Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7)

This application is for an increase in the amount of waste imported to the existing Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions are proposed.

The application is being reported to the Planning & Regulation Committee because it is a resubmission of  previous application no. MW.0073/17 for the same development which was refused planning permission and is the subject of an undetermined appeal.

Objections have been received from eleven local residents on highway capacity, safety and amenity impact grounds.

The report outlines the relevant planning policies along with the comments received and recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place.

Members are asked to consider with regard to Application No. MW.0073/17:

(a)     whether the application overcomes their previous concerns and so reason for refusal; and EITHER

(i)        if not, refuse for the following reason:

There would be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of residents in Sutton village arising from the additional Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements proposed by the application, contrary to policy C5 of the adopted Minerals & Waste Core Strategy. The offer of £10,000 for highway improvements could not overcome that concern.

OR

(ii)      if so, subject to the applicant first entering into a section 106 Agreement to secure the payment of £10,000 towards highway improvements along the B4449 through Sutton and the provision of an additional road sign advising HGV traffic turning onto the B4449 from Blackditch not to travel through Sutton during peak hours, Application MW.0015/18 be approved subject to the existing conditions and condition 6 reading as follows:

“No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request.”

and

to an additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.

(b)    that the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee writes to the Cabinet Member for Environment advising that there are ongoing concerns about the impact of traffic   through Sutton and asking that the council seek as Highway Authority to investigate with the applicant and other local businesses ways in which it may work with them to help secure a            Sutton Bypass.

The Committee considered an application to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions were proposed.  The application was being reported to the Planning & Regulation Committee as a resubmission of a previous application no. MW.0073/17 for the same development which had been refused planning permission and was now the subject of an undetermined appeal.

Presenting the report Mr Periam updated members on recent contraventions of the routeing agreement. Although no complaints had been received from members of the public since the last meeting officers had carried out two separate monitoring visits which had culminated in one vehicle being observed on the previous Thursday contravening the terms of the agreement, which, on investigation, it had been established that the vehicle was not in fact owned by the applicant but in the ownership of a third-party contractor. The applicant had subsequently responded and dealt with the report immediately in line with agreed procedures.

Mr Periam then responded to questions from:

Councillor Matelot – officers continued to use their best endeavours to ensure compliance.

Councillor Sames – the site had wheel-washing facilities but vehicles from this site weren’t the only vehicles which used this road.

John Salmon on behalf of the applicants stated that a lot of information put before members had been incorrect and misleading and confirmed the applicant’s view that the agreement was not frequently or flagrantly violated. This was a sound application which met the county council’s guidelines and lorry route policies as well as government aspirations for recycling and daily traffic fluctuations resulting from this application would be imperceptible.  The applicants were proud of their operation, which was the only one at the Dix Pit site which had signed up to a routeing agreement and it was important to note that the company owned 18 lorries yet 180 used the site.  They considered they had been unfairly treated and delays with this application had cost them £1m.  Today’s application had been made on Counsel’s advice to try and reach a compromise and to do that the company had tried to be honest and objective.

Councillor Charles Mathew reminded the Committee that at the 8 January 2018 meeting he had proposed a staggered approach to the increased tonnage with a reduced amount of traffic on the B4449. That approach had been rejected by the applicants and the application subsequently refused on the grounds of adverse impact on amenity of residents in Sutton village so he was not happy to now see a reapplication based merely on an increased offer towards highway maintenance and provision of a road sign.  He understood an email had been sent to all members by the applicants stating their intention to sue him and the County Council for defamation which he considered had been based on a false interpretation of what he had said.  He had every respect for the recycling industry but felt this site was quite simply in the wrong place. He referred to an abusive email he had received from Chris Sheehan and hoped that members would not submit to pressure and reaffirm their decision to reject the application.  The B4449 was not capable of taking extra traffic and any further increase would be unacceptable and continue to make life uncomfortable for residents.

Mr Mytton confirmed that this was a largely repeat application of the one refused in January 2018 but there was an opportunity for the Committee to reconsider it in the light of the revised offer by the applicants for an increased highway maintenance contribution and improved signage.  It would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds other than those specified in the January refusal unless there was evidence for that.

Councillor Fox-Davies asked whether or not the Committee could justifiably reconsider this application in the light of the revised routeing agreements protocol previously agreed by the Committee at this meeting.

Mr Periam and Mr Mytton advised that in general fairness if the Committee wished to do that then the application should be deferred to enable the applicants to consider their position in the light of the terms of the revised protocol. However, it was still open for the Committee to refuse the application if it remained of a view that it was still unacceptable but if the Committee were minded to approve the application now then it needed to do so under the old protocol.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Fox-Davies, seconded by Councillor Webber and carried by 9 votes to 0, with one abstention recorded) that the Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM be deferred to enable the application to be considered under the terms of the revised Routeing Agreements Protocol and to seek the views of the applicant on this.