Agenda item

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

 

This is a ‘details pursuant’ application providing details required by a condition on an existing planning consent. Condition 33 on the planning permission for an Energy from Waste plant at Ardley landfill site requires that the applicant provide details of the external materials for the building, for approval by the Waste Planning Authority. The applicant has submitted samples of the materials that they intend to use. However, the material proposed for the roof has caused local concern and is not considered appropriate in the rural context. Therefore, it is recommended that the application is refused.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0139/12 be refused as inappropriate on a large building in the rural context of the application site contrary to the provisions of CLP policies C6 and C28, OMWCS policies C3 and C6, and the guidance with regard to good design set out in paragraphs 17 and 56 of the NPPF.

 

 

 

 

The Committee resumed following an adjournment for 5 minutes to allow Members of the Committee to view alternative roofing materials in an adjoining room.

 

The Committee then considered a ‘details pursuant’ application providing details required by condition on an existing planning consent granted by the Secretary of State for an Energy from Waste plant at Ardley landfill site. Condition 33 to that permission had required that the applicant provide details of external materials for the building for approval by the Waste Planning Authority. There was no statutory requirement to consult on such details but as the Ardley Energy from Waste plant had represented a major development it had been considered appropriate to do so and a consultation exercise was undertaken with local County Councillors and Parish Councils. Concerns had been raised locally regarding the appropriateness of the material proposed for the roof within the site’s rural context and these had in turn been brought to the Committee for consideration.

 

Robert Ryan and Ginny Dalrymple (Viridor) addressed the Committee.  Mr Ryan set out some of the history of the development and proposals for its future operational life.  He suggested that the uncoated material represented the best option and although it would shine at first it would weather over a period of 16 – 24 months. His company fully acknowledged local concerns regarding the proposed material and had provided alternatives for the Committee to examine.  It was an option to select a pre-weathered material but as the photomontages showed there was little difference between weathered and painted materials and he suggested the grey alternative would be the most suitable of those.

 

Ginny Dalrymple then took the Committee through each of the photomontages.

 

Mr Ryan and Ms Dalrymple then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Crabbe – there was no significant difference in cost between the various options.

 

Councillor Hayward – there had been general support for the greyer material option at other facilities.

 

Councillor Hannaby – there would be significant difference in maintenance between the stucco embossed option at zero maintenance and the painted option, which would require a maintenance regime with the paint finish guaranteed for 15 years. An annual clean would then be required and that would have inevitable health and safety consequences for maintenance operatives.

 

Councillor Mrs Fulljames pointed out that the word ‘green’ in line 2 of paragraph 10 of the report should have read ‘grey’.  She then referred to strong local concerns regarding the proposed material and confirmed that local councils had not had an opportunity to comment on the alternative  options. 

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried unanimously) to defer consideration of Application MW.0139/12 to enable further consultation with local parish councils on available alternative roof materials/finishes for determination at the 15 April 2013 meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred to enable further consultation with local parish councils on available alternatives and report back to the 15 April 2013 meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee on a preferred alternative.

 

Note: Applicants will need to amend the application to reflect this.