Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council where the matter had previously been discussed, however she would apply a fresh view to the information presented, and she was also Portfolio Holder for Environment. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew Mr Marriage, an objector. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he knew Mr Marriage, an objector, well. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor Jeff Beck advised the Committee that he had been lobbied on Agenda item 4(2.))

(20:13: Councillor Vickers left the meeting)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 12/02655/COMIND in respect of the change of use of an industrial unit to include a skip waste recycling and transfer facility.

Councillor Cole highlighted to the Committee that the application was of significant interest to two adjoining parishes of Hermitage and Chieveley and requested that representatives from all three parishes be allowed to speak. Councillor Cole proposed that the Cold Ash representative be allowed five minutes, and the Hermitage and Chieveley representatives be allowed to share a further five minutes. This would result in all speakers having 10 minutes in which to speak. The Chairman put the proposal to the vote and it was carried.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Geoff Findlay (Cold Ash), Mr Mark Kerry (Hermitage) and Mr Rob Crispin (Chieveley), Parish Council representatives, Mr Stewart Wright, Mr Christopher Marriage and Mr Mike Schofield, objectors, and Mr Kevin Parr, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Geoff Findlay in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Waste Local Plan set out the method for the treatment of waste in West Berkshire and the Red Shute location was not mentioned, nor did he believe there was a proven requirement for the additional provision;

·                    Skip clearing facilities were required to comply with environment agency licensing conditions with regard to odour, etc;

·                    The location was on the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Councillor Findlay believed that if the application would not be acceptable in the AONB, then it should not be acceptable in its current location. He reminded the Committee that the Planning Inspector had implied that any waste processes were harmful to the AONB in his decision relating to an incinerator application;

·                    Skip recycling was already available in West Berkshire;

·                    Councillor Findlay was opposed to the development on environmental grounds, because of dust and odour, and due to the surrounding roads which he believed were unsuitable for heavy traffic;

·                    The application noted that the site was expecting to process 18,000 tonnes of skip waste, approximately one fifth of the total household waste collected by West Berkshire, which he believed to be a very high level for a small facility;

·                    It was not possible to be certain that the skips being collected would not contain unsuitable materials which could attract vermin to the site;

·                    The agreement for the doors to the facility to remain closed at all times of operation was of concern as the doors would need to be opened to allow access and exit of skip vehicles.

The Chairman asked what impact on the AONB was expected when the building to be used already existed. Councillor Findlay responded that the concern was for the future use of other Industrial Estate units.

Mr Mark Kerry and Mr Rob Crispin in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Three Parish Councils and 46 residents had expressed their concern that the facility would have an adverse effect on the area;

·                    The applicant did not have a licence to deal with putrescible materials, but could not prevent it from arriving;

·                    A neighbouring unit had written in their letter of objection that should the facility go ahead they would have to move their business, with a potential loss of 20 jobs. This did not compare favourably with the creation of four jobs at the facility under consideration;

·                    The skip vehicles could be expected to travel from the M4 and A34 via Priors Court Road and the A4009 through Hermitage to access the site. This involved crossing a narrow bridge with a bend which gave limited visibility and would be difficult to negotiate. The route was a busy road and any incidents would exacerbate traffic issues;

·                    It was not considered acceptable to allow skip movements from 7am.

The Chairman asked why the adjoining business believed they would need to move.  Mr Crispin responded that they supplied products to the gas industry who operated extremely strict regulations with regard to the cleanliness of supplier facilities.

Mr Stewart Wright, Mr Christopher Marriage and Mr Mike Schofield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The application advised that there would be an expected 26 skip movements each day, however Mr Wright believed that this was underestimated and that 40 or more movements would occur, with six bulk waste movements each day. He believed that this level of heavy traffic was excessive for a light industrial unit and believed that the impact of the volume of traffic had been understated;

·                    The application had been modelled with the assumption that the doors would remain closed whilst machinery was in use. However there would be a requirement for the doors to be open as skips arrived, left and for the subsequent removal of bulk waste, and Mr Wright did not believe it would be possible that the machinery would not be in use whilst the doors were open;

·                    There would inevitably be some loss of litter from arriving skips, however there was no barrier around the unit, and no litter plan;

·                    Dust would arrive with every skip. Whilst this could be managed internally through the use of dust extraction systems, it could not be managed outside;

·                    Vermin would be attracted by the contents of skips as it was not possible to control what was disposed of in a skip;

·                    The space and site were considered to be too small. An established grain mill nearby processed the same volume of product, but was four times bigger than this unit;

·                    Mr Marriage believed that as a waste facility, it should be considered outside of the normal planning process due to its dirty and noisy nature. He believed the facility should be located on a designated waste site as set out in the Waste Local Plan;

·                    The traffic report stated that there had been no accidents on the bridge or at the junction with Red Shute Hill, however Mr Schofield was aware of several accidents in the vicinity.

Councillor Beck asked if, in the objectors’ opinions, the location of the noise sensor did justice to the noise levels. Mr Wright responded that he did not believe the sensor had been located in a position that would fairly represent the noise levels that would be experienced in neighbouring properties.

Mr Kevin Parr in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    There was a clear move nationally to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill, and increase the amount being recycled or reused. This application supported this position;

·                    The facility would service skip users within an 18 mile radius of the site. Currently much of this waste was transported to Swindon – a much greater distance;

·                    The recent application for an incinerator in the area was not comparable as it would have represented a new facility. This application looked to use existing buildings;

·                    The facility would be fully contained within the building which was of an adequate size for the proposed operation;

·                    The roller shutter doors would remain closed during the operation of any plant within the building;

·                    Mr Parr was content that the level of vehicle movements reported was accurate and that the noise level test locations had been suitable;

·                    Discussions had been held with the Environment Agency, and a permit would be granted that prevented the handling of putrescible waste. It was acknowledged that there was limited control over what would arrive on site, but where waste was not of an allowable type, it would be immediately quarantined and moved off site;

·                    The current permissions for the unit allowed vehicle movements in excess of those proposed.

Councillor Beck commented that whilst the applicant could be fairly certain of the number of skips it would receive, it could be less certain of the tonnage contained within those skips. Mr Parr responded that the tonnage reported was what the applicant believed there was a market for, and that the range and size of skips might vary, but confirmed that the building had a maximum tonnage that could be processed and he was comfortable with the estimates provided.

Councillor Beck went on to ask how Mr Parr could assure the Committee that the doors would not be open whilst machinery was operating. Mr Parr responded that it had been conditioned that no machinery would operate whilst the doors were open for skip depositing or collection, etc. He added that a ventilation system would be installed to help draw dust into the building from the outside.

Councillor Beck further asked what consultation had taken place with neighbours. Mr Parr responded that full explanations had taken place with the landlord and immediate neighbour. Mr Parr also informed the Committee that the noise assessment had included the loading and unloading of skips and was found to be acceptable.

Councillor Cole asked what proportion of the skips were to be from domestic properties and what proportion would be commercial. Mr Parr was not able to provide figures, but confirmed the service was to be available to the whole of the local market and the proportion might vary over time.

Councillor Cole confirmed that this was a new business venture and asked how much waste would be received from within West Berkshire and how much from outside the area. Mr Parr responded that the facility would service an area covering an 18 mile radius from the site, some of which would fall outside of West Berkshire.

Councillor Cole asked how much of the waste would be recycled and how much would go to landfill. Mr Parr replied that it was expected that approximately 80% would be recycled.

Councillor Cole finally asked how the applicant intended to manage asbestos if it was found in a skip. Mr Parr responded that if asbestos were to be identified, it would be immediately quarantined in a lidded skip.

Councillor Rowles asked what steps were being taken to advise customers of what was permitted to be disposed of in the skip they had hired. Mr Parr responded that clear instructions were given when skips were delivered to customers, however it was not possible to guarantee that no putrescible waste would be disposed of in this way. As the applicant was not permitted to handle putrescible waste, this would be removed when identified.

Councillor Cole asked what arrangements had been made to store the reclaimed materials due for recycling when the market for such materials was not favourable. Mr Parr explained that the facility had been set up to receive, sort, bale and export all material, so it would be removed from site once processed.

Councillor Chandler asked whether the applicant was comfortable that there would be space within the building to sort the many different types of recyclable waste that might arrive prior to export. Mr Parr responded that this had been considered and would take place within the building.

The Chairman asked where other nearby installations were located. Mr Parr listed facilities in Theale, Beenham, Colthrop and Swindon. Matthew Meldrum added that further facilities existed at Chilton, Kintbury and Tadley.

In her capacity as Ward Member for Chieveley, Councillor Cole raised the following points:

·        The volume of waste expected to be processed appeared high compared to the total amount of domestic waste across West Berkshire, of which 50% was recycled;

·        Councillor Cole did not believe that enough consideration had been given to the storage of sorted materials whilst awaiting a stronger market for their sale, and that the volatility of the recycled materials market might make the business unviable;

·        There were concerns relating to the import of large volumes of waste from outside the area as it was unclear at present how much would be generated within the district and how much from outside. This had proven to be an argument for refusing the incinerator application;

·        There were concerns relating to the use by heavy vehicles of the rail bridge and surrounding roads which were expected to cause further congestion in the area, especially at peak times. Councillor Cole advised the Committee that the natural route from the M4 and A34 would pass the Showground.

Councillor Cole proposed that the Officer recommendation to approve the planning application be rejected. Councillor Chandler seconded the proposal.

The Chairman invited Matthew Meldrum to comment. Matthew Meldrum advised the Committee of the following points:

·        The site was not located in the AONB;

·        Conditions would be imposed to address concerns relating to the size of the facility, noise levels and storage of materials;

·        There was an existing permitted use which could allow a greater level of traffic movement. Environmental Health Officers had been satisfied with the application subject to conditions being imposed as set out in the report;

·        The incinerator application was not comparable as it was a far bigger operation.

The Chairman asked if the Council had a policy against the import of waste. Matthew Meldrum responded that there was no policy and there was acceptance that waste would cross boundaries.

Derek Carnegie reminded the Committee that it was not for the Committee to consider whether the facility would be viable, that was a matter for the applicant. He questioned whether an alternative occupier of the unit would produce less noise, waste, traffic and storage issues. He reminded the Committee that Bailey’s Buses ran from the site, so the argument for unsuitable roads was difficult to argue.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal to refuse planning permission. At the vote the proposal was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

·        The size of the facility was too small;

·        The location was unsuitable;

·        Noise levels would be too great;

·        Dust levels would be too great;

·        Unpredictable levels of material arriving and requiring storage;

(21:30: Councillor Vickers re-joined the meeting.)