Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6)

 

This application has been made in order to continue the development of a permitted recycling facility at Sutton Courtenay landfill site, without complying with a number of conditions. The changes would allow the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) to be constructed and operated without the construction of the In Vessel Composting (IVC) which is currently part of the approved plans. Other minor changes to the conditions are also proposed and these are detailed in the report.

 

The application is being reported to Committee as there have been objections from one local resident and Sutton Courtenay Parish Council.

 

The report sets out the proposals and outlines the objections and other responses to the application.  Relevant planning policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) on the proposal.

 

The report concludes that a minor adjustment to the site of the MRF building and a relatively small increase to its size would not have a significant impact on the environment. The application provides the opportunity to attach further conditions to make the current development more acceptable by improving bunding and the state of the BOAT used as an access. Conditions could also ensure the site is restored in a way compatible with the landfill site in which it lies.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application  MW.0027/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and economy (Growth and Infrastructure) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 2 to the report PN6.

 

 

The Committee considered an application (PN6) to continue development of a permitted recycling facility at Sutton Courtenay landfill site, without complying with a number of conditions, which would allow the materials recycling facility to be constructed and operated without the construction of the in-vessel composting facility, which currently formed part of the approved plans but was no longer needed.

 

Mr Hignell stated that Sutton Courtenay Parish Council had taken the view that material differences between the original proposal and what was now being proposed warranted a new application with a full consultation process rather than a Section 73 application. WRG had downplayed the size of this project. That was common practice for them and in keeping with the way they extended their activities through planning creep.  The Vale of White Horse District Council had objected to both the EfW and MBT proposals on lowland vale policies but it appeared they had not been consulted on this proposal.  Drainage in Sutton Courtenay village remained a problem and a site drainage scheme had yet to be approved.   Dust, noise and flies remained a constant problem and one which the company seemed not to take seriously.

 

Dr Jones speaking for Appleford Parish Council stated that Appleford was a small village under immense pressure.  They had been distracted by recent events regarding changes to the proposals for the digester facility and had consequently missed the opportunity to respond to this Section 73 application. The Parish Council considered that if this application had come in through the normal planning process it would have been recommended for refusal as there had been opposition from local planning authorities to other smaller schemes and it seemed illogical that a bigger building should not be treated in the same way.  WRG had failed to comply with conditions to provide a detailed flood scheme and the County Council should take account of local plan policies and reject the application.

 

Robin Draper introduced an element of caution to the Committee insofar as the Section 73 application was concerned.  The original permission had permitted establishment of recycling facilities on land to the west of Corridor Road and Condition 2 to that permission stipulated that the development should begin no later than three years from the date of that permission namely 17 December 2008.  It was difficult to see how the word “development” could mean anything other than the MRF and IVC as the remainder of the permission was merely for the extension of the duration of the existing composting operation and for storage.  He was of the view that it was legally incorrect to claim that a Section 73 was appropriate in this case due to the composting operation having started before the 3 year deadline and therefore a fresh application should have been submitted.  The Committee had been misled regarding the size of the building. That brought it into conflict with local plan policies, particularly as the EfW and MBT had been rejected on similar grounds. Consultation had also been inadequate.  WRG had also failed to identify the source of waste and therefore questions remained regarding need for the facility.  WRG in January had stated its intention to open discussion regarding its long term plans. That would have been welcomed but had not been forthcoming. The Committee had little option legally other than to refuse the application.

 

The three speakers then responded to questions from members of the Committee.

 

Councillor Tanner – Mr Hignell stated that in addition to the industrialisation of a Greenfield site the application was contaray to local plan policies designed to protect the coalescence of communities and restoration of land. There would be an unfortunate effect of creating unattractive development where there was no overriding need for it and no benefit to the greater good of the local area.  WRG continued to disappoint in that regard.

 

Councillor Crabbe – Mr Hignell confirmed that despite a condition for a drainage scheme being imposed 3 years previously one had never been submitted.  Surface water appeared within the parish boundaries and had affected footpaths.

 

Councillor Armitage – Mr Hignell confirmed that the parish council had known about the consultation when the proposal was submitted.  Dr Jones confirmed Appleford Parish Council had first been aware of the consultation on 28 February.  Mr Tugwell confirmed that the consultation had been published on 15 February and that that consultation had included the vale of White Horse District Council.

 

Councillor Mathew – Mr Draper confirmed that a Section 73 was inappropriate in this case as it allowed a substantial variation without a full consultation.  The time condition on the original permission had expired last December and that this variation had time lapsed.

 

Mr Graham addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicants. Waste processing and its structure were never popular but it was necessary to fulfil a need.  In this case there had been one permission dealing with 3 issues - a material recovery facility, in-vessel composting facility and a composting facility.  Failure to secure the green waste contract had meant that the IVC facility was redundant.  That had freed up some space to provide a more efficient structure for a recycling facility, which would help divert material from landfill.  The operation involved screening waste that was already coming into the site and no additional waste would be brought in.  By providing a bigger building the company would be able to accommodate new and evolving plant to ensure sustainability and enable more of the operation itself to be housed within the building thereby reducing nuisance.  The company were not ambivalent to local concerns.  In addition to the IVC building not going ahead there would be a reduction in the footprint of the MRF of 2,000 square metres.  The building although larger would not be higher and now there would be only one building as opposed to two.  If the IVC facility had gone ahead there would have been the need to introduce a new stream of waste of 70,000 tonnes per annum. That would no longer happen. With regard to site drainage the landfill operation was not part of this permission.  However, a surface water drainage plan for this site would be submitted in accordance with the conditions attached to any permission if granted.  There was a need for this facility.  Waste was already coming in to the site and this would offer an opportunity to deal with waste more effectively and divert some of that from landfill.  The original permission had contained three elements 1 of which had now gone and another, for the green waste composting facility, implemented. It had been difficult to separate those elements, which explained why some felt the permission period had lapsed. However, the company had taken the view that implementation of the green waste element allowed for submission of a Section 73 application.

 

He then answered questions from members of the Committee.

 

Councillor Hayward – it was expected to recycle around 70,000 tonnes.

 

Councillor Owen – he confirmed only one building would be required. As the company had not secured the green waste contract there was no waste stream to warrant construction of that facility.

 

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – he confirmed an increase in the footprint of the building but it would not be any higher than originally proposed.

 

Councillor Crabbe – the facility would be processing waste brought to the landfill site which did not have permission to accept hazardous waste.

 

Councillor Greene – he confirmed that the type of building proposed was a steel portal frame which could be removed and resited along with along with the plant inside it. The intention was for it to be removed by 2019.

 

Councillor Mathew – the dimensions of the original building had been acceptable 3 years ago but the opportunity which now presented itself to increase the size of the building meant that it would be possible to store material and manouvere vehicles within the building.  There had been a lot of changes to waste processing operations in Oxfordshire recently ie Ardley and the company needed to respond to that.

 

Councillor Lilly – a surface water scheme had been submitted to the Environment Agency and was currently with the Oxfordshire County Council.

 

Councillor Mathew understood that the North Wessex Downs AONB had not been consulted on this proposal in accordance with agreed protocols between them and the County Council. He sought assurances that no changes were proposed to the height of the building.

 

Mr Tugwell could not confirm whether the North Wessex Downs AONB had been consulted in this instance, although a response had been received from Natural England.  He would ensure that for future planning applications the relevant AONB would be included in the consultation process. He confirmed that the proposed height of the building was 12 metres.

 

Councillor Lilly considered there was a case for deferral in order to ascertain whether there had been correct consultation. He also expressed some caution as to whether a Section 73 application was appropriate in this case and felt there a number of questions remained unanswered.

 

Councillor Stratford felt the application had merit. It provided 1 building as opposed to 2 and would be able to house and contain all operational aspects and if adequately monitored and enforced then the application held up.  He moved and Councillor Reynolds seconded the recommendation as set out in the report.

 

Councillor Sanders then moved an amendment to defer the application to allow further local consultation. The Chairman was minded not to accept the amendment.

 

Councillor Stratford then asked that the motion be put and it was –

 

RESOLVED: (by 11 votes to 4) that Application MW.0027/12 be approved subject to:

 

(a)       conditions carried forward from the original consent (APF/616/57-CM) but with the following amendments to Conditions 1, 6, 16,18 and 19:

 

Replacement Condition 1

 

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission. The application comprises: Supporting Statement reference PEL/SC73/19471/001 dated October 2011, Site Location Plan CH6737-P01/C, Building Elevations CH6737-P02/C and landscaping drawings SC-RF-LR1 and SC-RF-LR2 dated December 2011.

 

Replacement Condition 6

 

No operations relating to the MRF or Green Waste Composting Facility including HGVs entering and leaving the site, other than air pumping and monitoring, shall be carried out on site except between the following times;

 

7:00 am to 18:00 pm Monday to Friday

7:00 am to 13:00 pm Saturdays

No operations shall take place Sunday or Bank Holidays

 

Replacement Condition 18

 

No development of the MRF shall commence until a scheme for the enhancement of screening vegetation has been submitted to the Waste Planning Authority and approved in writing. Any scheme that is approved shall be implemented in the first planting season following the date of this permission and shall be maintained for the life of the permission.

 

Replacement Condition 19

 

No development of the MRF shall commence until drainage details incorporating sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Any scheme approved shall be implemented before any waste is brought to the MRF.

 

Delete Condition 16

 

(b)       the following new conditions and informative:

 

1.                  No construction of the MRF shall commence until a scheme for the surfacing of the road from the two accesses to the site to Corridor Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, and those surfacing works have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme. The surfaced road shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme for the duration of the development.

 

2.                  No construction of the MRF shall commence until signs warning lorry drivers of pedestrians and cyclists on the road outside the two accesses to the site have been erected in accordance with details of location and design which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. These signs shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

 

3.                  No construction of the MRF shall take place until an internal layout scheme for the MRF has been submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with that approved scheme.

 

4.                  No construction of the MRF shall take place until the bunds shown on approved plan CH6737-P01/C have been constructed to 3 metres in height and seeded with grass and until the landscape planting shown on the same approved plan has been implemented.  The bunds and landscaping shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

5.                  No more than 40,000 tonnes per annum of green wastes and 70,000 tonnes per annum of other wastes shall be imported to the site.

 

6.                  The height of the building shall be restricted to a maximum height of 12 metres.

 

Informative:  European Protected Species