Contact Officer: John Duncalfe Tel: 01865 815356 Email: john.duncalfe@oxfordshire.gov.uk
ITEM PN9
PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 21 JULY 2008
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING WASTE RECYCLING FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE NEW PLANT, BUILDING, VEHICLE PARKING/SKIP STORAGE AREA AND WEIGHBRIDGE APPLICATION ref: 08/0220/P/CM
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development
Location: 115 Brize Norton Road, Minster Lovell
Applicant: B&E Transport (Witney) Ltd
Application No: 08/0220/P/CM District Council Area: West Oxfordshire
Introduction
1. The applicant considers that the existing waste recycling facility at 115 Brize Norton Road requires additional space to allow it to operate more efficiently and safely. An extension to the existing site, including the erection of an additional building, is proposed for this purpose.
Location
2. The application site, which includes the existing waste recycling facility and extension area, is located in the Charterville Allotments to the south of the village of Minster Lovell. The site lies approximately 400 metres to the north of the A40 approximately 1 kilometre (0.6 miles) to the west of Witney.
The Site and its Setting (Plan 1)
3. The application site covers an area of 0.34 hectares. The site covers the area already permitted as a waste recycling facility and the proposed extension that extends to the east. The application site is located off the Brize Norton Road in the Charterville Allotments. The Charterville Allotments are a group of approximately 90 small holdings with their own cottages that were originally established in 1847 to provide families with a means to support themselves. Today, the allotment plots support a mix of residential and business uses (Plan 2).
4. There are over 20 residential properties within 150 metres of the site. The closest being 115 Brize Norton Road, immediately adjacent to the site which is owned by the applicant, 117 Brize Norton Road approximately 10 metres from the site boundary which is owned by relatives of the applicant and 113 Brize Norton Road located 20 metres from the site boundary.
5. No footpaths or sites of archaeological interest are affected by the proposal. Worsham Lane Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 350 metres to the south west of the application site. Worsham Lane is a designated SSSI as the lane verges support one of Britain’s largest populations of downy woundwort which is a national priority for nature conservation.
Details of the Development (Plan 1) (download as .doc file)
(Plan 2 - download as .doc file)
6. The application is for a permanent extension to the existing WTS in order to regularise activities on the site, improve the organisation of the site and to increase recycling rates. In order to increase recycling rates, the applicant proposes to install a purpose built semi-automated processing plant within a new building. The applicant states that the new processing plant would enable higher levels of separation to be achieved including: metals, wood, hardcore, soils, green waste and glass and would reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill. The applicant proposes to extend the site to the east to include an area previously granted planning permission by West Oxfordshire District Council for lorry parking associated with the haulage business and a new area of land for use as skip/container storage and vehicle parking. A new weighbridge is also proposed.
7. There would be no increase in the tonnage processed at the site and, therefore, no additional traffic would be generated by this proposal. The proposed quantity of waste imported to the site for recycling and transfer would be 15,000 tonnes per year. The waste would be commercial and industrial and inert waste.
8. The proposed building would be located immediately adjacent to the existing waste transfer shed. The proposed building would be L-shaped and would measure 17.5 metres by 10.5 metres by 5 metres. The building is proposed to be 6.5 metres high sloping to 6 metres. The floor area of the proposed building would be 115 square metres. It would be constructed of steel supports and steel cladding.
Traffic and Access
9. The traffic generated by the development would be made up of deliveries of waste to the site and the export of residual waste and recovered products. The applicant operates a haulage firm from the same site. The applicant states that the haulage business used to use 7 tipper lorries. However, since the establishment of the waste recycling facility, skip lorries are also used for haulage jobs and the number of tipper lorries has been reduced to 3. The applicant states that the average number of movements per day to the site (including non-waste haulage movements) would be 50 with a maximum of 70. The capacity of the vehicles would vary between 2 tonnes and 20 tonnes. The proposed traffic movements are the same as existing levels.
Background Information and History
10. Planning permission for a waste transfer station was granted in 1995. Previously the site had had a series of planning permissions granted by West Oxfordshire District Council for a workshop/garage, offices and lorry parking.
Consultation Responses
West Oxfordshire District Council
11. West Oxfordshire District Council have objected to the development and considers that it would be contrary to policies E7, BE2, BE3 and BE19 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 (WOLP). The District council considers that the proposals would result in an expansion of the existing site and an intensification of the use of the site. They state that the application site is located within a predominantly residential area. The development would create noise, dust, odour and traffic movements that would cause a nuisance to nearby residents.
12. However, in the event of a permission, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) proposes a noise limit of 53 dB LAeq 1hour and considers that the limit can be met. Following a site meeting with the applicant the EHO thought that noise barriers may address the concerns of local residents. The applicant was willing to provide these. He thought the locations should be on the northern boundary between the two buildings, on the southern boundary between the fuel tanks and a concrete bay for hardcore and on the south-east corner blocking the line of sight for noise transmission to properties off Bushey Ground. Noise barriers can reduce noise by 10 dB.
Environment Agency
13. No objections. However, the Environment Agency state that the site must be covered by a waste management licence. If the current licensed area does not extend to the new development on site then the applicant must apply for a new waste management licence.
Thames Water
14. Thames Water state that petrol/oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities to prevent oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses. Thames Water has no objections with regard to water infrastructure.
Natural England
15. Natural England has no objections and states that the proposed plans would not have a significant adverse affect on the nearby SSSI.
Transport Development Control
16. Transport Development Control has no objections to the application because the Brize Norton Road is about 4.5m wide in the vicinity of the site and there are adequate sight lines from the access. The access road itself is about 5.5m wide and the access appears to operate satisfactorily. There are signs that vehicle wheels occasionally over run the kerb at the access but this is fairly limited. The carriageway appears in reasonable condition without undue signs of structural stress.
County Ecologist
17. The County Ecologist has no objections in principle to the proposed development from a biodiversity point of view.
18. There is the possibility that certain reptiles, such as grass snakes and slow worms, may find refuge in the rough vegetation and spoil heaps around the site. As a precaution, the County Ecologist suggests that the applicant undertakes a protected species survey. If protected species are found then it will be necessary for the applicant to prepare a mitigation strategy and secure a license, if necessary, in consultation with Natural England. A mitigation strategy should be agreed by the waste planning authority before any planning permission is issued.
Representations
19. 11 representations have been received. The full set of representations are available in the Members’ Resource Centre.
Concerns include:
· The site operator’s disregard for conditions attached to the current planning permission. · Concrete bays for the external storage of waste have been constructed that do not have planning permission. · Lorries leave the site early in the morning, outside of the permitted operating hours. · The number of lorries operating from the site has grown from the figures given in the application for the original application. · The current permission is for a waste transfer station. The current application is for a waste recycling station. The site, therefore, does not have permission for waste recycling. · The Brize Norton Road is narrow and for large vehicles to pass they mount the footpath or grass verge causing damage. · Waste is being stored outside contrary to the planning conditions. · Dust from lorries tipping up or being filled. · Noise from skips being tipped, large plant operating and dropping metal into bins, reversing bleepers and a radio. · Burning of wood in oil drums causing a smoke and soot nuisance. · The amount of vermin, particularly rats, have increased since the waste transfer station became operational. There is a problem with flies in warmer weather. · The new building is large and will overshadow neighbouring gardens. · The building is unlikely to reduce the noise impact because the new system would mean that waste is dropped from the picking line into storage bins 3 to 4 metres below causing a noise nuisance. · The proposed throughput of 15,000 tonnes is an underestimation and the imported waste amount is likely to far exceed this based on the proposed traffic movements. · Although there is some light industry in the area, the area is predominantly residential. · There is a need for more recycling facilities both nationally and locally but they should be sited away from residential areas and where there are good traffic connections. · Would welcome screening between Bushey Ground residents and the site to reduce the impact of noise and visual intrusion. · The operation has outgrown its site and should relocate to a more appropriate area making way for more appropriate development on the site. · The extension of the hard standing area would increase the risk of flooding from surface water run-off. · Very noisy activities such as the tipping of skips and the extraction of metal from skips will continue to happen outside. The application would, therefore, not result in a reduction in noise from the site. · The site has a negative visual impact on the area. · The new trommel would increase noise pollution and there is scepticism that it would only be used for 2 hours per day as proposed. · The access to the site poses a traffic hazard due to its geometry and poor visibility. · Safety of pedestrians using the Brize Norton Road. · The increase in activity would affect property prices in the area.
Relevant Planning Policies
20. All relevant policies are listed at annex 2 (download as .doc file). The main planning policy issues are (i) whether there is a need for the development; (ii) whether the development accords with general development standards (iii) whether local environmental impacts are acceptable and (iv) whether the traffic impacts are acceptable.
Need
21. The Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” sets out the key objectives of the government regarding sustainable waste management. It states that the aim is to “help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option.” Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) 9 policy W17 sets out that existing waste management sites should be safeguarded and priority should be given to expand existing sites. The guidance also encourages small-scale waste facilities that provide a local service and incorporate the proximity principle. RPG 9 policy M2 also promotes increasing aggregate recycling so as to reduce the need for primary aggregate extraction. OSP policy WM2 encourages proposals that move waste up the hierarchy and lessen the distances waste has to travel. OSP policy WM1 states that Oxfordshire should provide the facilities to enable the county to be self-sufficient in dealing with its own waste.
General Development Standards
22. OSP policy G2 states that all development should be of a scale or type appropriate to the site and its surroundings and should not impact negatively upon the character and amenities of the area. The West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 (WOLP) policy BE2 sets out the general development standards for the district including that development respects the existing scale, pattern and character of the surrounding area and that new buildings or extensions to existing buildings are designed to respect or enhance the form, siting, scale, massing and external materials and colours of adjoining buildings, with local building traditions reflected as appropriate.
23. WOLP policy E7 relating to existing businesses sets out that proposals for the expansion of existing established businesses either within, adjoining or adjacent to the existing premises will be permitted provided that proposals are appropriate to the scale and character of the locality. The supporting text to this policy states that there will be cases where individual businesses have outgrown their site, e.g. in terms of scale of the business, or traffic generation. In these cases relocation may be the only solution.
Local Environmental Impacts
24. Mwlp policy W3 contains criteria which govern the effects of recycling developments which could impact on the amenity of local residents. WOLP policy BE19 relates to noise and states that planning permission will not be granted for development including the use of land if, because of the noise it will create, the occupants of housing and other noise sensitive development would be exposed to significant noise disturbance, unless there is an overriding need for the proposal which cannot be met elsewhere.
25. MWLP policy W3 (c) states that proposals for recycling should not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic. WOLP policy BE18 states that development that would give rise to unacceptable levels of pollution will not be permitted unless adequate mitigation measures can be provided.
26. WOLP policy NE9 regarding surface water states that intensification of existing development will not be permitted where the additional surface water run-off would result in adverse impacts such as an increased risk of flooding, river channel instability or damage to habitats, unless appropriate attenuation and pollution control measures are provided.
27. OWLP PE18 states that in determining planning applications regard must be taken of the Code of Practice (part of the OMWLP), which covers amenity and environmental protection issues such as nature conservation amongst other things.
28. OSP policy EN2 states that, in determining development proposals, environmental measures and the use of conditions to help protect biodiversity resource, in particular priority habitats and species, will be sought.
Traffic
29. OSP policy T8 states that permissions should be granted only if they provide adequate access and mitigation of adverse transport impacts. MWLP policy W3 (a) states that the site should be close to the source of the waste and/or the market for the recycled materials.
30. WOLP policy BE3 relates to the provision for movements and parking. The policy states that proposals should make provision for the safe movement of people and vehicles. The policy sets out that development will only be permitted provided that the proposal ensures the safe movement of all vehicular traffic both within the site and on the surrounding highway network and that development which would have a significant impact on the highway network will not be permitted without the prior submission of a Transport Assessment.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
31. The key issues to address are whether there is a need for the development, whether the development accords with general development standards and whether local environmental impacts including traffic are acceptable.
General Development Standards
Need
32. Supporting facilities that divert waste from landfill accord with OSP policy WM2 and PPS10. RPG9 policy W17 promotes the expansion of existing sites as a priority, as is proposed here. The proposed WTS would serve the local area and, as a result, would help to reduce the distance that waste travels to be processed as advocated by OSP policy WM2 and MWLP policy W3. The WTS contributes to making Oxfordshire self-sufficient in dealing with its waste and, therefore, accords with OSP policy WM1. The proposal seeks to improve the efficiency of secondary aggregate recycling as supported by RPG 9 policy M2.
33. West Oxfordshire District Council considers that the site will expand and intensify use and is inappropriate in a predominantly residential area. The site is proposed to be expanded and an additional building erected. However, the scale of the expansion is not significant and the business will be of a type and scale appropriate to the village and accords with OSP policy G2 and WOLP policy BE2. The village is a mixture of residential and industrial uses and is not primarily residential, with many of the industrial uses of a greater size than the B&E Transport site. Traffic generation on the site remains the same. The application will allow the business to meet new requirements for pre-treating waste, allow more recovery of materials and enable the freer flow of vehicles on site. WOLP policy E7 refers to expansion of businesses. In this case the site may be expanding but the business is not, it is updating. It is not, in my view, contrary to the aims of WOLP policy E7.
Local Environmental Impacts
Traffic
34. The WTS is a small scale facility that provides a service to the local area and is located close to the source of waste. The proposal, therefore, satisfies RPG 9 policy W17 and MWLP W3 (a). Minster Lovell Parish Council is concerned that the proposal would lead to increased traffic movements. The application does not seek to increase the amount of tonnage processed at the site and no increase in traffic is expected as a result of this proposal. Transport Development Control has no objections to the proposal. The total traffic movements to and from the site could be limited to current levels by condition. The proposal makes better provision for movement of vehicles on the site and for parking and, therefore, accords with WOLP policy BE3. Some lorries need to leave the site early to collect certain kinds of waste but conditions could restrict early morning traffic and overall traffic levels.
Noise
35. The EHO has proposed a noise limit that he considers would be effective if permission was to be granted. As there is considerable local concern about noise it has been agreed with the applicant that noise barriers would be erected in 3 locations on the site boundary. The location, height and construction details of these can be secured by condition. It is also important to limit the location of the tipping area for incoming waste to a position where the barriers will be most effective. A condition could identify and limit waste tipping and sorting in the open to a position which is adequately screened by existing buildings and noise barriers.
Dust
36. Control of dust at the site can be secured through conditions imposed by the Environment Agency in any environmental permit that is granted for the site but it could also be controlled by a dust suppression condition on a planning permission.
Ecology
37. The county ecologist suggests that a protected species survey should be undertaken and, if any were found, a mitigation strategy agreed. It would be necessary to carry out that survey before planning permission was issued in case a mitigation strategy was impossible. In the unlikely event of an unsuccessful strategy then the application should be refused as it would be contrary to OSP policy EN2.
Other matters
38. There are a number of other concerns raised by local people. The site has not, in fact, operated with disregard of the existing conditions as these are few in number and limited in their control. There has been one case of conditions not being complied with and it relates to Saturday working after bank holidays. Generally, such a condition refers to Saturdays after bank holiday Fridays. In this case it is Saturdays after any bank holiday. I consider such a restriction unnecessary and a timing condition could restrict working on bank holidays, which will include Saturdays from time to time.
39. The concrete bay is part of this application and is suitable for storage of hardcore.
40. There is concern that the permission which this application seeks to replace was for a waste transfer station and the current application is for a waste recycling depot. However, the original permission did permit some recycling and this application simply proposes a greater level of recycling which accords with government guidance in PPS10 for driving waste management up the hierarchy.
41. Wood burning is no longer taking place on site and is forbidden by the Environment Agency (EA). The EA can control vermin and fires by conditions on an environmental permit.
42. The new building is not as high as the existing building and will not overshadow gardens. It is located adjacent to a field which is an extension of a neighbouring garden.
43. The extension of the hard standing will not significantly increase the risk of flooding from surface water run-off. The EA have not objected to the proposal on this point.
44. Visually the site is not dissimilar to many industrial operations in the village and makes no significant negative visual impact on the area.
45. Noise from the trommel is not expected to be intrusive especially as it is located in a building and noise barriers will adequately screen local residents from noise.
46. There is concern that the development would affect property prices in the area. The effect of a development on property value is not a planning consideration and should not be considered in the determination of the application.
47. There are clearly problems for local residents with the way the site is currently operating. The existing planning permission only has three planning conditions. These conditions cover the operating hours, external cladding for the building and that no waste shall be stored at the site other than in the approved building or in skips or bins. Oxfordshire County Council has little control over the site due to the absence of planning conditions. It is felt that this application presents an opportunity to regularise activities on the site and to impose stricter conditions on the site to improve the environmental conditions of local residents and on-site staff.
Conclusions
48. Improvement in recycling is in accordance with PPS10, RPG9 policy M2 and OSP policy WM2 and expansion of existing sites is in accordance with RPG policy W17. As the business is not expanding but re-organising to allow more recycling rather than waste transfer it is not contrary to the aims of WOLP policy E7. Conditions could be attached to any permission controlling matters such as noise, dust and traffic. In particular, acoustic fencing, defining precisely where tipping outside the building can take place and limiting lorry traffic numbers would make the development acceptable in this location.
RECOMMENDATIONS
49. It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to:
(i) a protected species survey demonstrating that there are no protected species or that any adverse effects of the development can be satisfactorily mitigated; (ii) the incorporation into the application of such mitigating measures as may be approved by the Head of Sustainable Development;
that the Head of Sustainable Development be authorized to grant planning permission for the development proposed in Application 08/0220/P/CM subject to conditions to be determined by him but to include:
1. compliance condition; 2. standard operating hours 3. limitation of traffic movements to 50 average, 70 maximum, per day 4. acoustic fencing in 3 areas on boundaries of the site; 5. specific tipping area (behind acoustic fence); 6. dust suppression measures; 7. noise limit of 53 dB LAeq 1 hour; 8. implementation of any mitigating scheme for protected species.
(b) the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if:
1. the protected species survey referred to in (a)(i) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting, on the grounds that it would not comply with MWLP policy PE18 (in that appropriate ecological surveys would not have been submitted in line with the Code of practice); or 2. the protected species survey referred to in (a)(i) shows that there would be significant harm to the biodiversity interest or that the effect of the development cannot be satisfactorily mitigated on the grounds that it would be contrary to OSP Policy EN2 (in that protected species would not be protected).
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background Papers: File no. 8.5/3109/2 “Extension of existing waste recycling facility to accommodate new plant, building, vehicle parking/skip storage area and weighbridge at B&E Transport, Minster Lovell” can be viewed at the Minerals and Waste Development Control Team, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford, OX1 1NE.
July 2008
|