should only take place in the AONB in ‘exceptional circumstances’. The site is visible due to the hillside location. The hedge is insufficient screening for the development.
• The size of the proposed waste transfer building is much too large and it is out of keeping with the rural location.
• The height of the waste transfer building means that it will be visible from a long distance from the site.
• Waste other than inert waste could be brought to the site in the skips and this could result in pollution.
• How can people be assured that conditions will be complied with if permission is granted?
• Current breaches of planning consent have not been dealt with, therefore there is little trust in the company to keep to any future planning regulations and little faith that West Oxfordshire District Council and Oxfordshire County Council will enforce conditions either.
• Is there really the need for an additional waste facility in the area when there are other facilities in the area at Ducklington, Over Norton which is less than 10 miles away and Stanton Harcourt which is also close.
• A waste facility such as this would be better located on an industrial or business park
• The Hickman site is unsuitable for waste transfer/industrial activity
• Concern about the distance that waste would have to be transported and that transporting waste over long distances does not comply with the concept of self- sufficiency
• Operating hours are currently being flouted and the slight reduction at the weekends and so on is not enough to adequately control the noise and other impacts that the development would have.
• The development would have a negative impact on tourism, especially in Burford as increased traffic would make the town less attractive
• A public inquiry will be demanded if permission is granted for this development.
• Concern that if this application permitted there will be future proposals for even greater increase in waste capacity of the site, and that the company could apply to the Environment Agency to increase the amount of waste that could be processed at the site.
• Hickman Bros already take waste from distant jobs such as Brighton, Sheffield and London, the fact that they are a nationally known firm further increases the concern that if they get permission waste will come in from distant places and they will process more than they are allowed
• Oxfordshire County Council have already said that there is sufficient waste capacity in the area
• Should the application be accompanied by an EIA?
• There would be gridlock on Burford Bridge and the weight of traffic on the bridge may be an issue
• Would lorries be monitored and how?
• Would deliveries to the site be allowed after 5pm – how would this be stopped
• General lack of confidence in the DTT survey and feeling that the results of the survey are misleading as it was conducted by a private company. Calls for an independent survey of the traffic increase
• There is no more capacity for more HGV’s on the A361
• Increased movement of HGV’s through local villages, this would cause noise, vibrations, exceeding speed limit and so on
• Skips may not all arrive at the site fully laden so there is the potential for even more traffic movements to realise the predicted 25,000 annual tonnage throughput of the site
• Footpaths are narrow on some sections of road in the area and increased heavy traffic would make walking unpleasant
• Is there adequate provision of pedestrian crossings on the roads to reflect the increase in traffic flow
• Hazardous junctions at Walnut Row (outside Fulbrook), Church Lane and Mile End in Burford will be made worse by the increase in traffic
• Vehicles fully laden with waste would travel slowly up Shipton Hill, other vehicles try and overtake and therefore cause a hazard as the roads are not always suitable for overtaking
• Vehicles manoeuvring from the Hickman site currently hold up traffic on the A361, this is dangerous as it is a fast road.

• Hickman Bros provide an invaluable and convenient service within the rural community.
• Beneficial to companies in the locality of Hickmans Bros Landscaping
• Recycling is something which needs to be addressed.

 

27. All relevant development plan policies are listed at Annex 1 (download as .doc file). National and regional policy emphasises the need for waste facilities (Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and Regional Planning Guidance 9, Regional Planning for the South East). Key Structure Plan policies deal with waste hierarchy, proximity principle and self sufficiency of Oxfordshire in dealing with its own waste (Policies WM1 and WM2). The Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996 (OMWLP) deals specifically with waste development in the open countryside (policy W4). Development in the AONB is addressed at all levels (Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Structure Plan and West Oxfordshire Local Plan). Traffic and all other environmental impacts of recycling activities are covered in particular by Structure Plan policy G2 and OMWLP policy W3.

Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development

28. The key planning issues are assessment of the development against waste policy, including addressing the need for the waste transfer facility, development in the open countryside and in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the amenity effect of the development, especially traffic.

Assessment of development against waste policy including need

29. Moving management of waste up the waste hierarchy remains at the centre of Government, regional and local policy. This proposal would enable re-use and recycling of waste through the sorting of waste arising from skip hire and landscape business.
    
    
30. Recently issued PPS10 no longer expressly refers to the need to deal with waste in accordance with the proximity principle but nevertheless does encourage communities to take responsibility for their own waste. Recent Government proposed amendments to RPG9 (Regional Planning for the South East) continue to refer to the need for sub-regional self-sufficiency and the recently adopted Structure Plan encourages that waste be dealt with in accordance with the proximity principle and that Oxfordshire deal with the equivalent of its own waste.
    
    
31. A key part of the proposal is to recycle waste. This is consistent with policy aimed at moving waste up the hierarchy and reducing reliance on landfill.
    
    
32. The Fulbrook site takes waste from a very wide area as part of the landscaping business. Expansion of the skip hire element of business is likely to draw from more local markets – skip hire companies typically operate within a 10-15 mile radius. Nevertheless it is likely that some proportion of waste recycling would be of non-local materials.
    
    
33. RPG9 identifies generally a need for more waste management facilities which can enable movement of waste up the hierarchy and divert waste from landfill. There is no more local guidance available quantifying need for facilities however.

Need for development in the open countryside

34. OMWLP policy W4 states that proposals for re-use/recycling will not normally be permitted in the open countryside unless there is an established overriding need and there is no other suitable site available.
    
    
35. A significant amount of public concern has been voiced about the fact that there is no need for this facility. There are other sites in the area which take skip waste to be sorted. The closest facility is Worsham Quarry 5km (3.1 miles) away. There is a skip hire site at Over Norton with recycling which is approximately 15km (9.3 miles) away and another site at Ducklington which is approximately 13 km (8 miles) away. Further to this there is a skip hire business at Cassington 19 km (11.8 miles). Whilst the applicant has established a need for recycling for his firm, he has not established an overriding need for a waste facility to be in this countryside location.
    
    
36. There is a link between the landscaping business and the waste transfer operations. The applicant states that materials are brought back to the site as many of the materials from landscape contracts can be used in future jobs, for example soils, timber and hard standing. If these materials had to be taken to an alternative site for sorting and processing this would increase the amount of journeys which would need to be made. This proposal however, envisages introduction of significant additional skip hire business over and above the core landscape related activity.
    
    
37. Although government policy is clearly to expand the numbers of waste handling facilities, I do not believe there is an overriding need for an additional recycling facility in this location. There are other sites nearby which could take the waste arising locally. PPS 10 does state that competition should be encouraged between waste operators. However, OMWLP policy W4 states that there must be an overriding need for a waste facility to be located in the open countryside and in my view this has not been demonstrated.

AONB policy

38. The site is located in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). There is much concern about the impact of the development upon this part of the AONB both from local people but also shared by West Oxfordshire District Council who have objected to the development. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7): Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is key national policy with regard to AONB’s and paragraph 1 states that there should be continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources. Paragraph 21 goes on to say AONB’s have the highest status of protection in relation to the landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas.
    
    
39. Paragraph 22 PPS7 states that major developments should only take place in AONB’s in exceptional circumstances. The proposed development represents a substantial development which is against ODPM guidelines and should be regarded as ‘major’. PPS7 states that major applications should be subject to the most rigorous examination and should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. PPS 7 sets out three criteria which major applications should be assessed against:

 

1. The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact upon the local economy of permitting it, or refusing it;
2. The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need of it in some other way; and
3. Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities and the extent to which that could be moderated.
   
   
40. In relation to (i) above, the need for the development has been considered earlier in the report. It is concluded that there is no overriding need and that other local sites could handle the waste. For (ii) above, alternative recycling sites outside the AONB have been identified (see para 34). Use of these facilities would incur cost to the applicant with negative financial impact on his business. In relation to part (iii) the site is prominently located on the brow of a hill. It is well screened albeit in part with non-native trees which to some extent form an unnatural feature in this generally open landscape. The new buildings proposed are 8.5 metres high (waste building) and 7.9 metres high (workshop). The general level of activity at the site would increase as would lorry traffic. However, the A361 is already a relatively busy road and the addition of an average of 20 lorry movements per day would not significantly add to the disturbance of the AONB caused by this road.
    
    
41. Although the site is well screened and adjacent to a busy road, I do not feel that overall the cumulative level of development (including the size of the proposed waste building) which would result at the site is appropriate within the Cotswolds AONB.

Impact of the development on the landscape

42. Adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan policy CO1 states that development in the countryside will be considered against the need to safeguard its beauty, the diversity of its natural resources, and its ecology, agricultural and recreational values. The revised deposit draft of the WOLP, February 2003, policy NE1 relates to safeguarding the countryside. It provides that proposals for development in the countryside should maintain or enhance the value of the countryside for its own sake, its beauty, its local character and distinctiveness. The revised policy is more stringent than CO1 as it aims to maintain or enhance the beauty of the countryside, not just to safeguard it.
    
    
43. The proposed development is unlikely to have any significant impact on the natural resources, ecology or agricultural values of the countryside or its recreational value. Although the site is screened from the surrounding area so that views into the site are limited, the waste sorting building would still be visible from some vantage points, especially during the winter months. Visual considerations, coupled with the cumulative effects of the development discussed above mean that the development is not in accordance with the WOLP countryside policy.

Traffic

44. Objectors have raised concerns, in particular the safety of the site access on to the A361, slow moving vehicles on hills and the impact of the increased lorry traffic on Burford, Fulbrook and the Burford Bridge.
    
    
45. Transport engineers advise that the access to the site is safe. The additional lorries which would be generated from the waste activities on the A361 would not represent a material increase to traffic levels on this road. Burford Bridge is structurally sound and is capable of taking the proportionally modest increase in lorry traffic. Similarly the proposed lorry movements do not represent a significant or unacceptable increase in lorry traffic through these settlements.

Noise

46. There are a number of concerns about the proposal with regard the crushing operations which would take place on the site. Although crushing is not currently a permitted activity, it is taking place and residents in the vicinity of the site have said that they can hear this operation taking place. However, this element of the operation could be controlled by condition requiring that noise be restricted to acceptable levels. Screening of this specific activity could further reduce the likely noise impact of the operations. Therefore, this aspect of the development can be made to comply with OMWLP policy W3 (c) in that there should not be an unacceptable noise nuisance from the site.

Dust

47. Dust is a concern due to the fact that the development would take place in an exposed hillside location where winds could whip up dust from the activities on site and carry it long distances which would cause nuisance to local residents. A condition could be added to any permission to secure a scheme which would overcome the potential dust problem. All stockpiles could be dampened down during dry weather and roads within the site could also be dampened to ensure that dust is adequately controlled. In the event that a qualified complaint is received (which is to say that the Environmental Health Officer confirms that dust is a problem) the company could be required to submit a further scheme to control the problem or the operations causing the dust would have to cease. Therefore, the development could be made to comply with OMWLP policy W3 (c) in that dust should not cause an unacceptable nuisance.

Litter

48. The exposed hillside location could give rise to particular problems of windblown litter. However, the site is already well screened and the proposal is for waste sorting to be contained within a building in line with Environment Agency requirements. Litter would be controlled by conditions of an Environment Agency licence.

Odour

49. As waste would be handled at the site there is the chance that there would be odour as a result. However, the controls for this aspect of the development would be dealt with in the same way as litter. A waste licence would control potential odour from the operations and the fact that the waste sorting would take place in a building would be a significant step towards preventing odour affecting the amenity of residents living in the locality.

Pollution resulting from imported waste

50. The applicant proposes that skips would be hired out to non-contracting clients to use when undertaking building and gardening works. There would therefore be no control over what is placed in the skips as the company would just drop them to the client and collect them at a later date. When the skips were brought back to the waste sorting building, they would be unloaded on a concrete floor so that any pollutants would be contained and collected before being taken off the site. The waste licence would control any aspects of the development which may be a potential pollution concern.

Breaches of planning consent

51. A key concern of local people is the fact that to date no enforcement action has been taken by either West Oxfordshire District Council or Oxfordshire County Council to bring the development in line with the controls which the site should currently operate under. Some representation letters have stated that the reason why people have not complained to the authorities about the intrusive activities on the site is because they assumed that they had planning permission.
    
    
52. Para 4.51 of the OMWLP states that the County Council will take into account an operator’s past record of complying with conditions. The applicant states in para 3.1 of the supporting statement that the conditions controlling the development on site have not been complied with. In my view this supports concern about allowing an expansion of this development in the AONB.
    
    
53. The Council’s Sustainable Development Service is recruiting a full time enforcement officer which will strengthen the Council’s ability to monitor and enforce against unauthorised development.

Setting a precedent for future development

54. Concerns are raised that allowing this development to go ahead would mean that the case for the applicant to make future successful planning applications to further increase the size of the facility would be strengthened. Each development should be considered on its merits and concerns about potential future development proposals should not be reasons to refuse the development proposal.

Environmental Impact Assessment

55. This planning application has not been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment because it does not exceed the relevant thresholds which would require this assessment to be carried out. This legislation is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

Public Inquiry

56. If permission was granted for the development there is no third party right of appeal on the decision. The only way that the decision could be challenged is by Judicial Review where it is necessary to put forward the case that the Council has erred in law in the process it has gone through to come to its decision.

Conclusions

57. Government, regional and county policies encourage waste management facilities which re-use and recycle waste and divert waste from landfill. At the same time there is strong policy aimed at protecting areas of outstanding natural beauty and allowing major development only in exceptional circumstances. The Minerals and Waste Local Plan allows development in the countryside only where overriding need can be demonstrated.
    
    
58. The proposal, if allowed, would enable the applicant to re-use and recycle materials arising from his landscaping business but also allow expansion into the skip hire market. The overall growth and intensity of activities at the site would contribute to the level of traffic and disturbance in this countryside location and also in Fulbrook and Burford though the increase in traffic cannot be regarded as significant. In terms of visual implications, although the existing screening on the site would go some way towards obscuring views of the waste sorting building, the cumulation of all the impacts of the development would have a negative impact on this part of the Cotswolds AONB.
    
    
59. There are a number of other waste recycling facilities available within 10-12 miles of the Fulbrook site. It is difficult therefore to justify a need which overrides OMWLP policy W4 which does not normally allow waste recycling in the countryside. The development is not confined to consolidation and effective operation of the already permitted landscape company use but represents expansion into other activity which, on the evidence available, could reasonably be accommodated at other sites.

RECOMMENDATION

60. It is RECOMMENDED that Application Number 05/1419/P/CM be refused because the development proposed is contrary to:

1. Planning Policy Statement 7 based on the impact that it would have on the Area of Outstanding Nature Beauty;
2. Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan policy W4 as there is no overriding need for this facility to be located in the open countryside and there are other suitable sites available to take the waste and Structure Plan policy EN1; and
3. West Oxfordshire Local Plan policies NE1 and NE4 which relate to safeguarding the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers: Application for waste transfer building and operations and replacement workshop in conjunction with the existing landscaping contractors yard and offices at Shipton Hill, Fulbrook.

File 8.5/2613/3

Sustainable Development Service, Environment & Economy, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford, OX1 1NE

Representations made on the application are on this file.

Contact Officer: Emma Shaw Tel: 01865 815272

Return to TOP