Agenda item

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for a proposed extension of a yard associated with an existing Waste Transfer Station at 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 Strategic Infrastructure and Economy's comments in relation to the waste hierarchy, location of the development, landscape character and appearance, residential amenity, traffic and highway safety, ecology and biodiversity, the water environment, and other matters – economic impact.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that as the proposed development would involve the bulking up of various sources of waste in preparation for transfer and subsequent recycling by specialist operators it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy.

The proposed yard extension would be located in an existing agricultural field adjacent to a small commercial estate. Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy directed waste management development to land with compatible uses and identifies greenfield land as not being a compatible land use. There was no evidence submitted with the application as to why the proposal had to be sited on greenfield land and to whether the applicant had considered siting the proposed development on land set out as compatible in Policy WCS 6. As a result, the proposed development was considered to be in an unacceptable location contrary to Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services, Public Health England and the Environment Agency, it was considered that the proposal would be acceptable in respect to air pollution, noise, dust impacts on residential amenity and that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as imposed on the extant planning permission together with a condition limiting the height of any external inert material within the designated bays.

Based on the advice of the County Highways Officer, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic and highway safety, however, it was also noted that the County Highways Officer raised no objections to planning permission 14/000045/CM for the extension of the Waste Transfer Station building, as the location for the approved building extension would not impact on the areas required for vehicle access, turning and parking, and no evidence had been submitted with this application to demonstrate the operation of the facility would not be feasible.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended by the County Ecologist and South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership, that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area or that of the water environment.

It was noted that the NPPF afforded significant weight to economic growth. By securing existing jobs and creating new opportunities, the proposal would support communities and thereby provided a social benefit. Furthermore, by providing jobs and a service to other businesses, it would contribute to the local economy. In so far as it provided these social and economic benefits, it was considered that the proposal would accord with the aims of the NPPF.

On balance, it was considered that permitting the proposed extension of a yard associated with an existing Waste Transfer Station at Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-upon-Severn Worcestershire would be unacceptable in the proposed location contrary to Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy; and would have an unacceptable impact upon the open countryside contrary to a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework as set out at paragraph 17 bullet point 5, Policy WCS 12 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies 21 and 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy introduced the report and commented that members had before them the comments from the local councillor, Mr R Sutton had indicated that he supported the application. Since the publication of the agenda, 2 further letters had been received from representatives of GRRAATE stating that further disturbances had been experienced by local residents as well as dust emissions. Assurance were requested that no carcinogenic material was emitted from the site. It was also stated that meetings with local residents were not held as often as stated by in the Committee report and requested enforcement action to be taken. A further letter of representation was received that supported the application stating that the site was well-run and needed more space to operate.

Mr Weyman, a Ripple Parish councillor read out the presentation to the Committee on behalf of the objectors to the application (GRRAATE). He commented that the residents did not object to the lawful operation of the waste transfer site.  They had campaigned for some time to ensure that the occupiers of the site operated within the terms of the current planning authorisation.  In particular:

1.    Compliance with the requirement only to process waste in the warehouse with the doors closed; and

2.    Compliance with the prescribed operating hours.

The residents believed that the granting of the extension of the site would lead to greater difficulty in ensuring compliance with the planning permission.  In particular:

1.    The storage bins to the south of the site would encourage more transfer of waste outside of the warehouse, and even nearer to the residents of the village;

2.    This area was acknowledged in the report to provide significant noise harm;

3.    The extension of the site into the field behind made the development more visible and increased the transfer of noise and dust over Ryall Grove; and

4.    The significant extension of the site meant that the headlights from vehicles would spill excess light onto the bedroom windows of the residents particularly during winter months.

The residents had offered to advise the applicant on many occasions on how to become good neighbours, but the applicant had ignored the residents’ advice. 

The residents did not object to the creation of a small parking area, and would ask that the applicant create some earth bunds to protect the village from noise, dust and light spilling from the site.  In addition, they urged the applicant to comply with the existing operating hours and conditions. However, the application was too large, intrusive, and would only lead to a further deterioration in relationships between the residents and the operators of the site. They therefore strongly objected to the application.

Mr Greenaway, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. He commented that operating space at the yard was limited and this application would allow the creation of more space to allow work to take place in a safe environment with less impact on neighbours. Indeed the proposed landscape screening would be beneficial for local residents. The recommendation for refusal was on balance and he considered that the benefits of the application outweighed any negative impact. The only reason put forward for refusal related to a conflict with a Waste Core Strategy concerning new waste transfer stations. As the application was for an extension to an existing waste transfer station there was no basis for this refusal reason. The appeal decision related to a completely different site with a different set of circumstances that had no bearing on this application. There was considerable Policy support for the application in the NPPF, the SWDP and the Waste Core Strategy. None of the statutory consultees had raised any objections to the application.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that contrary to the views of the applicant, the appeal decision supported the argument that Policy WCS 6 of the Waste Core Strategy applied to the extensions to existing waste transfer facilities. The site which was subject to the appeal was similar in nature to this site

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy indicated that there was no evidence provided by the applicant to show that they had considered more compatible sites for this facility elsewhere

·         Concern was expressed about the level of enforcement action taken at the site. The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy commented that officers had and would continue to monitor activities on the site

·         The proposed extension was too close to residential properties and was too large for its greenfield location and should be refused.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the proposed extension of a yard associated with an existing Waste Transfer Station at Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-upon-Severn, Worcestershire, for the following reasons:

a)    The proposal is considered to be in an unacceptable location contrary to Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy; and

b)    The proposal is considered to have an unacceptable impact upon the open countryside contrary to a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework as set out at paragraph 17 bullet point 5, Policy WCS 12 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies 21 and 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.