Construction and operation of an open windrow greenwaste composting facility: office / welfare facility, storage building, weighbridge, hardstanding process area, car parking, ancillary infrastructure and landscaping.

Construction and operation of an open windrow greenwaste composting facility: office / welfare facility, storage building, weighbridge, hardstanding process area, car parking, ancillary infrastructure and landscaping.

 

At the start of the item, the Head of Planning and Transportation referred to some of the critical factors, as follows:

¨        the national, regional and local policy background;

¨        the complicated and technical nature of the scheme and the consultee responses;

¨        the public speaking time had been increased as this was a major application;

¨        the Sub-Committee needed to consider the policy issues and material considerations and give appropriate weight to the various factors;

¨        the Council was the responsible authority for waste but this application was by a private company and the site was private land;

¨        attention was drawn to paragraphs 4.1 and 6.1 which confirmed that the proposal would require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and this 'could only be granted if the site were capable of complying with the appropriate Regulations';

¨        in response to objectors' concerns about potential pollution and impact on air quality, paragraphs 6.33 to 6.41 detailed the environmental considerations;

¨        paragraphs 6.42 to 6.46 outlined issues in respect of other sites and technologies.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) presented the officer's report and highlighted some of the key issues, including:

§         The proposal was for an open windrow composting facility exclusively for treating garden cuttings, no treatment of any other waste types was proposed as part of this application.

§         The applicant had investigated 21 other sites but this was the first site that the applicant had deemed suitable and available.

§         A full Environmental Statement was not required but the application included full and comprehensive environmental assessments.

§         Herefordshire currently generated 7,000 tonnes of green waste per year and this was estimated to grow to around 12,000 tonnes per year by 2027, the application proposed utilising spare capacity by initially supplementing Herefordshire's garden waste from Worcestershire.

§         The access would be from the A49 (T) along a recently constructed track linked to a permitted sand and gravel extraction site on adjoining land at St. Donats Farm, the access also provided the sole access to Upper House Farm and associated poultry units.

§         The parish boundary between Burghill and Moreton crossed the site at the point where the proposed access road would enter the development site.

§         A revised plan for the sealed wastewater lagoon had increased capacity to account for a 1:1000-year extreme event plus climate change and the Environment Agency welcomed this amendment.

§         The hardstanding process area would be raised and kerbed to ensure adequate drainage to the lagoon.

§         The stockpiles and windrows would be up to 3 metres high, with landscaped earth bunding providing some screening.

§         The size and height of the office/welfare facility would be restricted and would be painted green in order to reduce visual impact.

§         Photographs of the site and views into the site from various vantage points were shown.

§         It was noted that traffic and environmental considerations remained the key concerns for objectors.

§         The daily trip generation was predicted at up to 14 in and 14 out, with fewer off-peak, and a table was given at paragraph 6.21 of the report which demonstrated the road miles saving when compared to delivery to the current facility at Hill & Moor, near Pershore.

§         The Highways Agency had been consulted twice about the application and did not raise any objections or recommend any conditions.  The Transport Manager had no objections either.

§         Attention was drawn to the environmental considerations detailed in the report and the Sub-Committee was reminded that the planning system had a key role in determining suitable locations for development but should not try to duplicate controls properly exercised by other bodies under other legislation.

§         In response to objectors' fears about potential health risks, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust had been consulted and no concerns or objections had been raised.

§         Officers concluded that, although some elements of the scheme might conflict with local policies, there was a clear case for supporting this proposal.

§         It was noted that 26 conditions were recommended and, in particular, attention was drawn to conditions: 8, requiring a scheme for the monitoring and control of dust and litter; 14, restricting the use of the site for agricultural purposes or the composting of green garden cuttings only; 16, limiting the amount of green garden waste to 12,000 tonnes per annum; 17, limiting the height of stockpiles, windrows or other stores of waste to no more than 3.5 metres high; and 22, restricting hours of working and of delivery vehicles.

 

The Central Team Leader provided details of updates/additional representations, received following the publication of the agenda, and are summarised below:

·         A further representation had been received from Mr. A. Spong, Cuckoos Corner Campsite.

·         A letter dated 20 August 2008, but not received until 28 November 2008 by e-mail, had been received from Holmer & Shelwick Parish Council indicating that the Parish Council 'strongly objects to this proposal', principally on highway safety grounds.

·         A letter dated 1 September 2008, but not received until 2 December 2008 by e-mail, had been received from Wellington Parish Council raising concerns about the potential impacts on traffic, spread of odour and spores, risk to wildlife, and issues relating to the consultation process.

 

The following officer comments were made:

~        The distance from the north-westernmost point on the campsite boundary to the extreme south-easternmost point of the application was clarified.  It was noted that the distance was well outside the 250 metres ‘buffer’ set by the Environment Agency.

~        It was agreed that the campsite was southeast of the site, not southwest.

~        It was reported that the recently received parish council comments reflected those made by other parish councils and objectors, and so had been taken into account in the report.

~        The traffic figures given in the application specified that they were calculated on the basis of the peak season in late summer.

~        Minor corrections to the report were noted as follows: paragraph 6.12, the cross-reference to paragraph 6.7 should read 6.9; paragraph 6.13, the reference to the caravan and camping site being southwest of the site should read southeast; condition 18, the date of the plans referred to should be Sept 08.

~        In response to a question from Councillor PA Andrews about a letter sent to members of the Sub-Committee, the Central Team Leader advised that the updates only included letters addressed to the Planning Services department.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Reynolds spoke on behalf of Burghill Parish Council and Mr. Gould spoke on behalf of Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council.  Mr. James, Mrs. Floyd and Mr. Spong spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson, Local Member for the Burghill, Holmer & Lyde Ward, commented on a number of matters, including:

ù       She wished her thanks to the planning officers to be recorded for the assistance provided throughout the application process.

ù       The need to find appropriate solutions for the waste generated within the county was noted but she questioned whether this scheme was the best option.

ù       The input of the parish councils and the objectors was welcomed but she was disappointed that the applicants had not registered to speak.

ù       It was noted that alternative sites could occasionally be a material consideration and Councillor Robertson questioned the need to develop this greenfield site and the extent of the search for brownfield alternatives.  She suggested that a suitable enclosed facility could be provided through the adaptation of unused chicken sheds.

ù       The loss of productive arable land was not considered acceptable and there was a responsibility to protect such land use.

ù       She was surprised at the lack of objections from the Highways Agency given the history of accidents in the locality, the damage caused to rural lanes by heavy and the cumulative impact of pending residential, livestock market, park and ride, and other developments on the local road network.

ù       Referring to paragraph 6.25 of the report, Councillor Robertson questioned the application's assessment that views towards the site would be entirely or partially screened.

ù       It was noted that the County Archaeologist considered that the 'archaeological sensitivity of the area is high' and 'the impact is likely to be moderately severe'.  Councillor Robertson considered that the site was of significant local importance and should be preserved.  She added that the drainage arrangements could damage archaeological deposits.

ù       In respect of forward planning, Councillor Robertson noted a letter on file which suggested that the application conflicted with emerging policies and smaller sites in the market towns could be an appropriate answer, and could further reduce carbon footprint.

ù       The view of objectors that open windrow composting was an outdated method was noted and Councillors Robertson suggested that waste treatment could be combined with renewable energy technologies; adding that the authority might be able to attract European funding for such initiatives.

ù       In view of the concerns outlined above, Councillor Robertson proposed that the application be refused as being contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 policies ARCH5 (Sites of Lesser or Regional Importance)[Note: amendment agreed at the meeting held on 7 January 2009], (W1 (New Waste Management Facilities), W3 (Waste Transport and Handling), E11 (Employment in the Smaller Settlements and Open Countryside), E12 (Farm Diversification) and E15 (Protection of Greenfield Land).

 

Councillor KS Guthrie, Local Member for the Sutton Walls Ward, commented on the following matters:

ú       The help provided by officers to the Local Members was acknowledged.

ú       The need for sustainable means to deal with waste was recognised.

ú       Councillor Guthrie commented on the volume and speed of traffic using the A49 (T), difficulties experienced at the access road junction and expressed surprise that there were no objections raised, or conditions recommended, by either the Highways Agency or the Transportation Manager.

ú       She considered that there were traffic hazard risks to vehicles at this location and noted that there had been several accidents in the vicinity of the access in November 2008 alone.  It was noted that the Highways Department and the Highways Agency used different criteria for collating information about personal injury collisions and this gave a distorted picture of accident clusters, especially in rural areas.  She considered that the additional traffic generated by this proposal would further compromise highway safety.

ú       Councillor Guthrie considered that this proposal would represent an industrial process in open countryside and was unacceptable, particularly given the potential impact on local amenity, on the landscape and on tourism.  She commented on the need to protect, restore and enhance rural areas and, on this basis, supported refusal of planning permission; making specific reference to policies E15 (Protection of Greenfield Land) and PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

ú       Councillor Guthrie, noting the concerns of objectors, commented that the temperature of compost heaps could reach over 80 degrees centigrade and this could represent a substantial fire risk.

ú       The professional advice relating to bio-aerosols was noted but Councillor Guthrie commented that particles could, nevertheless, travel substantial distances and pose a risk to human health.

 

Councillor RI Matthews noted the need for appropriate facilities but questioned whether this site was the best that could be identified during a ten-year search.  He commented that a large proportion of the waste would come from areas south of the River Wye and suggested that a facility in that area would be better placed to take garden waste deliveries from Worcestershire.  He also commented on the history of traffic accidents in the locality and considered that the Highways Agency's assessment was flawed.

 

In response to questions from Councillor PA Andrews, the Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) advised that: the planning permission relating to the extraction of sand and gravel at St. Donats Farm [DCCW2001/3140/M] had not yet commenced but was capable of being implemented; the applicant had used their own scoring criteria for the assessment of individual sites; and the list of the 21 alternative sites considered was read out, including the reasons given by the applicant for discounting each site.  The Head of Planning and Transportation noted that the list highlighted that there had been an exhaustive search and that sites had been dismissed for a variety of reasons.

 

In response to questions from Councillor ACR Chappell, the Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) advised that: a further planning application would be required if the applicant intended to treat other waste types; it was noted that some similar facilities had closed elsewhere in the country but there were others that were well managed and the Environment Agency had advised that open windrow composting was a sustainable, low technology and low input method of dealing with this type of waste; the Highways Agency had been consulted on the access and traffic issues several times, the cumulative impact of quarry and farming traffic had been taken into account, and questions had been asked about the accident record but the Highways Agency still raised no objections to the application; the application indicated that operational activities would only be undertaken during daylight hours and lighting in and around the structures would be controlled through conditions.  Councillor Chappell congratulated the officer for the comprehensive report.  Given other existing and potential future developments in the area, he did not consider that this proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the area which would warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance.  He noted the need for diversification and regeneration in rural areas and considered this proposal to be acceptable; he added that agricultural practices could generate odours and noise in any case.  He acknowledged the concerns of the local members but, given the consultation responses, questioned whether refusal of planning permission could be sustained on appeal.

 

In response to a question from Councillor H Davies, the Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) advised that the Highways Agency had not recorded any fatal road accidents in the vicinity of the access in the last twelve months.  Councillor Davies said that this stretch of the A49 was fast and dangerous and this proposal would exacerbate highway safety problems.  She also felt that the proposal should be sited on previously developed land.

 

Councillor AT Oliver said that home composting of garden waste was a safe and sustainable method of disposal and noted the assurances provided by consultees about this scheme; he also noted that farming was not a clean business.  He commented on the significant mileage savings that could be achieved and the consequential reductions in vehicle movements.  However, noting that a number of members were absent from this meeting and given that principle of open windrow composting was in question, he suggested that consideration of the application be deferred and a site visit to a similar facility be undertaken.

 

Councillor GA Powell noted the value of the input from the public speakers and the local members and supported the view that greenfield land should not be lost and planning permission should not be granted for this site.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson commented on the potential to generate energy from biodegradable waste and felt that this should be explored further.

 

In response to a question from Councillor JD Woodward about traffic movements, the Central Team Leader advised that the site's capacity would be up to 12,000 tonnes of green waste per year and the trip calculations were based on this figure.  Councillor Woodward also questioned the market for the compost produced.

 

Councillor AP Taylor felt that the wastewater lagoon could be hazardous to people and wildlife, particularly given its proximity to the River Lugg Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

 

Councillor Andrews welcomed the suggestion of a site visit in order to view a similar operation functioning.  The Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) said that officers had visited the current facility at Hill & Moor and were not aware of any particular odour or air quality problems.  The Head of Planning and Transportation noted that a number of members were opposed to the principle of the development and questioned the benefit of visiting another site at this stage.

 

A motion to defer consideration of the application for a site visit failed and the resolution below was then agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That

 

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

 

Contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 policies:

·          ARCH5 (Sites of Lesser or Regional Importance)[Note: amendment agreed at the meeting held on 7 January 2009],

·          W1 (New Waste Management Facilities),

·          W3 (Waste Transport and Handling),

·          E11 (Employment in the Smaller Settlements and Open Countryside),

·          E12 (Farm Diversification),

·          E15 (Protection of Greenfield Land), and

·          PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas)

 

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

 

[Note:

 

Following the vote on this application, the Central Team Leader advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]