Return to Agenda

ITEM PN7

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 17 OCTOBER 2005

MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Development proposed:

Soil remediation facility with new office/storage building.

Location: Former Supergas Storage Depot, Downs Road, Witney.

Applicant: Flogas UK Ltd

Application No: 05/1205/P/CM

District Council area: West Oxfordshire

1. The proposed development is for permanent permission for a soil remediation facility with new office/storage building at Downs Road, Witney. The proposed facility would have a design throughput of 150,000 tonnes per annum of contaminated material. The process would take place in two 14 metre high purpose built remediation bays. These would be fully contained concrete structures within steel framed, partially metal clad buildings.

Location (plan 1) (download as .doc file)

2. The site is located on Windrush Industrial Park west of Witney on the edge of the town. The application area is located off Downs Road which runs through the industrial park. Downs Road joins the B4047 Burford Road 400m to the north. To the north of the site is an area of storage. To the south there is an area of undeveloped land which separates the industrial park from Witney United Football Club. This land is identified for future employment development in the emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

Site and its setting (plan 2) (download as .doc file)

3. The site comprises an area of land approximately 3.5 hectares (8.65 acres). The eastern, southern and western edges of the site are enclosed by large earth bunds. Currently on the site is a large two storey office building which is vacant. The majority of the site is open waste land. To the east of the site are a number of temporary Liquid Petroleum Gas storage tanks. To the south west lie two gas-free 200 tonne bunded propane tanks which have never been used. These tanks are covered with earth works and there is a large concrete bund wall at one end for loading/unloading the tanks. There is also a water lagoon on the site with a capacity of 1,100 cubic m and a disused pumping station has been used to be used for the storage of fire water. The propane tanks, lagoon and offices would remain on the site. Empty gas cylinders are being stored on part of the site, these would be removed before development takes place.

Details of development

4. The facility would remediate soil contaminated with petroleum by bioremediation techniques. On arriving at the site, loads of material would be tipped in the remedation bays and put through a trummel to sort out any stone. Stone would be washed in a tank located in an annex (download as .doc file) to the main remediation bays. Stockpiles of stone would be crushed and sold on. Soil would be placed in the remediation bays in rows for remediation. This involves using micro organisms to metabolise petroleum hydrocarbons above the normal rate of decay. The applicant states that by controlling the parameters within the soil being treated (nutrients, moisture and oxygen) the process can be greatly accelerated. The remediation bays would be open sided to allow air through to dry the material. A small single storey office/storage building is also proposed on the site. This would be designed to complement the existing office/workshop building.
5. Waste water would be stored on site in a tank. Water would be reused on site as many times as possible. Water from the stone washing tanks would be allowed to settle after use with any material settling at the bottom of the tank subsequently being introduced to the main soil remediation area for treatment. Water would also used on the site to keep the soils undergoing remediation at optimum levels of moisture.
6. It is proposed that waste would be brought to the site from the South East and the West Midlands. Soils would be brought to the site by road.
7. The applicant states that on average there would be 33 loads delivered to the site per day. This equates to 66 vehicle movements. The applicant expects that all vehicles would come via the A40, 60 per cent from the east, 40 per cent from the west.
8. An environmental statement accompanies the application. This indicates an ecological study commissioned by the developer has concluded that there is no evidence of protected species on the site.

Background

9. In 1987 permission was granted for the change of use of the site to permit a road vehicle park with access in connection with liquefied petroleum undertaking. Later permissions were also granted for a drainage lake and pond, the erection of an office transport and workshop store. The most recent permission was granted in 1996 which allowed the storage of liquid gas on the site in two storage tanks of 200/250 tonne capacity for propane or butane. Average traffic generated by the existing permitted development here is approximately 150 movements a day including office staff and lorry movements.

Consultation responses

West Oxfordshire District Council

10. The District Council raise the following points:

• Given the scale and nature of the application, particularly in respect of the type and number of vehicular movements associated with the proposed use the planned Downs Road junction with the A40 should be constructed and operational prior to the proposed use commencing on the site. Routeing Agreements and contributions to highway infrastructure will also be required.
• Raise great concern about the nature of the contaminated material in terms of the degree and type of hazardous/poisonous content. Will it smell, how will it be treated and where will it be discharged to once it has been extracted.
• Concern raised about the impact on the visual amenity and character of the area of the proposed 14 metre high buildings on a plateau location. The earth bunding was provided for the previous use on the site and is not suitable landscape mitigation for the current proposal especially from the views from the west and the south west.
• No intention to ‘clean-up’ the site – propane tanks and lagoon are to remain undisturbed. A Great Crested Newt survey should be undertaken. Similarly, there appears to be owls on the site. If owls are found the proposal must ensure mitigation works are provided to protect the species.
• The statement identifies this area as ‘one of the District’s main employment nodes’ and yet the proposal appears to be only creating 4-10 jobs. Given the low ratio of jobs to landtake has the applicant investigated alternative sites?
• The District Environmental Health Officer did not make any specific comments on the application other than the County should consult the Environment Agency about the application.

11. No objections.

Minster Lovell Parish Council

12. The Parish strongly object to the proposal. Downs Road industrial area is currently occupied by non-polluting light industry. The Parish Council feels that the proposed soil remediation facility would poison the local environment with noise and air pollution. In addition to this, the height of the proposed walls would be out of scale with other buildings in that area and the escalation of heavy traffic through Minster Lovell and from the A40 would be unbearable.

Curbridge and Lew Parish Council

13. Request that the application be refused based on the following points:

• The area of the site is not large enough to sustain an operation of this kind.
• The surrounding road structures are totally inadequate to carry the number of heavy lorries required on a daily basis in order to move the amount of soil indicated in the application.
• The effect on the local environment from possible smell and noise disruption to other nearby private houses especially as well as other light industrial works can only be guessed at.
• If allowed this development would be bound to have an adverse effect on the proposed ASDA store and housing development (170 houses) for which planning consent is being sought in very close proximity to the Flogas site.
• The owners of the nearby golfing/leisure complex and hotel now under construction will not be happy with such a development in close proximity.

14. No objections. Suggest planning informatives to cover the consent required under the Water Resources Act 1991 to discharge of sewage, trade effluent or surface water from the site.

Thames Water

15. No objections.

Transport Development Control

16. No objection in principle subject to a routeing agreement for HGV’s which would also be required for the construction period.

County Ecologist

17. No objection.

Third party representations

18. No third party representations have been received in relation to this application.

Relevant Planning Policies

19. All relevant development plan and other policies are listed at Annex 2 (download as .doc file). Waste management policy from Government is contained in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan policies W1 and W2 and Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 (OSP) policy WD3 and Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (as resolved to be adopted) policy WM1 state that Oxfordshire should be self sufficient in dealing with its own waste except that of a specialised nature.
20. The relevant policies relating to the traffic elements of the proposal are OMWLP policy W3 parts b and c which state that there should be no unacceptable nuisance as a result of traffic from the development and that the site should be well related to the transport network and journeys by road minimised.
21. In terms of landscaping, OMWLP policy W3 (c) and OSP 2011 policies G2 and EN2, OSP 2016 (as resolved to be adopted) policies G2 and EN1 relate to a high standard of landscaping being provided and minimisation of the adverse effects of development.

Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development

22. The key planning issues in relation to this proposal are (a) the need for special waste facilities assessment against waste policy (b), whether the level of traffic and routes it would take are acceptable in terms of highway capacity and environmental effects and (c), consideration of the visual and other local environmental effects of the development.

Waste policy

23. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) is the most recent guidance with regard to waste. In paragraph 1 it urges that we should be producing less waste and using it as a resource wherever possible which it says means a significant new investment in waste management facilities is needed. This proposal would ensure that soils contaminated to the extent that they would only previously have been able to be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill site would be able to be reused.
24. OMWLP policy W1 states that Oxfordshire should be self-sufficient in dealing with its own waste, other than that requiring specialised provision of a sub-regional or regional nature. The proposal is intended to serve the South East and the West Midlands. It is a specialised facility dealing with waste contaminated with petroleum, a hazardous substance. In June 2004 there was a dramatic reduction in the number of landfill sites available from the disposal of hazardous waste in the UK. This came about as a result of new licensing regulations which precluded the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and also stipulated that hazardous waste which is to be landfilled would have to be pre-treated. Most sites opted for treating non hazardous waste as the regulatory regime was less onerous.
25. OMWLP policy W2 accepts that provision for waste treatment/disposal for waste arising from other parts of the south east will be made provided that this is consistent with the development plan. However, the development plan doesn’t include provision for waste coming in from the West Midlands. It also says that treating waste from London which would be transported by road will not be permitted. The source of waste coming to the Downs Road site would be varied, and the amount from any site likely to be relatively limited. In my view it would not practical to move it by means other than road.
26. The proposed facility is a unique form of waste management. OMWLP policy W1 states that we should be self sufficient in dealing with our own waste except that of a specialised nature. The proposed facility would deal with waste of a specialised nature and therefore this waste could come from other counties including those outside the South East.
27. OMWLP policy W3 states that road journeys for waste transportation should be minimised. This is also in accordance with the sustainability principles set out in PPS10. Therefore, a limit should be set from which this material would be able to be brought to the site. The applicant had agreed to a limit of 65 miles for waste brought to the site. That would include west London and south Birmingham. This limit could be secured through Section 106 agreement. Any Section 106 agreement would have to include a facility for monitoring this restriction.
28. The proposal enables waste to be moved up the waste hierarchy as waste would be recycled which would otherwise have to go to landfill. Waste treated at the site would be drawn from a wider area than would usually be acceptable for a recycling site because the level of contaminated soils arising from individual sites is unlikely to be significant. OMWLP policy W4 states that proposals for recycling will not normally be granted in the open countryside unless there is an overriding need and there are no other suitable sites available. Locating this facility on an industrial site is preferable to locating it in the countryside where the environmental impact on the locality would be likely to be greater.

Traffic and transport

29. The impact of the level of traffic generated by this development and the rate it would travel to and from the site is a significant issue. Minster Lovell Parish Council is concerned that traffic associated with the facility would travel through Minster Lovell when accessing the A40. Transport officers consider that the development is acceptable in principle provided that there is a routeing agreement to control the route vehicles take. They consider this routeing agreement would need to apply throughout the construction phase of the development.
30. The applicant has indicated that he is prepared to enter into a routeing agreement. This would require vehicles to leave the site by turning left onto Downs Road and travel north to the B4047, they would turn left onto this road and follow it to the main roundabout with the A40 near Asthall rather than turning down along the B4477 and accessing the A40 earlier. The purpose of this route is to ensure that lorries would be routed away from that part of Minster Lovell located on the relatively narrow B4477. Although some dwellings within Minster Lovell are located along the B4047, this is a reasonably wide road better able to take traffic than the B4477. In my view this routing would ensure that access arrangements for the site are in accordance with OMWLP policy W3 (c) which states that proposals for re-use will normally be permitted provided that the proposal will not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of traffic. When the A40 junction with Downs Road is completed the routeing agreement could end as vehicles could then use the new A40 Downs Road junction which requirement could be controlled by condition.
31. OMWLP policy W3 (b) states that proposals for re-use will normally be permitted provided that 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. A routeing agreement as described would ensure reasonable access to the main road network (i.e. the A40). It is anticipated that the site would recover material from a 65 mile radius.
32. West Oxfordshire District Council point out that at some point in the future it is intended that there will be an additional junction on to the A40 with Downs Road. WODC suggest that the proposed development should not commence until these junction works have been completed. In my view it would not be appropriate to hold up a development on the basis that at some point in the future a new junction will be built at the south of Downs where an acceptable alternative route exists.
33. The applicant has agreed to enter into a section 106 agreement to monitor traffic flows and to make contributions to the A40/Downs Road junction if agreed lorry movement thresholds are exceeded. The purpose of this is that if the peak hour flows in to and out of the site go beyond the level of vehicle movements associated with the current permitted use, the applicant would make a financial contribution towards the construction of the new junction. Payments would be £4000 per average movement over and above the average movement for the permitted use of the site, which is 15 (15 in the morning and 15 more in the afternoon based on weekday data). Independent monitoring would need to take place once the facility was fully established. Monitoring would take place two years after the site began operating. The monitoring would be funded by the applicant.
34. Provided that a routeing agreement, and a legal agreement to secure traffic monitoring of the development and a mechanism to trigger contributions to the proposed new junction are agreed, I consider that the traffic concerns associated with the proposal would be satisfactorily met. Any routeing agreement would lapse once the Downs Road/A40 junction is in place and a condition would be included to direct traffic servicing the site to use only the length of road between the site and the new junction.

Visual and other environmental effects of the development

35. Structure and local plan policies allow waste development provided amongst other things there is no unacceptable visual intrusion (MWLP policy W3 (c)), and where high quality landscaping is provided OSP 2011/OSP 2016 policy G2. Both WODC and Minster Lovell Parish are concerned about the visual impact of the proposal.
36. The application site is at present on the most western edge of Witney and it lies about 700 metres distant from Minster Lovell though land around its western boundary is identified in the emerging District Local Plan for employment use. In time therefore there is every likelihood that further development will obscure views of the site from the west.
37. Earth bunds already exist around three sides of the site, though these would in no way entirely obscure the two proposed remediation bays. At present however, the overall visual impact of the remediation bays on the skyline over the existing tree line as seen from Minster Lovell would be limited to the roofs of the bays.
38. The applicant proposes further planting along site boundaries though this would take time to mature and become truly effective. A condition would be needed to reserve the detail of the planting and to require that it be planted in the first season following any permission. The applicant has further offered to carry out offsite tree planting as part of a section 106 legal agreement.
39. Overall I think that the adverse visual impact of the development would be limited and should not be regarded as unacceptable. In addition, the principle of further urban development is already being established through the proposed allocation of and between the site and Minster Lovell for further employment use.

Pollution

40. The facility would accept contaminated wastes onto the site. There is concern that this would cause pollution both potentially to groundwater and also to the air including odour. The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for the control of pollution from waste facilities. As this development would be accepting waste which is contaminated with a hazardous substance, a waste licence would be required to be issued by the EA, in addition to planning permission, before the development could begin. The waste licence would control the day to day running of the site and ensure pollution prevention. PPS10 paragraph 27 states that Waste Planning Authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be property applied and enforced. The EA do not object to the proposal.

Noise

41. There is concern that the operations would result in an increase in noise. The facility would be located within an industrial park. The only source of noise would be the occasional crushing and grading of a small amount of stone. There is one dwelling in the vicinity of the site, this is Curbridge Downs Farm which is located across the B4047 Burford Road some 250 metres to the north of the site. Noise can be controlled by condition to ensure that dwellings and noise sensitive uses in the area are not adversely affected. If valid noise complaints were received a condition could ensure that the applicant has to submit a scheme to reduce the noise from the working to acceptable levels. In the event that this cannot be achieved then only particular noisy processes could be stopped by condition. Therefore, the proposal meets the criteria with OMWLP policy W3 (c).

Dust

42. The sides of the remediation bays would be open and there are concerns that the site would cause dust. The proposed process involves soil washing so dust is unlikely to be a problem except where material is stored immediately prior to resale. A condition could be attached requiring damping down of surfaces and stockpiles.

Appearance of the site in general

43. WODC note that some existing features of the site would be left in place (the lagoon and propane tanks) if the development is granted permission. Some general site improvements should be sought, especially as the development would be permanent. A requirement that gas canisters are removed from the site could be imposed by condition.

Protected species

44. There is no evidence of protected species on site and the County ecologist raises no objection.

The designation of the site for an employment use

45. The site is part of an industrial estate and adjacent to an employment allocation as designated in the emerging District Local Plan. The District Council has asked if the applicant has investigated alternative sites for the proposal given the small number of jobs (4-10) likely to be created.
46. The applicant has looked at other sites as apart of the environmental assessment, but has concluded this one best fits his needs. When assessing alternative sites the applicant sought to utilise an existing Flogas site, located in the south of England, with close proximity to the local road network, including major roads and with minimum environmental and social impacts.
47. The emerging WOLP identifies land for further employment use consistent with the Structure Plan 2011 which specifically identifies Witney for such growth. The aim is to provide employment to meet the needs of the expanding population of the town and it is true that the proposed development would employ relatively few people. There nevertheless remains a need for waste management facilities and it is generally preferable to allow such facilities in industrial areas (providing they do not cause undue nuisance) in preference to in open countryside, where policy allows such development only where there is a need which can’t be met elsewhere.
48. Curbridge and Lew Parish Council is concerned about the effect on potential nearby housing and superstore proposals. The emerging local plan allocates land south east of the site for housing but WODC has not opposed this proposal on that basis. Whilst ASDA have expressed interest in development of a superstore nearby, there is no planning application at present and no allocation in the emerging local plan for such development.

Conclusions

49. Overall I consider that this application is in line with the policies in the development plan and other guidance. There is a need for a facility of this kind to ensure that waste soils which are contaminated with petroleum can be re-used rather then just going to landfill. This facility would serve a 65 mile radius from the site and the applicant has agreed to a Section 106 agreement to monitor this. Concerns regarding the traffic generated from the development can be satisfactorily overcome. Although the development would mean that waste coming to the site would arrive by road, there is no realistic means of transporting material from a range of disparate sites by rail. In my view the need for the facility, and the fact that it is a specialised operation to serve the sub region, outweighs any adverse impact of traffic movements that it would be generated.
50. Additional landscaping (both on site and off site) and removal of gas canisters currently on the site can be required by condition and legal agreement. This would ensure that the visual implications of the development are kept to a minimum. The facility would be covered by a waste licence from the EA which would control the day to day running of the site and any pollution concerns of handling hazardous waste. I consider that the development meets with waste policy and will not cause unacceptable adverse environmental effects.

RECOMMENDATION

51. It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

1. a legal agreement to secure the monitoring of the number of vehicles using the site, contributions to the A40/Downs Road junction in the event that vehicle movements exceed those set out in paragraph 33 of the report, off site tree planting to the west of the site and to secure that waste is not brought to the site from a distance greater than 65 miles away; and
2. a routeing agreement to require that vehicles are restricted to a route via the B4047 onto the A40 at the junction as discussed in paragraph 30 of the report;

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers:
Application for soil remediation facility with new office/storage building at Downs Road, Witney
File 8.5/3210/1
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

October 2005

Return to TOP