Agenda item

The Committee considered the Planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans), remove condition 6 (requiring all doors to the building to remain closed), remove condition 22 (requirement for installation of roller shutter door) and to vary condition 23 (requirement to install acoustic fencing) of planning permission ref: 19/000016/CM, so as to remove the requirement to install a roller shutter door and reduce the extent of the acoustic fencing to be installed at Digaway and Clearaway Ltd, Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-Upon-Severn, Worcestershire.

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

The report set out the Head of Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Landscape Character and Visual Impacts, Residential Amenity, Ecology and Biodiversity and Other Matters – Water Environment and Flood Risk, and Traffic and Highway Safety.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that based upon the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the Environment Agency, it was considered that this application would have no adverse noise, dust or odour impacts on residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and revised conditions including  compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan and the maintenance of the installed acoustic fencing.

Based on the advice of the County Landscape Officer, it was considered that this application would not have an adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, subject to the imposition of appropriate extant conditions.

Based on the advice of the County Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, it was considered that this application would not have an unacceptable impact upon ecology and biodiversity at the site or in the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and a revised condition requiring compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan.

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 12, WCS 14 and WCS 15 of the Adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 3, SWDP 4, SWDP 8, SWDP 12, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 25, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30 and SWDP 31 of the Adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning made particular reference to the local councillor’s comments set out in the report and read them out to the Committee.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning explained that since the last application, the applicant had installed the acoustic fencing. The noise assessment had not assessed that acoustic fence in situ. The submitted noise assessment had demonstrated that the closing of the roller shutter door would create a greater adverse noise impact than having it remain open and Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) had concurred with that view. The acoustic fencing on the western boundary had no benefit in addition to the existing wall so it was considered that there was no harm caused and therefore these changes to conditions were considered acceptable on planning grounds

·         It was argued that the applicant should have been able to acquire a silent and faster shutter door. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning responded that the noise assessment had demonstrated that noise impact with the shutter door open was acceptable so the relevant condition was unnecessary

·         It was argued that the acoustic fence was not high enough to function correctly. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning indicated that the noise assessment had demonstrated that the acoustic fence needed to be two meters high. Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the EA agreed with that assessment

·         It was argued that when the site was wet the dust and noise would be reduced but that would not be the case in dry conditions and therefore the relevant conditions should be retained

·         There was an example of roller shutter doors working effectively at Envirosort at Norton. In addition, Malvern Hills District Council and the local parish councils had objected to this proposal. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning clarified that although the district council had initially objected, following further clarification from WRS, they had withdrawn that objection

·         The problem with noise assessments was that they did not take account of noise spikes for example when rubble was dumped on hardstanding and therefore the impact on neighbouring properties. There was no reason why the applicant could not operate under the existing conditions. The application should therefore be refused

·         The representative of the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance advised that if members were minded to refuse permission for this application, she would advise that consideration be deferred to enable officers to identify such material planning considerations as could reasonably sustain refusal, and that those reasons could be considered at a future meeting

·         Without the support of WRS, the Committee’s reasons for refusal would be flimsy therefore if the Committee were minded to refuse permission, it should adopt the approach suggested by the representative of the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance

·         The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning explained that there had been multi-agency meetings about dust emissions at the site. A demonstration had been arranged with the applicant asked to undertake the operation that generated the most dust which was loading vehicles. It was found that as a result of this demonstration, no dust was transmitted off the boundary site. A dust mitigation plan had been included as a condition on the existing permission and would be carried forward. All waste processing was required to take place within the building and not outside in the yard. There was a noise management plan which controlled noise and dust and that was the primary means of controlling the site. The EA had indicated that they were satisfied with the operations on the site. WRS had no objections to this proposal. The original noise assessment had set out the need for an acoustic fence on the southern boundary of the site but when the applicant submitted their plans, they had included acoustic fences on two boundaries. This amendment was accepted by officers and included as a condition albeit not as part of the recommendations of the noise assessment. The applicant then indicated that the additional acoustic fence was not necessary and this was supported by an updated noise assessment. Officers were sceptical that the applicant could not find a suitable shutter door but queried the harm that the application could create. It was considered that because the operator was continually in and out of the door that the condition was unenforceable. In addition the site provided an important strategic function for the county.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The Committee are minded to refuse permission for a planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans), remove condition 6 (requiring all doors to the building to remain closed), remove condition 22 (requirement for installation of roller shutter door) and to vary condition 23 (requirement to install acoustic fencing) of planning permission ref: 19/000016/CM, so as to remove the requirement to install a roller shutter door and reduce the extent of the acoustic fencing to be installed at Digaway and Clearaway Ltd, Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-Upon-Severn; and

b)   Consideration of the application has been deferred to enable officers to identify such material planning considerations as could reasonably sustain refusal, and that those reasons could be considered at a future meeting.