Agenda item

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

This application is for the approval of the details of materials to be used for the Energy from Waste Facility which has been granted planning permission at Ardley Fields, Ardley Landfill Site, Ardley and is being reported to this Committee as consideration of application no. MW.0139/12 was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 4 March 2013 to this meeting.

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward and outlines the consultation 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.

Planning Permission no. 08/02472/CM (MW.0044/08) was granted on appeal for an Energy from Waste facility at Ardley Landfill Site. Condition 33 of that planning permission requires that prior to the commencement of building works to the Energy from Waste facility. It is considered that the proposed roof material submitted under application no. MW.0139/12 is inapproprate to the rural setting of the development and the application is recommended for refusal. The roof material submitted under application no. MW.0040/13 is approprate to the rural setting of the development and the application is recommended for approval.

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.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to no over-riding issue being raised by outstanding consultees, Application MW.0040/13 be approved.

The Committee considered (PN6) a further application for the approval of the detail of materials to be used for the Energy from Waste facility at Ardley landfill site having deferred consideration of a similar previous application on 4 March 2013.

Introducing the report Mr Periam indicated that following further consultation the materials now proposed seemed acceptable.  However, concerns had recently been expressed locally regarding the potential for light escape through the translucent areas of the building. It remained to be seen just how much light would escape from the building but it needed to be remembered that the use of such material had always been known about and referred to throughout the process and that it would be difficult now to argue about its  appropriateness.

Peter Maggs highlighted concerns that photomontages tabled by Viridor at the last meeting had not been truly representative and tabled photographs taken the day before the meeting which he felt gave a more realistic representation of what was a significant industrial plant in the middle of a rural environment.  He did not accept the view put forward that the development would sink into the landscape and it was important to get things right now including use of materials and significant landscaping to reduce the building’s visual impact. He confirmed that Middleton Stoney Parish Council endorsed the comments made by Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council regarding the use of translucent materials which had been tabled with the addenda.

Grant Scott outlined developments since March. Meetings with representatives of local parish councils had resulted in agreement on  alternative materials which were now before the Committee for consideration. Viridor had submitted a further application which had been discussed at the Liaison Committee and having listened carefully to local concerns he hoped that would now be approved.  He added that translucent materials had been utilised in the design to enable maximum amount of natural light into the building but that concerns expressed about light spill could be considered under condition 31 at a future date.

Responding to a question from the Chairman Mr Scott confirmed that the site close to Junction 12 on the M6 was in the ownership of Veolia and not Viridor.

Ginny Dalrymple stated that the photomontages produced at the last meeting had been prepared as objectively as possible using methods approved by landscape architects and in accordance with strict guidelines and best practice. She refuted any allegation that they were a fabrication.  Danpalon material had been used to help ensure that the impact of the building’s bulk was minimised.

Responding to Councillor Armitage Mr Periam confirmed that condition 8 attached to the Secretary of State’s permission would ensure substantial landscaping was undertaken although that would take time to establish itself.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames reminded the Committee that the area she represented had not wanted this development in the first place but as it was now being built it was imperative to get things right particularly as local residents would be looking at the building for 35 years. She thanked Viridor for the productive meetings which had taken place but major concerns remained regarding the use of translucent materials some of which would used on parts of the building 35 metres high and she suggested the use of louvered materials could help.

Mr Periam repeated that the issue of translucent materials was not part of the application currently before the Committee.

Some members agreed that it had been inappropriate to have issues regarding the use of translucent materials brought up at this late stage and felt that the undertaking given earlier by Mr Scott that levels of light spillage could be monitored under Condition 31 say within 12 months of the building being in operation would be an acceptable way forward.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Lilly, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried unanimously) that:

(a)               Application MW.0139/12 be refused as inappropriate on a largebuilding 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;

(b)               Application MW.0040/13 be approved.