Agenda item

The Committee considered the proposed amendments to the artificial lighting and CCTV Scheme for security and safety purposes of the existing Energy from Waste Plant (part-retrospective) at Waste Incineration Unit, Hangman's Lane, Hanley Castle, 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 Location of the Development; Residential Amenity, Landscape Character and Visual Impact; Ecology and Biodiversity; Historic Environment; Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way; Climate Change; and Other Matters - Human Rights Act 1998.

 

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that the principal of the existing facility in this location had been established and was in accordance with Policies WCS 4 and WCS 6 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies SWDP 2 and SWDP 12 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, and Policy MnGr 8 of the made Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan, and that determination of the current planning application could only relate to the remit of the current proposal and the provision of an authorised lighting and CCTV scheme at the site.

 

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services, the Environment Agency, the County Landscape Officer, and the Malvern Hills National Landscape Team, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity or that of human health and would not adversely impact upon the character, appearance or setting of the local area, including the Malvern Hills National Landscape, in accordance with Policies WCS 9, WCS 12 and WCS 14 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies SWDP 21, SWDP 23 and SWDP 25 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, and Policy Des 1 of the made Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan.

 

Based on the advice of the County Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Statement of Conformity requiring post installation verification of illuminance at the site in accordance with the amended Lighting Impact Assessment, in accordance with Policy WCS 9 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, and Policy SWDP 22 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan.

 

Based on the advice of Historic England and the County Archaeologist, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the historic environment, in accordance with Policy WCS 9 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan.

 

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on traffic, highway safety and / or public rights of way in accordance with the NPPF.

 

With regard to impacts upon climate change. the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that appropriate and commensurate mitigation of the lighting scheme has duly considered climate change in accordance with Policies WCS1, WCS 11 and WCS 12 the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

 

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 4, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 12, WCS 14 and WCS 15 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 4, SWDP 5, SWDP 6, SWDP 8, SWDP 12, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 23, SWDP 24, SWDP 25, SWDP 27, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30 and SWDP 31 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, and Policies MnGR 8, RE 1, RE 2, RE 3, BHN 3, Des 1, Des 2, Trf 1 and Trf 2 of the ‘made’ Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan, it was considered that 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 introduced the report and highlighted a couple of typographical errors in the proposed conditions outlined in the report. Condition 4 should refer to watts rather than kilowatts, and condition 6 should refer to a 4 metre, not 2-metre-high acoustic fence.

 

In response to the presentation by the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning, the following queries were raised:

 

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning confirmed that the illustrative 3D lighting plan was misleading and there were no plans to illuminate the stack. The maximum height of lighting on the site was 6 metres and the only lighting proposed was around the building and onto the building

·         What was the purpose of the lighting at the facility? The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning advised that the purpose of the lighting was for safety and security reasons. At night time the lighting would be triggered for CCTV purposes and would also allow maintenance to take place in the hours of darkness.

 

An objector to the application had indicated that he no longer wished to address the Committee.

 

Christian Smith, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. He apologised that unfortunately the applicant’s lighting engineer was unable to attend the meeting due to sickness. He commented that the Malvern EFW Plant was currently not operational and had 24-hour manned security as a result of thefts and vandalism. The site was fairly remote and there was a need for some security lighting and CCTV cameras to deter such problems.

 

He added that the applicant had held pre-application discussions with technical experts before submitting the scheme such as the Malvern Hills National Landscape Team and their Dark Skies Consultant and the District Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ensure the illuminance levels were appropriate and showed appropriate mitigations for adaptive controls throughout the night.

 

The Committee report confirmed that there were no objections to the proposed scheme from any the technical experts. The Applicant had an electrical contractor ready to install the proposed lighting scheme if this application was approved.

 

Finally, the applicant had listened to local residents and had agreed to construct a close boarded wooden fence along the northern boundary at 3 metres high to match the existing southern boundary fence to minimise the impact of the facility from the properties to the north.

 

Mr Smith was then asked questions about his presentation:

 

·         Why had the applicant not proposed to use low level CCTV lighting coupled with infrared to reduce costs and environmental impact? Christian Smith advised that the original lighting scheme had been amended after consultation with all the technical experts to provide a lighting scheme that addressed the dark skies issue and was the best possible solution for the locality. He could not confirm whether an infrared option had been considered but the proposed lighting solution would be economically and environmentally cost-effective

·         If the sensors in the proposed lighting system picked up a sign of movement, did all the lights come on or just a selection of lights? Christian Smith commented that during the night the lighting scheme would drop to 50%. If the motion sensors were triggered, only those lights would come on but without the lighting consultant, he was unable to fully respond

·         Why was the applicant proposing to use an old-fashioned motion sensor system rather than a more modern intelligent camera system that could detect and distinguish between different types of wildlife? Christian Smith advised that discussions had been held with the dark skies consultant on this issue. The site was secure and did not have issues with wildlife accessing it. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning added that the site was fully enclosed with wire meshing and a very solid boundary on the southern perimeter with a 4-metre high close-boarded fence . Additionally, a 4 metre high fence was proposed on the northern boundary. It was unlikely that any animal would be able to access the site. Illuminates at the site would not exceed 10 lux which was quite low and would not be on for very long. Due the size of the site, there was a need for additional lighting to enable the sensors to work effectively

·         It was possible that the light sensors could be triggered by bird movements. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning indicated that the lighting assessment had considered the impact of wildlife. Half the lighting would be switched off and the other half dimmed by 50% should it be activated. It was felt that that was a suitable compromise

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

 

·         There should not any lighting on the stack itself at any point 

·         The proposed lighting scheme was not the best scheme available. This Committee had a role in protecting local residents by ensuring that the best available lighting system was introduced at the site

·         The issue for the Committee to consider was not whether the lighting scheme was the best possible system available but whether it was suitable for the locality and did not create any negative impacts

·         It was important to recognise the purpose of the lighting which was to protect people working on the site at night and as well as ensuring that the CCTV operated effectively

·         The lighting scheme might not be the best available scheme but was suitable for its intended purposes and had been supported by independent experts and therefore there was no need for consideration to be deferred

·         A motion requesting that consideration of the application be deferred to enable more information to be gathered concerning the provision of a more suitable and improved lighting system was lost following a vote

·         It was requested that a condition be added to the permission to ensure that after the scheme was operational, the applicant responded to any concerns expressed about the detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning referred to proposed Condition no. 7 under the heading Biodiversity which required a Statement of Conformity to be submitted to the Council in writing within 3 months of the completion of the development confirming that the lighting scheme had been implemented in accordance with the lighting impact assessment. The Statement of Conformity should be undertaken by a suitably qualified lighting engineer to verify the operational illuminates at the site functioned as approved. In response, it was requested that the Statement of Conformity be undertaken outside the summer months. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning commented that the concern about the timing of this work would be drawn to the attention of the County Ecologist.

 

 

RESOLVED that planning permissionbe grantedfor proposedamendments tothe artificiallighting and CCTV schemeforsecurityandsafetypurposesoftheexistingEnergyfromWaste Plant (part retrospective) at Hangman’s Lane Waste Incinerator Unit, Hanley Castle, Worcestershire, subject to the following conditions:

 

Approved

 

1)    Thedevelopment herebypermitted shallbe carriedout inaccordance with thefollowing drawings,except wherestipulated byconditions attachedto this permission:

 

•      Drawing Number: W2-11-21-1,titled: `SiteLocation Plan`,dated: 09/08/2021;

•      Drawing Number: 28112_100_02_01,Rev A,titled: ‘Lighting Layout’, dated: 28/09/2023; and

•      Drawing Number: 180607CWN-XX-XX-DR-E-2701 RevisionT3, titled: ‘M&E External Site Services Layout’, dated: 06/01/2020.

 

2)    Theexisting streetlighting columnsand bulkheads/ floodlightsas shown on Drawing Numbered: 28112_100_02_01, Rev A, titled: ‘Lighting Layout’ contained in ‘Appendix D – Proposed Lighting Lux Plot’, shall be disconnected from the existing electricity supply and removed from site within 6 months of the date of this permission.

 

3)    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with thesubmitted LightingImpact Assessmentproduced byMEC Development Technical Consultants, Report Ref: 28112-LIGH-0401 Rev B, dated: September 2023.

 

Lighting

4)    Notwithstandingthe provisionsof Condition3) ofthis permission,the lighting scheme shall be operated in accordance with the following specifications, to include:

i)             On-sitelighting units(Isaro Pro andPiazza IILED luminaires) shall not exceed 10 lux illuminance at 2,700 kelvin Colour Correlated Temperature (CCT);

ii)            Verticalilluminance levelsshall notexceed 1 luxilluminance;

iii)          UpwardLighting Ratiosshall notexceed 0.0%;

iv)          Column mounted Isaro Pro lighting units shall be positioned to bedownward facing,fitted withbackplates andshall notexceed 15 watts;

v)            Walland fencemounted lightingshall bepositioned tobe downward facing;

vi)           Lowlevel floodlightingshall notexceed 25 watts;

vii)         PiazzaII LEDdown lightingunits shallbe fittedwith deflectorsand / or have inbuilt deflectors;

viii)        PassiveInfra-Red (PIR)Motion sensorsshall befitted toall of the indicated lighting units as shown on Drawing Numbered: 28112_100_02_01, Rev A, titled: ‘Lighting Layout’, dated: 28/09/2023; and

ix)          50%of the on-sitelighting provision shall be switched offbetween 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours seven days a week. The remaining 50% of the onsite lighting provision shall be dimmed to 2.5 lux on 50% power between of 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours seven days a week. Ifactivated byPIR motionsensors theremaining 50%onsite lighting provisionmay riseto 100%power and shallbe returned to 50% power when no longer activated.

 

5)    Within6 monthsof thedate ofthis permission,a lightingmanagement and maintenanceplan shallbe submittedto theCounty PlanningAuthority for approvalin writing.The lightingmanagement andmaintenance planshall setoutthemeasurestoensurethatoperationalilluminationandluminance atthe sitecontinues tofunction asapproved. Thereafter,the development shallbe carriedout andmaintained inaccordance withthe approved details.

 

Acoustic Fencing

6)    Within 3 months of the date of thispermission, details of a 4-metre-high closeboarded acoustic fenceto be erectedon the northern boundaryof the application site and a timetable forits erection shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the acousticfencing shallbe installedin accordancewith theapproved plan and shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

 

Biodiversity

7)    A Statement ofConformity shallbe submittedto theCounty Planning Authorityfor approvalin writingwithin 6 monthsof thecompletion of the development confirming that the lighting scheme has been implemented in accordance with the Lighting Impact Assessment produced by MEC Development Technical Consultants, Report Ref: 28112-LIGH-0401 Rev B, dated: September 2023. The Statement of

Conformity should be undertaken by a suitably qualified lighting engineerto verifythat operationalillumination andluminance atthe site functions as approved.