Agenda item

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for a proposed extension to an existing waste recycling facility incorporating additional buildings to serve separate metals and mixed waste areas at Long Marston Works, Long Marston Road, Long Marston, near Stratford-on-Avon.

 

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, Residential Amenity (Noise, Dust and Odour Impacts), Traffic and Highway Safety, Water Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity and Other Matters (Contaminated Land and Renewable Energy).

 

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.

 

Although the development site was sited within Level 5 'All other areas' of the Geographic Hierarchy, it was considered that the proposal would be ancillary to existing MRW waste management site in that it improved the working conditions by providing new buildings, secure compounds and more space for the management of waste, thereby improving staff welfare and enabling greater working efficiency. In view of this, it was considered that the proposal would comply with Policy WCS 3 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. As the proposed development would be located on existing industrial land, it was considered the proposal complies with Policy WCS 6 of the Waste Core Strategy.

 

Based on the advice of Historic England and the County Landscape Officer, it was considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the local area or the historic environment, subject to the imposition of an appropriate conditions regarding details of the colour of the proposed buildings, height and location of external stockpiles and lighting scheme.

 

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Service, Stratford-on-Avon District Council and the Environment Agency, it was considered that the proposal would have no adverse noise, dust or air quality impacts upon residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

The County Highways Officer had raised no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring details of sheltered and secure cycle parking, accessible parking, electric vehicles charging point, employment travel plan, restricting the throughput of the facility and a HGV Management Plan. In view of this, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic or highway safety, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended by the County Highways Officer and requiring all HGVs carrying waste to be enclosed or covered.

 

Based on the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that there would be no adverse effects on the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

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

 

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 5, SWDP 6, SWDP 8, SWDP 11, 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, 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 Strategic Infrastructure and Economy introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site and observed the location of the nearest existing and planned residential properties, the proposed 5 metre high retaining wall surrounding the site, views of Meon Hill and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the existing MRW facility. Members had also travelled along Long Marston Road and noted the condition and width of the road.

 

Mr Beck an objector of the proposal addressed the Committee. He commented that the roads approaching the site were unsuitable for heavy traffic. They were too narrow and the speed limits too high causing potential dangers to other users. There had already been incidents with debris falling from lorry loads causing danger to other users. Gloucestershire and Worcestershire Highway Authorities had indicated that there was nothing they could do to reduce road speed and increase signage. The number of vehicle movements appeared to be vastly underestimated.

 

He added that noise was likely to increase significantly as evident from the applicant’s Noise Assessment. Even though mitigation factors were now recommended, there was still a significant noise increase (16 dba) and this was without a detailed measurement against the Council’s own policy. This was unacceptable and a report by an acoustic engineer should be commissioned to ensure that the Council’s policy on noise was adhered to.

 

He suggested that if permission was granted It was likely to significantly increase dust pollution with resultant harm to health. It would also spoil the semi-rural nature of the area. There was a minimal water supply on site so damping the dust down needed to be subject to a Risk Assessment and a mitigation report. He indicated that there had been no assessment of the fire risk. Given the site would involve scrap cars and there was little water on site, any fire would require water to be brought to site along narrow and unsuitable roads.

 

He argued that the application should be refused. If permission was granted, it should be subject to conditions relating to noise levels in line with Council policy, a Full Fire Risk, an Assessment and Mitigation report by an independent Fire protection engineer or the Organisation of International Fire Engineers, the containment of waste product such as petrol, oil, diesel and lithium batteries from scrap cars, and planning consent should not be transferrable to any third-party companies. If these conditions were fully implemented then they would help control the traffic and create a single point of contact.

 

Ms Steele, an agent accompanied by Mr Bishton acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. She commented that this site formed part of a large area of land that had a long-established planning use for waste management operations going back to the early 1960s. Planning permission was not being sought for a change of land use but for the building operations to be extended for an existing waste management use on the adjoining land. This area of land was required to enhance the sorting and recycling of metals, as well as to provide a building to sort mixed waste. These activities were consistent with waste management policies at a national level, and within the Core Strategy, to reduce the amount of waste to landfill by increasing recycling.

 

She indicated that there were no objections from expert consultees including the County Highways Authority, the County Council Public Health Department, Worcestershire Regulatory Services, the Environment agency, Wychavon District Council, parish councils or consultees which indicated the suitability of the site for this proposal. Policy WCS6 of the Waste Core Strategy specifically directed waste management facilities to allocated industrial land. There was clearly an operational synergy with this proposal and the adjacent Sims Metal operation.

 

She argued that objections to waste management facilities needed to be considered in the context of: The operational controls by the EA through the Environmental Permit; and the effectiveness of the proposed planning conditions on a grant of planning permission. In the context of noise emissions, the nearest noise receptors (which did not include Mr Beck’s property) would not experience adverse noise emissions. This conclusion was reached even without the proposed mitigation – including a substantial noise fence on the site boundary. The existing Environmental Permit for MRW allowed for up to 25,000 tonnes per annum. This proposal did not result in an increase in the operational capacity of the site.

 

She commented that in terms of traffic impacts, Mr Beck’s comments appeared to be more directed at the operations of Sims Metals, not MRW. The conclusion from the Transport Statement was that the traffic levels associated with the proposed use were acceptable – as agreed with the Highway Authority. She concluded that this proposal accorded with the Waste Management Strategy and the National Policy for Waste and should be granted planning permission.

 

In response to Ms Steele’s presentation, the following queries were raised with her:

 

·         Concerns had been expressed about damping down and the water supply on site. Mr Bishton responded that there was an enormous water lagoon on site which could be used for fire extinguishment and damping down purposes but even without that access, there was sufficient water on site for damping down. He argued that the problems associated with dust related to the Sims operations not the MRW site

·         How was the applicant monitoring the existing throughput at the site? Did the applicant use its own weighbridge or that of Sims? At the site visit there were vehicles queued up to use the weighbridge on the Sims site which seemed inefficient, what impact would the proposed extra vehicles have on these arrangements? David Bishton responded that all the vehicles queuing up on site belonged to Sims not MRW. MRW vehicles did not need to use a weighbridge. A ticketing system was in operation which was monitored by the EA so that they had a running total of the tonnage throughput

·         How could the number of vehicle movements be lower leaving the site than entering? David Bishton explained that a number of vehicles from Sims entered the site full but left empty and those lorries would be used to remove metal from the MRW site i.e reusing empty lorry capacity. The metal would be reduced in size and then transferred to these lorries on the Sims site.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

 

·         A concern was expressed about noise impacts and it was queried whether noise levels would be monitored and controlled. The representative of the Head of Strategic Planning and Infrastructure responded that conditions were proposed in line with the recommendations of the noise assessment including a 5 metre high retaining wall surrounding the site and the swivelling of the Trommel building. The EA had confirmed that this development would require a permit which would control noise. Government Guidance advised that where other regulatory regimes were in place, it should be assumed that they would work effectively. In this case the EA and Worcestershire Regulatory Authority had been consulted and not objected

·         The local councillor commented that there had not been any concerns locally about the MRW skip hire arrangements expanding. However, he observed a shearing machine used for crushing whole end of life vehicles on the site visit which was not an activity associated with the application. There was a lack of transparency concerning what would be taking place on site. The County Highways Officer had reported that apart from the staff vehicles there would be no extra vehicle movements which would seem strange given the proposed operations on site. Local residents had concerns about the operations of Sims regarding: major fires, noise complaints, the entrance and narrow roads not fit for purpose. He was concerned about how the extra 10,000 tonnes of scrap metal and vehicles for crushing would be brought to the site

·         In response to a question, David Bishton indicated that members of the public would not be allowed to access the site. The shearing machine used on the site was the least noisy of the machines used in the vicinity and noise mitigation measures had been proposed in the noise assessment. The fire issues experienced had all been associated with the Sims site, which was totally independent from this application site

·         The representative of the County Highways Officer commented that the applicant processed 15,000 tonnes of material pa at present but the Environmental Permit permitted a throughput of 25,000 tonnes pa which provided an effective fall-back position. An important factor to consider was the impact on the number of vehicle movements if the increase in throughput took place in an uncontrolled manner rather than the controlled approach proposed by the applicant

·         Steve Williams on behalf of Worcestershire Regulatory Services was requested to explain the noise assessment.  In response, he said that it was a relative assessment based on the low-level background noise levels in the area. This assessment concluded that at some times, the operations might be heard but in general terms noise levels should not significantly increase at all. The reference by the objectors to the 16db increase was based on WRS general guidance relating to the type of area. The argument being that the area was rural in nature and therefore the rules applied more stringently but based on the noise assessment data, the area had been classed as semi-rural. The EA permit should ensure that the best available technologies were used to control/mitigate noise levels on site. He was satisfied that the operations would not produce an adverse impact on the nearest noise receptors

·         The Committee was being asked to consider a new business activity, car-crushing, being introduced on this site. The car-crushing activity could have an impact on the number and size of vehicles entering and exiting the site. Peter Bishton responded that the machine on site was not a vehicle-crusher but rather a metal-shearer. There would be a small number of traders bringing in vehicles to be dismantled. There was an existing end of use vehicles permission on the site dating back to the 1960s which had no throughput limit. This application was not for a change of use. There was no legal restriction on what could be brought onto the site with the exception of the EA permit that limited throughput to 25,000 tonnes pa for the application site

·         The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy confirmed that there was an extant permission on the site which applied to part of the site but not the whole site

·         Was permission for the dismantling of cars covered by the extant permission on the site? The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy commented that whatever the history of planning permissions granted by Wychavon District Council, officers had considered this planning application based on its own merits

·         Given the existing permission for a throughput of 25,000 tonnes pa and that most of the waste for recycling came from the local area, this application was appropriate in terms of planning policy for moving waste up the waste hierarchy

·         The report indicated that a new weighbridge would be built. How did the control of throughput through a ticketing process relate to the scrap metal being brought in? David Bishton explained that all material was monitored as it came on site and the applicant did use an existing weighbridge but would also use the new weighbridge. The site was monitored quarterly by the EA and there was no way that the applicant could exceed the limit. He emphasised that there were not two separate businesses operating at the site

·         In response to a question, Louis Steele confirmed that 5 additional jobs would be created if permission was granted

·         The local councillor commented that the traffic survey was not transparent or accurate. If the Committee was minded to grant planning permission, he would request an additional condition related to traffic, bearing mind the local roads were far too narrow and used by both Sims and MRW vehicles

·         The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy explained that the Council’s Monitoring Officer would monitor this permission. The EA would monitor the Environmental Permit for the site. Given the different operations on the site with Sims metals and MRW, it would be difficult to count the number of vehicles. Vehicle movements would be controlled through condition d) which related to control of combined annual throughput of the development at the existing and proposed site. In relation to traffic and highway safety, conditions aa), a Travel Pan and cc) an HGV management plan had been recommended.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the proposed extension to an existing waste recycling facility incorporating additional buildings to serve separate metals and mixed waste areas at Long Marston Works, Long Marston Road, Long Marston, near Stratford-on-Avon, subject to the following conditions:

 

Commencement

a)    The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

b)   The developer shall notify the County Planning Authority of the start date of commencement of the development in writing within 5 working days following the commencement of the development;

 

Approved Plans

c)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on submitted Drawings Numbered: 2037/02; 2037/03; 2037/04, Rev C; 2037/05; 2037/07, Rev A; 2037/08; 2037/09; and 2037/10 Rev A, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

Throughput

d)   The combined annual throughput of materials handled by the development hereby approved, together with the existing site as outlined in blue on Drawing Numbered: 2037/02, Titled: 'Location Plan' shall be limited to a maximum of 25,000 tonnes per annum and records shall be kept and made available to the County Planning Authority on written request for the duration of the operations on the site;

 

Waste Acceptance

e)    No wastes other than those defined in the application, namely commercial and industrial, construction, demolition and excavation wastes, scrap metal and End of Life Vehicles shall be brought onto the site;

 

Construction and Working Hours

f)     Construction works shall only be carried out on the site between 08:00 to 18:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays, with no construction work on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays;

 

g)   Operations, including any repair and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment within the development hereby approved, shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and between 08:00 to 14:00 hours on Saturdays with no operations on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. No machinery or equipment shall operate on the site outside these hours;

 

Materials

h)   Notwithstanding any indication of the materials, which may have been given in the application, within 1 month of commencement of the development hereby approved, a schedule and/or samples of the materials and finishes for the new buildings shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority in writing for approval.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

            Renewable Energy

i)     Prior to the use of the development hereby approved, details of renewable or low carbon energy generating facilities to be incorporated as part of the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.  The details shall demonstrate that at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be met through the use of renewable/low carbon energy generating facilities.  The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the use of the development hereby approved;

 

Noise

j)     The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with Section 6 'Mitigation', Paragraphs 6.8, 6.10 and 6.11 in 'A Noise Assessment for a Proposed Extension to Existing Waste Recycling Facility, Long Marston', dated May 2019;

 

k)    The vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times, this shall include the fitting and use of effective silencers;

 

Lighting

l)     Details of any new lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.   These details shall include:

 

                     i.        Height of the lighting posts;

                    ii.        Intensity of the lights;

                   iii.        Spread of light (in metres);

                   iv.        Any measure proposed to minimise the impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare;

                    v.        Any measures to minimise the impact of lighting upon protected species and habitats, in particular the adjacent woodland; and

                   vi.        Times when the lighting would be illuminated;

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

External Storage Heights and Locations

m)  The height of any external stockpiles of material, stored skips and containers shall not exceed 10 metres and a scheme for the setting up of a permanent marker that allows operatives and officers from the County Planning Authority a means of visually checking this height shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the operation of the development hereby approved. The agreed height marker shall be erected and maintained on site for the duration of the development hereby approved;

 

n)   Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 3 months of the commencement of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, showing the locations of the storage and height of all materials and skips associated with the operations hereby approved;

 

Pollution

o)   Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels, or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund;

 

p)   No materials shall be burnt on the site;

 

Drainage

q)   Notwithstanding the submitted Drainage Strategy, no development shall commence until detailed design drawings for surface water drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The drainage scheme should be informed by an updated Ecological Assessment addressing the full zone of influence of the proposed drainage scheme. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

r)     No works in connection with site drainage shall commence until a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) management plan which shall include details on future management responsibilities, along with maintenance schedules for all SuDS features and associated pipework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the strategy that shall be followed to facilitate the optimal functionality and performance of the SuDS scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved SuDS management plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions and shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance plan thereafter;

 

Biodiversity

s)    All vegetation clearance at the site shall be undertaken outside the bird nesting season which generally extends between March and September inclusive. If this is not possible then any vegetation that is to be removed or disturbed should be checked by an experienced Ecologist for nesting birds immediately prior to works commencing. If birds are found to be nesting any works which may affect them would have to be delayed until the young have fledged and the nest has been abandoned naturally;

 

t)     All existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows indicated to be retained shall be protected by suitable fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012. No materials shall be stored, no rubbish dumped, no fires lit and no buildings erected inside the fence.  In the event of any trees, shrub or hedgerow being damaged or removed by the development, it shall be replaced with like species and equivalent size, which in the case of a mature tree may entail multiple plantings, in the next planting season;

 

u)   All trenches/excavations/pipes to be closed-off overnight, or if unavoidable, they must be fitted with wood or earth escape ramps to allow any trapped wildlife to escape;

 

v)    Within 3 months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Ecological Design Strategy (EDS) addressing biodiversity enhancement measures shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The EDS shall include the following:

 

                     i.        Bird and bat boxes to be installed;

                    ii.        Seeding of new verges and bunds with a native and pollinator-friendly wildflower mixture;

                   iii.        Provision of features such as refuges for invertebrates within suitable site margins/verges or bunds;

                   iv.        Landscaped buffers along the northern fence line to provide functional light and litter screens for the adjacent woodland. This may comprise twin staggered hedgerow using native shrubs, selected for their value to wildlife.

 

The EDS shall include the type and source of materials to be used; appropriately scaled maps and plans; timetables for implementation and persons responsible together with the initial aftercare and long-term maintenance proposals. The EDS will be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter;

 

Highways

w)   All loads of waste materials carried on HGV into and out of the development hereby approved shall be enclosed or covered so as to prevent spillage or loss of material at the site or on to the public highway;

 

x)    No mud, dust, dirt, or debris shall be deposited on the public highway;

 

y)    The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until sheltered and secure cycle parking to comply with Worcestershire County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved cycle parking shall be kept available for the parking of bicycles only;

 

z)    The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until accessible car parking spaces to comply with Worcestershire County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, and thereafter shall be kept available for disabled users as approved;

 

aa)The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use, until a Travel Plan has been submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Travel Plan shall promote sustainable forms of travel to the development site, and include mechanisms for monitoring and review over the life of the development and timescales for implementation. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented, monitored and reviewed in accordance with the approved details;

 

bb)The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use, until electric vehicle charging spaces to comply with Worcestershire County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide, has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter, such spaces and power points shall be kept available and maintained for the use of electric vehicles as approved;

 

cc)The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use, until a HGV Management Plan for the development, has been submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Plan shall include but not be limited to measures to ensure that the local highway network surrounding the site is kept free of stationary / waiting HGVs. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Boundary Treatment

dd)Notwithstanding the submitted details, details of all new boundary fences, walls and other means of enclosure shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing within 3 months of the commencement of the development hereby approved. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Contamination

ee)No development shall commence, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, until Parts i) to v) below have been complied with:

 

                     i.        A preliminary risk assessment (a Phase I desk study) submitted to the County Planning Authority in support of the application has identified unacceptable risk(s) exist on the site as represented in the Conceptual Site Model. A scheme for detailed site investigation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to being undertaken to address those unacceptable risks identified. The scheme must be designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination and must be led by the findings of the preliminary risk assessment. The investigation and risk assessment scheme must be compiled by competent persons and must be designed in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, CLR11";

 

                    ii.        The detailed site investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Scheme and a written report of the findings produced. This report must be approved by the County Planning Authority prior to any development taking place;

 

                   iii.        Where the site investigation identified remediation is required, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to identified receptors must be prepared and is subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority in advance of undertaking. The remediation scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as Contaminated Land under Part 2A Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation;

 

                   iv.        The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development, other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority; and

 

                    v.        Following the completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any buildings;

 

ff)   In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the County Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, these will be subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority. Following the completion of any measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a validation report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the County Planning Authority prior to the use of any buildings; and

 

Planning Permission

gg)A copy of this decision notice, together with all approved plans and documents required under the conditions of this permission shall be maintained at the site office at all times throughout the period of the development and shall be made known to any person(s) given responsibility for management or control of activities/operations on the site.