Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

 

This application is to continue the development of a permitted recycling facility at Sutton Courtenay landfill site, with changes to a number of conditions. The changes would allow the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) to operate until 2030, in line with the life of the adjacent landfill site. The current permission for the MRF runs to 2019. The changes proposed would also allow the building to process 200,000 tonnes of waste per year rather than 70,000 allowing a higher proportion of the waste imported to the landfill site to be processed through the MRF.

 

Changes are proposed to the elevations of the building. No changes are proposed to the footprint, height or dimensions.

 

The application is being reported to this Committee as there have been objections from local residents.

 

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 (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) on the proposal.

 

The report concludes that the changes proposed to the condition are in accordance with waste planning policy allowing for the proportion of waste diverted from landfill to be maximised as the operational life of the MRF would match the landfill and for a higher proportion of the waste to the landfill would be permitted to be treated in the MRF. There would be no significant impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed changes.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0174/12 be approved subject to conditions attached to the original consent (APF/616/57-CM) but  amended specifically in respect of conditions 1, 3 and 22 as detailed at Annex 3 to this report and to further updating of conditions 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to reflect that schemes have now been approved and must be implemented.

 

 

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to continue development of a permitted recycling facility at Sutton Courtenay landfill site but with changes to a number of conditions to allow the materials recycling facility to operate until 2030 in line with the life of the adjacent landfill site and process 200,000 tonnes of waste per year and for changes to the elevations of the building, although no changes were being proposed to the footprint, height or dimensions.

 

Mr Lerner responded to concerns which had been expressed regarding the appropriateness of a Section 73 application in this case.  His statement had been circulated with the tabled addenda.

 

Mark Baker considered the application flawed.  Firstly it had originally presented proposals for the Ardley bulk transfer contract but was now dealing with proposals for increased throughput for sorting landfill waste, an entirely unrelated and undisclosed activity and one which had offered local people and consultees no proper opportunity to comment.  It had not therefore  followed due process. The application was procedurally invalid as Section 73 could not be used to approve new development and should be considered again as a full planning application, which provided a real basis and case to approve an increased throughput and life of the facility. He considered planning officers had put forward totally different justifications for these two major components and asked the Committee to decline to consider the application as presented as the applicant had made no case at all for the first element and an invalidated case for the second.  Section 73 was not an appropriate means for dealing with such contentious matters and a planning application was needed which explained comprehensively proposals for trebling throughput and which put the life extension into the full context of the life of the site itself. 

 

Robin Draper also considered this a faulty application and one which should not have been considered under Section 73.  He referred to a detailed list of 8 applications submitted at this site over the past two years which in his view represented planning creep.  Setting out material changes for an 18 year extension and a trebling of throughput warranted a new application.  In May agreement had been given for a 70,000 tonne throughput for the MRF facility which FCC had accepted.  They were now building a larger plant and were in breach of the May permission.  There was no basis to grant an extension of time in this way and the Committee should not approve it.  The Company had shown complete disdain for conditions.  He also advised that the local County Councillor opposed the application.

 

Nicola Simonson spoke as a local resident and environmental consultant.  With particular concerns regarding the extension of time.  She considered this constituted a permanent facility in the countryside and not a temporary one.  The site was still classified as Greenfield, which is why previous schemes such as the MBT facility had been rejected.  The application was contrary to policies NE9, 10 and 11 in the local plan which sought to prevent development with impact on views and the site itself was particularly sensitive especially with the imminent closure and demolition of Didcot power station, which offered a unique opportunity to reclaim the lowland vale. Allowing this application represented a retrograde step.

 

Nick Hards referred to the significant visual impact this facility would have on planned housing development in Didcot. Traffic levels, which were set to increase dramatically as a result of that development, would not be helped by this proposal and it seemed incomprehensible with that development as a backdrop to be now seeking to increase operations together with an extension of time for the facility particularly when, at the May meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee, the applicants had been content with the original proposal and yet here they were months later and despite assurances given at that meeting seeking significant changes to that proposal.

 

Dr Angela Jones endorsed all the comments made by the previous speakers and referred to the despair felt by Appleford Parish Council regarding this application.  She had said in May that there were likely to be changes made and sure enough that had  happened.  The Parish Council felt bullied by FCC and the Committee should support local concerns and refuse the application.

 

The Chairman referred to an email which he had received from Councillor Stewart Lilly who had asked that the Committee seriously consider refusing the application. Oxfordshire county council were currently taking enforcement action against FCC at Sutton Courtenay for other planning conditions that were not only being ignored but totally flouted and it would be sheer folly to grant yet another conditional approval if they continued to ignore existing conditions already imposed on them.

 

Mike Graham on behalf of the applicants advised that FCC had addressed  the level of criticism levelled at them in May by establishing a dedicated team to deal with these issues which had included a full and comprehensive list of every application required in order to complete the landfill operation by 2030.  He advised that the company were seeking confirmation whether or not Ardley were able to accept treated waste.  With regard to throughput he confirmed that they were not asking for a single additional tonne to be imported but would only be dealing with waste which was already coming to the site and were looking to treat waste in order to recover and divert recyclables from landfill and there would be no transport impact as there would be no additional waste being brought in.  The company were seeking to tie the MRF operation into the life of the landfill.  Waste disposal needed a strategy in order to get waste away from landfill but needed to get waste into the site in order to meet the end date and then restoration.  Hoever, if the MRF facility was decommissioned in 2019 then the Company would need to use recyclables to fill the site which was not possible under EU regulations.  They were not looking to increase the size of the building and confirmed that the site was in fact brownfield (under the National Policy Planning Framework) and would only revert to greenfield status after 2030.  The landscape would be reclaimed by 2036. Some areas had already been restored and the company was doing its utmost to get the site completed but by its very nature waste would be always be a contentious issue. The company took cognisance of local concerns but in their view this was what was required to meet the completion date for landfill.

 

Mr Graham then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Tanner – waste import was currently split between rail (350,000 tonnes) and road (250,000 tonnes) with treated waste coming from road imports.

 

Councillor Greene – rail imports would continue to 2030.  With regard to the comments by Councillor Lilly concerning enforcement there had been breach of a pre-commencement condition which had arisen as the company had been told that all responses had been submitted.  However, there had been a delay of two weeks getting a written response from the Environment Agency although they had been told verbally that all was well.  In these cases it was normal practice to proceed on that basis but due to the sensitivity of the Sutton Courtenay site and with hindsight that had been ill.  However he did not regard that as flouting and indeed following comments made at the May meeting the company were trying to improve liaison.

 

Councillor Hallchurch – he confirmed that there would be no increase in traffic as waste to be treated would come from levels currently imported into the site.  He referred to the clarification of throughput documentation which he had tabled which illustrated that the current level was 70,000 tonnes but more could be processed and the hope that 60,000 tonnes could be diverted to Ardley as treated waste rather than build a waste transfer station.

 

Councillor Hannaby – the company did keep records and in May the Company had asked for capacity not to be conditioned to 70,000 tonnes as they felt more could be achieved.

 

Ms Thompson drew the Committee’s attention to the tabled addenda sheet which set out comments from the Vale of White Horse District Council  and a revised Annex 3.  If approved this permission would not cover the waste transfer or clinical waste elements and therefore the information regarding traffic levels associated with those elements as set out in paragraph 18 did not apply to this application.

 

Responding to:

 

Councillor Armitage - she confirmed that any permission for this application would not include clinical waste.

 

Councillor Tanner – the original application had proposed the life of the MRF to 2019 which had tied in with the lifetime of the landfill operation at that time.  However, that had been amended to 2030 with restoration in 2036 when the the site would revert to greenfield status.

 

Councillor Greene – the report dealt with the environmental impact of the facility.

 

Councillor Hannaby supported the aims of recycling but had sympathy for the plight of local residents. It had came as no surprise to her that having granted an extension of time for the landfill FCC were now seeking a similar extension for the MRF facility.

 

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor felt that having weighed the impact of the development against the desirable aims of recycling the application should be approved and she so moved.  Councillor Nimmo-Smith seconding.

 

Councillor Reynolds considered that as import levels were not set to increase there seemed to be no real planning reason to refuse.

 

Councillor Armitage however felt that the application went against local plan policies and it was not appropriate to say that good recycling should overweigh those policies.

 

Councillor Tanner agreed and felt MRFs encouraged landfill which we should be looking to reduce.  He could see little justification to allow this proposal which if approved would continue to be blot on the landscape.

 

The motion was put to the Committee and –

 

RESOLVED: (by 8 votes to 3, Councillor Greene and Councillor Hannaby recorded as having abstained) that Application MW.0174/12 be approved subject to conditions attached to the original consent (APF/616/57-CM) but  amended specifically in respect of conditions 1, 3 and 22 as detailed in the revised Annex 3 as attached to the addenda sheet and tabled at the meeting and to further updating of conditions 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to reflect that schemes had now been approved and must be implemented.