Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN7)

 

This report describes an application to allow part of the MRF building to be used for waste transfer operations. Waste collected from households would be brought to the building and transferred onto larger vehicles for transport to the Energy from Waste facility at Ardley. The building would also accept clinical waste and have some capacity for commercial and industrial waste.

 

The consultation responses and third party representations received are outlined in the report along with the relevant development plan policy implications and the views of the Deputy Director of Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) who recommends that the application be approved as the proposed development is in accordance with relevant planning policy relating to waste management and protection of amenity.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

 

i)                   a Section 106 agreement to ensure that waste imports to the waste transfer operation are only from within the catchment area (Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell) secured by the Section 106 agreement dated 4 November 2008 for the landfill site and that the total waste import to the MRF and WTS building is 200 000tpa and this is part of and not additional to the 600,000 tpa limit on the landfill; and

ii)                 a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with the development are routed via the A4130 and A34 as for other developments on the site,

 

application MW.0136/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 3 to the report.

 

The Committee considered (PN7) an application to allow part of the MRF building at the Sutton Courtenay waste management centre to be used for waste transfer operations. The Committee also noted 2 late representations which had been set out in the tabled addenda.  The application had been refused at the September meeting but then modified to overcome the objections raised and resubmitted.

 

Sally Furze reiterated her previous objections from the September meeting still stood.  There were no visible signs of flood prevention work.  Bunds at the site were higher and yet there was still light spillage. Smells were horrendous and it remained an example of planning creep.  She could not accept that waste being brought in to the site in small vehicles and then loaded onto bigger vehicles to be transported away again was sustainable or efficient.

 

Robin Draper supported the Committee’s previous decision to refuse permission which had been based on a step to far and on flawed statistics in a Minerals and Waste Strategy which was having to be rewritten as a result.  He hoped the Committee would sustain that view. It was true the amended version was a considerable improvement but it left questions unanswered as to future applications. It was imperative that the 2030 end date was treated as definitive and honoured by both FCC and Oxfordshire County Council, particularly in view of FCCs record of layering planning application on application and extending its activities and  the landfill site end date from 2012 to 2021 and now currently to 2030. This application was for a change of usage to meet an OCC contract and permission should therefore be restricted to meeting the terms of that contract from within the county and not from imports from across the so called catchment area. To allow that could only increase pressure for further applications. He considered the recommendation weak and that it should specifically refer to the Waste Transfer Facility and the 50,00tpa and 10,000limits, reinforcement of the 2030 deadline and  minimising the risks of FCC expanding the envelope of its activities further by deleting reference to the catchment area, and restricting its activities to transferring Oxfordshire’s waste.  He also suggested that conditions should be determined by the Chairman of the Planning Committee in conjunction with the Deputy Director. Clinical waste breached the non-hazardous waste status of the landfill site, which had been robustly defended in the past. That should be maintained and he could not accept the rationale for setting up a clinical waste transfer site to facilitate just one vehicle in and one out a fortnight, when that could go straight to the Maidenhead facility, unless the intention was to build on that by seeking to import more clinical waste in future. To protect the local community no extension of the hours of work to Bank holidays should be permitted although the increase of hours on Saturdays following a Bank holiday seemed reasonable. He urged that the application be rejected or at least deferred until the County Council had agreed a Minerals and Waste Strategy. However, if the Committee were minded to approve then any decision should clearly state that the waste transfer facility was only permitted until the end of 2030, be dismantled by 31 December of that year; restricted to the transfer of the 50,000tpa arising from the Oxfordshire contract and to 10,000tpa of C&I from within the county only. He also urged refusal for the importation of clinical waste as it breached the non hazardous waste status of the landfill site and finally that no working should be allowed on any Bank holidays.

Mark Baker welcomed the decision taken in September and the recommitment to the 2030 end date. However, that date fell well short of the end date of the 25 year waste contract awarded by the County Council which ended in 2035. Any further application to extend the end date at Sutton Courtenay should be strongly resisted and any such application needed to demonstrate a strong and clear specific need in accordance with paragraph 37 of the officer’s report and county policies. A clear system of review needed to be arrived at to monitor the situation in the future.

Responding to a question from Councillor Lilly Mr Baker stated that there were alternative sites available for FCC to set up operations.

Dr Angela Jones stated that continual extensions to the end date for operations at this site had taken working from 2012 to 2030 and local people felt that nothing had really changed.  That needed to be met head on and working on bank holidays resisted. She considered acceptance of clinical waste to tbe the thin end of the wedge and that part of the application should be resisted.

Colin Woodward also considered the transfer operation of waste an additional and unnecessary operation.  He was concerned that no specific firm limit had been placed on future expansion at this site.  There would be an immense impact on local roads around the site and flies, dust, litter and odour continued to be a real nuisance.  47 complaints had been made of which only 2 had been non compliance. The remainder had been unsubstantiated, that was not acceptable.

Paul Marsh for the applicants confirmed that this was a resubmission of the application refused in September the Company having reviewed the reasons for refusal given at that time namely perceived impact on roads and local residents. He stated that the tonnage of waste into the facility was part of the existing volume of waste currently going into the site, there would be no additional waste.  There had been no highway objections to the revised application.  The MRF building had consent to handle 200,000 tonnes and the operation would be absorbed within the existing contract with no increased activity or intensification. Noise remained within acceptable limits and similarly dust and odour did not exceed permitted levels. There had been shown to be an identified need in order to maintain a level of sustainability.  He reiterated the Company’s commitment to removing the building in 2030 and restoring the land and they were not seeking to amend that.

Mr Marsh then responded to questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – the company were surrendering some capacity at the site.

Councillor Tanner – it was a requirement of the contract to include an element for clinical waste.

Councillor Cherry – the operation was not expected to have any impact on current drainage issues regarding surface water drainage which were currently being investigated.

Councillor Lilly – the Company were not currently looking at an alternative site for post 2031. He reiterated the Company’s intention to cease operations in 2030.

Councillor Handley – when not in use the doors into the building would remain closed. Additionally clinical waste would not necessarily go to Ardley as there were other sites available.

Councillor Fulljames – regarding the discrepancy between the contract length and this life of this site the contract was not site specific.

Councillor Richard Webber spoke as local member. He thanked those members of the Committee who had visited the site.  Even though FCC had in fact addressed many of the issues raised at the September meeting there had still been 64 objections to this resubmission and a lot of local concern remained and as local member it was for him to see how that could be taken forward.  There were 4 issues:

·                    Completion date which needed to be quoted in all notices.

·                    Catchment area – there was a feeling of ambiguity regarding the phrase service to Oxfordshire and unease that that area could be extended.

·                    Clinical waste – he could not understand the justification for this with marginal benefits when compared to potential risks.  Again there was concern this could be extended and specific limits should be imposed now.

·                    Hours of working – extended hours should be refused.

On the basis that these four issues above could be addressed and where necessary written into decision notices he felt progress could be made.

Responding to Councillor Greene Ms Thompson confirmed that Condition 3 covered the closing date of the operation.  However, there was no justification in planning terms to stop bank holiday working and limit it to when refuse was collected by the relevant district councils.

Responding to Councillor Lilly Mrs Crouch confirmed that a closing date could be embodied in a S106 agreement but could be amended after 5 years.  In this instance a condition would fulfil the same purpose.

A motion by Councillor Tanner to approve the application but excluding the element for clinical waste was not seconded.

Mr Periam confirmed that the two elements could not be considered separately and the only alternative would be to refuse the whole application.

Councillor Owen, Councillor Lilly and Councillor Bartholomew had no real concerns regarding clinical waste which they considered would be controlled and well monitored.

Councillor Greene then moved that application MW.0136/13 be approved but with an amendment to the hours of operation to restrict bank holiday working to those when district councils were making collections. Councillor Phillips seconding.

Councillor Greene with the permission of his seconder accepted an amendment by Councillor Mrs Fulljames to amend the routeing agreement to ensure vehicles were routed to Ardley via the A4130 and A34 and M40 (junction 10 only).

Councillor Mrs Fulljames also expressed concern regarding the discrepancy between the completion date for this site at 2030 and the end of the Ardley permission date of 2035 and also the need to prevent waste from outside Oxfordshire travelling through the county.

The motion as amended was then put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (9 votes to 0,1 abstention recorded) that subject to:

i)                    a Section 106 agreement to ensure that waste imports to the waste transfer operation are only from within the catchment area (Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell) secured by the Section 106 agreement dated 4 November 2008 for the landfill site and that the total waste import to the MRF and WTS building is 200 000tpa and this is part of and not additional to the 600,000 tpa limit on the landfill; and

 

ii)                  a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with the development are routed via the A4130 and A34 and M40 (Junction 10 only) as for other developments on the site;

application MW.0136/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 3 to the report PN7 and that hours of working as set out in that Annex be amended to restrict bank holiday working to reflect those days when District Councils made refuse collections.