Retrospective permission for the use of the land for wood chipping with wood storage yard and buildings to include; office building, chip stores, drying floor, fan house and boiler house with biomass plant to generate 80kw of electricity.

The application was approved with revised conditions.

(Retrospective permission for the use of the land for wood chipping with wood storage yard and buildings to include; office building, chip stores, drying floor, fan house and boiler house with biomass plant to generate 80kw of electricity.)

(Councillor Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Egerton, of Luston Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Downes, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Williams, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor WLS Bowen, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was retrospective.  The business had grown in size and was now a major wood chipping plant.  It employed 17 people and was of importance to the local economy.

·        The wood chipper that had been used until quite recently had been noisy and a nuisance to residents.

·        Heavy goods vehicles and tractors with trailers visiting the site at all hours including late in the day and early in the morning also created noise and nuisance.

·        Luston Group Parish Council had objected to the application.  It suggested that it would be more appropriate if the business, given the scale it had now reached, were to relocate to the Leominster industrial estate.

·        The business was in conflict with the users of the footpath running through the site.  It was noted that a diversion was proposed.

·        A new chipper was understood to be less noisy.  It was also only on the application site itself for 9 hours of the week.  The rest of the time it was being used where trees were being felled.

·        Conditions were proposed to control working hours, provide screening to reduce noise nuisance and control traffic movement.  It was important that these were strictly monitored and enforced.  If they were not, the nuisance to residents would be too severe.  If the controls were effective the operation might be manageable.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The access road to the site was in poor repair and very dusty.  This created additional noise.  The surface should be made good.

·        The proposed conditions and the controls they proposed were welcome.  However, it would be essential that they were rigorously enforced. 

·        The nuisance a business of this nature generated and the difficulties in taking enforcement action should not be underestimated. 

·        The footpath was in very poor state badly affected by water run-off and needed to be diverted.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal and it was contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan which stated that small scale employment premises should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residential amenity.

·        The success of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120