APPLICATION NO: 11/0012/STMAJW

DISTRICT REF: S.11/0542/CM VALIDATION DATE: 7th March 2011 AGENT: European Metal Recycling Ltd, Sirius House,

Delta Crescent, Westbrook, Warrington WA5 7NS C/o Mr Simon Dodd

APPLICANT: European Metal Recycling Ltd, Sirius House,

Delta Crescent, Westbrook, Warrington WA5 7NS

SITE: European Metal Recycling, The Docks,

Sharpness, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9UX

PROPOSAL: Erection of steel plate security fencing (4 and 5

metres high) around site and internal compound; New office and staff amenity block; new building for End of Life Vehicles (ELV); weighbridge; shear; baler and associated works.

PARISH OF: Hinton Parish Council SITE AREA: 1.962 Hectares

GRID REF: E: 367245 N: 202261

RECOMMENDED: That planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons set out within this report and summarised at paragraphs 7.53 to 7.56 and subject to the conditions detailed at section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION 1.1 The site is located within Sharpness Docks in the District of Stroud.

The entrance to the site lies approximately 250 metres along Bridge Road. This is accessed from the B4066 to the southwest of the site.

1.2 Sharpness Dock is a working dock that has a variety of light and heavy

industrial usages. The adjacent industrial uses to the site are that of a cement works (north) and a large industrial metal sheeted clad building used as a fertilizer store to the west.

1.3 The nearest residential property to the site is Entrance House

(southwest), the curtilage of which lies approximately 16 metres away from the site’s boundary. To the southeast of the site, in an elevated position is the residential development along Oldminister Road. The

majority of the properties along Oldminster Road are well screened from the proposed site by a green corridor that runs north to south along the line of the dismantled railway line. In addition, approximately 215 metres to the north of the site, across the dry dock, is a row of residential properties; 1-23 Dock Road. These have views into the site area.

1.4 The River Severn is approximately 430 metres to the west of the

proposed site area, and although the site is indicated upon the spatial planning system at Gloucestershire County Council as being approximately 20 metres within the floodplain along the northern boundary, the Environment Agency’s flood maps show it outside. In addition the site is located upon a minor aquifer intermediate (L1).

1.5 The Severn Estuary is designated as a European Marine Site being a

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (no UK0013030), Special Protection Area (SPA), a Ramsar Site (no UK11081) a Special Area of Conservation (no UK9015022) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Site Code 1002600). In addition, a Grade II listed building; former granary and the Sharpness Docks Conservation (No 37 Stroud District Council) area are located approximately 55 metres and 500 metres to the north respectively.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The applicant is proposing that an existing scrap metal facility at

Sharpness Docks can be upgraded through the provision of a steel plate security fence, 4 and 5 metres in height, erected around the existing site boundary; the provision of an internal compound; new office; staff and amenity block; weighbridge and associated works. Additionally, the proposal is seeking permission for a new building for processing end of life vehicles (ELV), a Shear and Baler for processing scrap metal.

2.2 In support of the application the applicant has submitted the following

information:

• Application form and signed certificates

• Supporting Statement including Transport, Design and Access Statements

• Aerial Photo (No Date) received 25th February 2011.

• Noise Impact Assessment (MAS Environmental) dated 30th July 2011 received 3rd August 2011

• Plans (received 25th February 2011): o Location Plan (Promap) o Site Plan (Promap) (superseded on the 31st July 2012 by

Revised Layout Plan Drawing no SH1RV) o Site Access and Circulation Routes o Drainage Plan o 13.6 x 6 m Elevation

o Former Layout o Lighting and security Cameras o Machine Layout Drawing no G20527-772A o Proposed Office Floor Plans o Proposed Office o EMR Sharpness – Proposed 4 metre perimeter fence o EMR Sharpness – Proposed 5 metre perimeter fence o EMR Sharpness – Proposed Shear o Planning Application for Improvement Works o Details of 15 or (18) x 3m Weighbridge

2.3 A summary of the Supporting Statement including Transport, Design

and Access Statements is provided below: Background

Since at least 12th August 1968 the…site has been occupied…under a lease originally granted by British Waterways and used…as a scrap metal yard…dealing with a wide variety of ferrous and non ferrous scrap… treatment and storage… for transfers to other EMR sites for further processing as well as loading ships from the adjoining quay.

From at least the 24th June 1993 part of the site was sublet by Coopers / EMR to ELG Haniell. ELG is a specialist stainless steel scrap metal business and they have continued to operate as a scrap metal yard on their part of the site continuously throughout this period. The tonnage handled… [Varies]…from year to year depending on the level of customer demand. However by 2000 it was exceeding 90000 tonnes per annum. It reached a peak in 2003 when the total tonnage handled by the site was 98545. Over the last three years there has been a significant decline in the tonnage exported from the site.

The yard and port has lost business to both our competitor’s site in Newport and our Cardiff Dock site facility which both have permanent shears on the quayside. The use of the shear allows the further processing of the scrap to meet the specific customer’s requirements and maximises the density of scrap for loading onto the ships. Whilst mobile shears and balers can be used to process scrap they are not always available as they have to service a number of both EMR and our supplier’s sites.” Design and Visual Impact Statement. … site has until recently been completely open with only a limited height fence around the…yard. All the activities within the yard, the loading of scrap into ships on the Quay as well as the various storage heaps of unprocessed and processed scrap metal can be clearly seen…Modern standards and the need for improved security and better control of the stock within the yard requires that a secure fenced but otherwise completely open yard is preferable. The nature of the

activities in a scrap yard also means that screening all the activities is the best way of minimising noise and visual impact… Amount, Scale and details of the proposed improvements

These improvements include:- • The boundary is to be fully enclosed by 4 and 5 metre high fences. • An ELV is to be housed in its own building. • A weighbridge office building is to be constructed at the front of the site. (The weighbridge office replaces a much smaller building that was in the centre of the yard and the previous offices at Moreton Valence.) • A shear and baler is to be installed within the enclosed ferrous yard.

All fences are to be pre coated or painted BS 14C39 - empire green. Details of each are as follows a) Non Ferrous Compound - On the South Western side of the site will be a 5 metre high enclosed compound split into bays. The various grades of non ferrous metals (typically cables, aluminium, brass and copper) will be sorted in this area and then hand cleaned and then loaded to shipping container for export overseas. b) Weighbridge Building - The Weighbridge building is 15 metres by 12 metres and is of a prefabricated steel construction with a pre-treated steel panels and steel mesh walkways and stairs. The cabins comprise messroom/canteen/toilets downstairs and a weighbridge office/payout/working office upstairs. This will enable safe viewing of the top of all incoming/outgoing loads.

c) ELV - The ELV building is of a prefabricated steel construction with a pretreated aluminium-zinc coating with a height of 6.336 metres, width 13.80 and a depth of 6 metres. Details of this process is given below. Adjoining the ELV building is a small “tank farm” of double skinned and bunded tanks (maximum 1.9 metres high) for storing the waste fluids.

d) Shear - The Leimbach 900 shear is being moved into the enclosed ferrous yard from our site in Byard Road Gloucester. A shear is a large guillotine that compresses and cuts the scrap to the required sizes for the furnace... e) Baler - A Lyndex bailer is being installed. A baler compresses metal cuttings from factories to produce a dense bale that can be fed direct into the furnace. The baler is to be at the front of the yard immediately behind the 4 metre screening fence.... f) Around the South Eastern and North Eastern sides of the site is a screening fence.

Noise The site is an existing metal recycling yard and nothing included within the planning application will not lead to additional noise above that already experienced. The main sources of noise in a scrap yard are as follows a) Emptying of scrap materials onto the ground normally from the rear of lorries that unload. b) Sorting and moving tipped scrap to relevant piles / locations depending on the material type. c) Lifting / grabbing scrap from the piles and placing it into the ships / mobile shears. d) Loading treated scrap into empty lorries for removal from site. e) Managing and ordering of the area of scrap materials to ensure adequate storage space.

…the 4 and 5 metre fences around the site will screen the current activities on the site from the nearest sensitive receptors as well as providing the additional security required. End of Life Processing Under the End of Life Vehicle Directive a yard must have facilities on site to receive and process scrap cars…storage and treatment should occur on fully impermeable surfaces with adequate rainwater controls with appropriate safeguards for hazardous components and materials. The new building will house an ELV rig together with external storage tanks for the waste materials. Depollution activities are similar to those within a service garage and are not considered noisy. All fluids drained off from the vehicles are collected and reclaimed through a licensed processor of waste hydro carbons. The building provides an enclosed safe environment for staff to process such vehicles in accordance with the regulations. The vehicles will then be compressed/ baled to bulk up for transport or further processing through a shredder.

Metal Recycling The image of metal recycling is rapidly changing in the UK as local government begins to recognise their environmental and recycling commitments. It is now a major and capital intensive industry. European Metal Recycling is a global leader in recycled metals processing over 10 million tonnes of non ferrous and ferrous metals from consumers, industry, Local councils and demolition works.”

2.4 The Noise Impact Assessment (MAS Environmental) dated 30th July 2011 provides the following summary findings and conclusions:

“1.0 Summary findings & conclusions

Calculations of site noise indicate the present average noise level for materials handling and ship loading operations (excluding the

introduction of shearing and baling) is about 51dB LAeq(1hr). The main noise is from moving materials and unloading. Using a background noise level of 50dB L90 which is reasonably conservative, gives a complaint prediction level (CPL) when applying BS4142 1997 of 6dB. This is of marginal significance. Historical noise levels before the baler and shear are potentially 3dB higher due to the higher tonnage historically. If a background value of 45dB LA90 is applied, representing the lower values obtained by the Council, the complaint prediction level for the time before baling and shearing increases to 11dB. However, if a background noise level of 57dB LA90 was used, as recorded independently to the Council and MAS last year for a nearby development, the CPL becomes minus 1dB. This range of minus 1dB to plus 11dB is for the situation as found before the proposed development. The constructed and proposed boundary screening therefore leads to an improvement on the situation before the proposed development. The operation of the baler plant noise was inaudible at residential property. Loading of the baler was identified as the source of greatest noise intrusion due to its location at a point closest to residents and a height above the existing boundary screen.

Predicted hourly maximum activity noise from baling at the residential location is about 49dB LAeq(1hr). This is below other materials handling noise levels but increases the total site noise from 51dB to 53dB LAeq(1hr).

Whilst the increases in noise are relatively small and theoretical they should be regarded as unacceptable in order to protect / maintain residential amenity. Additional mitigation is therefore recommended. This is best achieved by increasing the eastern screen fence (north of the site entrance) in height to 7m (an optimum height). It is also recommended the 7m height screen should be extended along the northern boundary to the ELV building as an additional improvement/protection. A 7m screen is predicted to give reductions in baling noise in excess of about 10dB(A) for the peaks of noise. In addition this provides added reduction in site noise from the general loading, unloading and sorting as well as a small reduction from shearing related noise. Importantly this mitigation serves to reduce the peaks of the most noticeable noise below the general ambient noise levels and for most of the time they are then below the background noise level. It is the higher peaks which this measure deals with that are presently most noticed by residents.

The effect of screening the baler using a 7m screen reduces its contribution to overall noise to 0.3dB(A). This 0.3dB(A) increase

ignores the general reduction in site noise afforded by providing a 7m boundary screen and overall there should be a net reduction in noise. In practice compared to the activity level that can be undertaken on site and that should be based on historical handling levels of activity, this represents a significant improvement.

When considered without the baling and boundary fencing, shearing operations would increase the overall noise LAeq(1hr) value to about 51.8dB, an increase of 0.8dB(A). This is less than the noise from baling because of the greater distance to the residents and to some extent the effect of the ELV building. This increase is counteracted by a reduction in materials handling noise. The calculation also assumes double handling and ignores localised screening close to the shear as a consequence of materials.

When looked at in isolation, the loading and unloading of the shear

potentially is an increase in noise not previously experienced. Increasing the eastern boundary screen adjacent the baler to 7m reduces the shear noise 0.8dB(A) at residential properties to the east. Extending the screen along part of the northern boundary reduces the noise more than this.

When shearing, baling and the existing operations are considered cumulatively, without any improved screening, the average noise levels increase to about 53.6dB LAeq(1hr), an increase of 2.2dB(A). This assumes both operations occur simultaneously as well as the other site activity.

Using a 7m barrier as identified in this report, baler activity would theoretically add 0.3dB to average levels. The shear activity would add 0.6dB. In reality there is a reduction in overall site noise emissions due to the higher screen. The overall average resultant noise should be below 51dB LAeq(1hr) as it is the highest peaks of noise which contribute the most and these are reduced the most by the proposed screen. This also assumes activities occur simultaneously. Thus the perceived benefit of increasing the screen to 7m should be high. The ELV building and operations associated with it are insignificant in terms of noise contribution. The ELV building improves screening of site noise. The ELV building also provides significant screening of shearing operations and thus is of benefit overall. In summary using conservative calculations there are only small increases in average noise. Providing an increased height screen to one corner improves this such that new activity noise increases levels insignificantly and when considered globally there is a benefit due to the screening of other site activity. Overall there is a net improvement. The most noticeable benefit would be in the reduced materials handling noise when loading the baler.”

2.5 It should be noted that the applicant has continued, ‘at their own risk,’ with the proposed development following the submission of this application without gaining planning permission. At the time of writing this report the proposed development has been completed. I have informed the applicant on several occasions that no planning permission for this development has been given by the Waste Planning Authority.

2.6 As a result of these works being implemented local residents have

raised concerns/objections predominately on the grounds of increased noise arising from Sharpness Dock. Local residents indicate that there is a direct correlation with the applicants operation of the Baler and Shear. Taking this into consideration the applicant has provided additional information in conjunction with, and in response to additional clarification being sought from, the Environment Agency on the 3rd January, 10th and 15th February, 5th April, 10th July and the 31st July 2012 respectively. This consists of:

• MAS Environmental - Information on Noise – Barriers at Metals Recycling Sites dated December 2011

• MAS Environmental - Response to specific questions from Gloucestershire Planning - EMR Sharpness Planning Application

• MAS Environmental - Noise management plan (Consultation Draft subject to Peer Review) dated 10th February 2012

• MAS Environmental – Noise Management Plan (Version 1 (April2012)) dated 2nd April 2012.

• MAS Environmental – Response to additional points raised by the Environment Agency on Planning and Noise Management Plan Submissions dated 10th July 2012.

• Revised Layout Plan Drawing no SH1RV dated 26-07-12

• Extension of Fence details by Car Park Drawing no SH 2Rv dated July 12

• Extension of Fence details by Road Drawing no SH3Rv dated July 12

Environmental Impact Assessment 2.7 In accordance with Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 a screening assessment of the site was undertaken by the Waste Planning Authority on the 28th March 2011. It was determined that an Environmental Statement would not be requested.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Gloucestershire County Council has the following planning history for the proposed site:

Application number

Description of Development Decision/date

11/0043/STCERT Certificate of Lawfulness - RE-SUBMISSION - for the storage, treatment and transfer of scrap metal

Permission Granted 13.12.11

11/0005/STCERT Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use for the storage, treatment and transfer of scrap metal

Withdrawn 19.04.2011

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

Environmental Protection Act 1990

4.1 Part III Section 79 of the 1990 Act provides Local Authorities with the duty to deal with statutory nuisances. For noise to amount to a statutory nuisance, it must be prejudicial to health or a nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Statutory Consultees such as the Environment Agency and the District Environmental Health Officer have responsibility over noise complaints and must assess the nuisance levels of noise under separate legislation from planning.

National Planning Policy Framework 2012:

4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 27 March 2012 constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and is a material consideration in determining the application. In assessing and determining planning proposals, the Planning Authority should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the main focus of the NPPF in relation to both the plan-making and decision making process. However, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requires an appropriate assessment under the Conservation of Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive.

Policy 1, Building a strong, competitive economy (paragraphs 18 – 22)

indicates that planning should operate to encourage, and not act as an impediment to sustainable economic growth, to existing business sectors.

Policy 4 Promoting sustainable transport (paragraphs 29 – 41)

indicates that encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion and support development that facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Policy 7, Requiring good design (paragraphs 56 – 68) indicates that a key aspect of sustainable development is good design and that the visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are very important factors. However, planning decisions should not attempt to impose particular architectural styles or tastes and stifle innovation where it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Policy 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paragraphs 109 to 125) indicates that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. However, planning decisions should aim to avoid significant impacts arising from noise, but recognise that development will often create some noise and that existing business wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. Policy 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (paragraphs 126 to 141) indicates that local planning authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

4.3 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. The NPPF (27th March 2012) did not replace PPS 10 and as such in considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity as referred to in annex E. Paragraph 30 of PPS10 refers to health indicating that “Modern, appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health. [And that] “The detailed consideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, for human health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities. However, planning operates in the public interest to ensure that the location of proposed development is acceptable and health can be material to such decisions.”

4.6 Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Waste Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004. However, following the Secretary of State for communities and Local Government’s Direction (dated 5th October 2007) the following WLP policies are ‘saved’ until replaced by Development Plan Documents contained in the Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks. Policy 16 – Special Waste Facilities No overall conflict in the NPPF with this Policy Policy 24 - Locally designated sites for nature conservation

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF sets out principles for SSSI which will be material in considering development. However, this saved policy appears to be substantially in line with Paragraph 118 and therefore suggest a balance of weight between NPPF and WLP.

Policy 33 – Water Resources – Pollution

This Policy remains in force. Potentially replacement at a later date through other Development Plan Document (DPD). The NPPF encourages the minimising of pollution. This policy is therefore broadly consistent with the NPPF (paragraph 110).

Policy 37 - Proximity to Other Land Uses No overall inconsistency with the NPPF however, the overall aim of sustainable development needs to be considered against this policy when dealing with applications. Policy 38 – Hours of Operation No overall inconsistency with the NPPF however, the overall aim of sustainable development needs to be considered against this policy when dealing with applications. Policy 39 – Transport Overall this is consistent. The NPPF requires the impacts to be severe to warrant refusal. In particular, paragraph 32 confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. Policy 40 – Traffic Overall this is consistent. The NPPF requires the impacts to be severe to warrant refusal. In particular, paragraph 32 confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. The following policies of the Waste Local Plan are ‘unsaved’ but still have a degree of materiality, as they have been through an inquiry process relevant to the proposed development.

Policy 13 – Material Recovery and Waste Transfer Facilities No overall conflict in the NPPF with this Policy. The policy supports achieving sustainable development, in particular paragraph 7: contributing to the environmental role of sustainable development by minimising waste (7 point 3 NPPF).

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 A total of 92 letters were sent out to neighbouring properties on the 16th

March 2011. A Site Notice was erected on the 23rd March 2011 and the proposal was advertised in the Stroud News and Journal on the 24th March 2011. At the time of writing this report 14 representations have been received (11 objections 3 general comments).

5.2 The representations received have raised concerns over the increase

in noise levels from the EMR site indicating that the movement of materials, stockpile heights and operations of the shear and baler has contributed towards high levels of noise since July 2011. The representations have also indicated that mitigation measures such tree planting on the opposite side of the Bridge Road, the resurfacing of the road which is in a poor condition, reducing stockpile heights, the erection of a sound absorbing fence, the enclosure of the site within a building and the removal of materials being ‘thrown about’ are the only answers to reducing the impact of noise on the surrounding environment. In addition, concerns over the increase in vehicle numbers has also been provided in objection to the application.

5.3 Further to the above a petition with 62 signatures has been received

petitioning against the high noise levels arising at the EMR site Sharpness on the 26th June 2012.

5.4 Following the applicant’s submissions of this further information,

notification of the contributors and relevant statutory consultee has been undertaken, the final time being the 6th and 8th August 2012 respectively.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Stroud District Council:

6.1 Stroud District Council has no objection to the application. The Environmental Protection Manager at Stroud District Council made

the following initial comments on the 29th March 2011 to the District Case Officer:

“Having reviewed the above application, I would make the following

comments: The application appears to introduce the proposed use of the following equipment:

a) a shear currently operating 230-300 metres from dwellings in Gloucester (a large guillotine that compresses and cuts scrap); and

b) a baler which compresses metal cuttings to produce a dense bale.

The installation is covered by a Permit issued by the Environment Agency which will exert control over noise issues and the Council provided EA with background noise levels at three sensitive locations on 30th September 2010 to ensure they were in receipt of baseline information regarding the noise environment at this location. However to date no specific data relating to the noise produced by the equipment has been provided. The shear is already operating at Gloucester and so definitive noise levels should be easily available. The enclosure to which the application refers will not provide any acoustic attenuation and it should be borne in mind that the properties in the Oldminster Road area are significantly higher than at the scrap yard (up to 25 metres).

The baler appears to be a new piece of equipment for which a noise specification should also be available.

As such my recommendation would be that predicted noise levels and impacts should be provided by the applicant.” In light of this representation the applicant submitted a noise assessment on the 3rd August 2011 and the District Environmental Protection Manager provided the subsequent representation on the 20th September 2011:

“In relation to the above planning application, from an environmental health perspective, I would make the following comments:

The above large-scale waste operation operates under the terms of an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency. As such the Council’s powers and involvement with regard to noise issues are limited. Prior to recent expansions at the site, Stroud District Council undertook background noise measurements around the area and forwarded these to the EA for reference purposes as noise is a factor that is considered as part of the permit process. I understand that a condition of the permit is that noise pollution must be controlled and limited as far as reasonably practicable. Thus should any complaints be received, these would need to be directed towards the Environment Agency. No complaints have been received by SDC about this facility over recent years.

I would suggest it may be worth contacting…the Environment Agency should you wish to discuss the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the permit. I hope this is of assistance.”

Following the applicant’s submission of the MAS Environmental – Noise Management Plan (Version 1 (April2012)) dated 2nd April 2012 and the MAS Environmental – Response to additional points raised by the Environment Agency on Planning and Noise Management Plan Submissions dated 10th July 2012, Stroud District Council’s Environmental Protection Officer was again consulted and provided the following comments: “…this site is subject to a waste management permit issued by the Environment Agency, and that such a permit has associated conditions to include ensuring that noise levels do not give rise to unreasonable levels of disturbance and that acoustic reports have been submitted as part of this planning application. As such I do not intend to comment specifically on noise management, except to say that the measures put forward in the report seem reasonable in terms of noise mitigation as far as is reasonably practicable and the key issue is obviously the erection of the metal fencing, in accordance with the details submitted. I would emphasise however that the overall restriction on the time at which the most noisy plant can be operated will be the over riding factor in minimising detriment to amenity. To this end, In relation to the use of the shear and baler, I would therefore recommend a suitably worded condition to restrict the use of this plant to between 07:00 - 17:00 Mondays to Fridays, 07:00 to 12:00 noon on Saturdays with no operation of the equipment on Sundays or Bank Holidays. This is in line with the applicant's intentions."

Hinton Parish Council: 6.2 Hinton Parish Council had initially objected to the application on traffic

and noise grounds. However, following additional information provided by the applicant Hinton Parish Council revised their representation on the 8th August 2012 to no objection making the following representation:

“Hinton PC have no objections to the following application S.11/0012/STMAJW Erection of steel plate security fencing and new office amenity block etc.

The Parish Council also have no objections to the increase of height of the fence to 7 meters to mitigate noise"

Highways Development Co-Ordination: 6.3 The County Highways Development Co-Ordination officer has made

the following comments: “ The development proposes some ancillary buildings, boundary

treatment and relocation of parking spaces. The site fronts a private road, and I did not consider that this application will result in any

detriment to the public highway; therefore I recommend that no Highway objection is raised.”

Environment Agency: 6.4 Following protracted discussions and further submission by the

applicant with regards to noise/noise mitigation the Environment Agency have removed their objection to the application providing the following final response to the application:

“…We have now reviewed this further information and have the following comments:

Environment Agency position on planning application

Our primary concern is EMR’s ability to control site noise, to avoid causing pollution to local residents. Therefore, the elements of this planning application that are of most interest to us are those that relate to the use of the baler and shear (as well as the erection of the 7 metre high fence which will help to reduce noise impacts.)

It is important to note that other, on and off site, noise generating activities will occur simultaneously with the operation of these pieces of equipment. We will take account of these other activities in our wider regulatory role.

Consequently, for the purposes of our planning response, we have only assessed the modelled noise data associated with the baler and shear. There are other activities on site that give rise to noise, but we are constrained in what we can provide planning comments on by the restricted nature of the application, the Certificate of Lawful use covering use of the site as a scrap metal recycling facility and the general permitted development rights in relation to ship loading activities.

We have reviewed EMR’s Noise Management Plan, dated 2 April 2012 (reference MAS/SHA/DTB/120402) and their subsequent additional technical memorandum dated 10 July 2012 (reference MAS/SHA/DTB/120710).

Our noise experts have analysed this complex modelling data and their conclusion is that EMR’s proposed mitigation measures should reduce the noise experienced by Sharpness residents to a more acceptable level.

Previously we were not in a position to accept the Noise Management Plan as it showed that the combined operations at the site would produce noise levels sufficient to result in complaints off-site.

The additional information received in response to our 26 June Memorandum has used time fractions and applied time averaging to the sound power levels. The submitted information indicates how long the separate activities occur and the noise attributed to each separate activity. This has enabled a more realistic estimation of the noise produced on site, rather than the worst case scenario (all activities occurring all the time) that was previously the case.

We are now satisfied that the baler and shear can operate without producing noise levels sufficient to result in complaints off-site. We are satisfied that the planning application accords with paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the use of the baler and shear will not cause significant adverse noise impacts. Our analysis has used the British Standard 4142 in this regard.

In light of the above we are prepared to approve EMR’s Noise Management Plan and to remove our objection to the planning application. We have informed EMR, that acceptance of their plan is subject to planning permission being granted for extending the height of their security fencing as this is a key noise mitigation measure that has been included within the Noise Management Plan. We note and welcome, from your letter dated 6 August 2012, that the raising of the fencing from 4/5 metres to 7 metres is now a formal part of the planning application. If permission is not granted for the application we would consider any measures we could take in this regard under our regulatory powers.

It should be noted that our assessment was based on an artificial situation where we considered the modelled noise level, from the baler and the shear, as if they were being operated in isolation. As such we would recommend caution with relying solely on our technical assessment of the noise when considering noise impacts of the site in general. It is important to note that the other activities at site, which are not part of this planning application, will still give rise to noise.

Regulation of the site

We continue to regulate the site as part of our wider regulatory role under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

We have written to EMR separately and informed them we are prepared to approve their noise management plan. This is on the proviso that planning permission is granted and implemented (e.g. the fence is erected to a height of 7 metres). We have informed EMR that it is a requirement that they regularly review and update their noise management plan. This is particularly important when they make operational changes that could exacerbate site noise or in the event of a non-compliance with condition 3.3.1 of their Environmental Permit. We expect them to review their plan within two weeks of increasing the height of the security fencing (assuming planning permission is granted) and to propose additional measures if this improvement does not provide the modeled level of noise attenuation.

As such we do not recommend any specific monitoring planning conditions as we would not want to duplicate the permitting process. If you consider such are necessary we would be happy to advise on the wording if required.”

British Waterways 6.5 British Waterways has no objection as a statutory consultee to the

application and makes the following comments as the adjoining land owner:

“We are aware that this application has been held in abeyance following the need to determine the Certificate of Lawful Use. As further information has been provided on that application you are possibly now in a position to determine this application.

The further evidence submitted to support the Certificate of Lawful use will establish the maximum usage of the site but this application will seek to intensify the use by providing new machinery and buildings.

As you are already aware we have previously raised concerns

regarding road safety and as well as the increase in noise as a result of the additional machinery being brought to the site. We would wish to seek further clarification on both of these issues to ensure that suitable mitigation measures will be put in place to protect the safety and amenity of local businesses, residents and visitors to the Dock.

Noise The applicants have now submitted a noise assessment which recommends that in order to prevent undue noise disturbance to those living nearby the proposed boundary fence should be raised to 7 m high. Although this will be more visually intrusive than the 4-5 m fence currently suggested we would welcome the additional noise attenuation, along with a restriction on the hours of operation order to protect the amenity of local residents.

Road safety Up to 15 car parking spaces for staff and visitors are shown on the concrete apron to the front of the site, i.e. outside of the red line application site plan. This area is open fronted at the moment and therefore vehicles can enter and leave the apron at any point. In addition there is no specified area for vehicles waiting to enter the site at peak times or lay up if they arrive outside of normal operating hours.

The application in its current form does not adequately address highway safety concerns. We would suggest that the applicants provide a traffic management plan for the site to ensure that the proposed increase in vehicle movements does not create a hazard for other users in the area such as business tenants, residents, and members of the public using the Dock Road to access the Marina and Canal.

We would suggest that these matters could be dealt with by condition if the Council is minded to grant permission. We therefore suggest that the following conditions are imposed.

Conditions

1. Prior to the additional machinery being brought into use on the site the applicants shall carry out suitable sound attenuation measures to minimise the impact of the proposed machinery as recommended in the applicants submitted noise assessment prepared by MAS Environmental.

Reason: To minimise the impact of noise from the site in accordance with PPG24: Planning and Noise, PolicyMR9 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan and Policy GE1 of the Stroud District Local Plan.

2. The use of the premises hereby permitted shall not take place outside the hours of the hours of operation specified on the application form.

Reason: To minimise the impact of noise from the site in accordance

with PPG24: Planning and Noise, PolicyMR9 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan and Policy GE1 of the Stroud District Local Plan.

3. Prior to the development hereby authorised being brought into the use the applicants shall submit further information in form of a traffic management plan or revised site layout plan to ensure that all parked vehicles associated with the development are contained within the application site at all times.

Reason: to protect residents and visitors to the area in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR12 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan.”

Natural England: 6.6 Natural England has made no representation on this application. 7.0 PLANNING OBSERVATIONS

County Archaeology: 7.1 The Senior Archaeological Officer has no objection to the application.

County Ecology: 7.2 The County Ecologist has no objection to the application subject to the

development being conditional to the following items:

“1. Consult Natural England and the Environment Agency to see if they believe there is potential for likely impact on the Severn Estuary European Marine Site.

2. Request further Information or confirmation that the tonnage throughput limit will be similar to current/historical levels. If this cannot be confirmed and made part of a consent then we should request the developer submits an assessment in connection with likely impacts on

the Severn Estuary Marine Site (in accordance with Regulation 61(2) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010).

3. Condition – A lighting scheme based on drawing entitled ‘Lighting and Security Cameras’ dated 12/11/10 should be submitted for approval.” County Drainage Engineer:

7.3 The County Drainage Engineer has made no representation on this application.

County Mineral and Waste Policy 7.4 The County Mineral and Waste Policy Team has made no

representation on this application.

Planning

Case Officer Comments 7.5 The applicant is proposing that an existing scrap metal facility at

Sharpness Docks can be upgraded through the provision of a steel plate security fence; 4 and 5 metres in height, erected around the existing site boundary and an internal compound, new office/staff and amenity block, weighbridge and associated works as well as providing a new building for end of life vehicles (ELV) and a shear and baler for processing scrap metal. Through the submissions of a Noise Management Plan (latest being 2nd April 2012) by the applicant. It is proposed that the boundary fence height should be increased from 4 metres in height to 7 metres at the southeastern corner in a north and west direction; approximately 36 metres and 66 metres in length respectively, so as to mitigate acoustic emissions arising from the EMR operations, in particular that being generated from the baler and shear.

7.6 It should be noted that the proposed increase in fence height is

supported by the Environment Agency, Stroud District Council’s Environmental Protection Officer, Hinton Parish Council, Local Residents and British Waterways and as such in considering this application the proposed increase in fence height (in part to 7 metres) from the southeastern corner is considered.

7.7 The sites principle use as a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal facility

has been established, 13th December 2011 when the County Council granted a Certificate of Lawfulness Permission (application 11/0043/STCERT), in accordance with Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, (Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010). The Certificate of Lawfulness permits a maximum annual through put of 95,000 tonnes (1st January to 31st December). The operation of the site as a scrap metal facility and the associated delivery/exporting and stockpiling of material and in particular the activity of loading ships is

therefore not a material consideration when determining this application.

7.8 The loading of scrap metal from the dock quay onto ships can be

undertaken by the applicant under Permitted Development Rights bestowed through the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995 (as amended). This being provided through the provision of Part 17 Class B, (a) and (b), of the GPDO 1995 for Development by Statutory Undertakers; Dock, pier, harbour, water transport, canal, or inland navigation undertakings.

7.9 A local resident has raised concerns over the description of the

development due to works having been undertaken prior to any planning permission being granted. I acknowledge that following the submission of the application the applicant has, ‘at their own risk’ undertaken works without prior planning permission. In this instance a planning application has been submitted, although not determined, it would not be expedient to restart the process of determining if the proposed (retrospective) works are acceptable or indeed pursue enforcement action at the present time. Additionally, whilst the application is partly retrospective the Waste Planning Authority may determine the application because no enforcement action (i.e. service of notices) has taken place to prevent permission being granted. The applicant is aware that the works are being undertaken at their own risk subject to a pending planning decision.

7.10 I have considered the following in determining this planning application.

• Comparison of Operations

• Noise

• Design/Visual Impact o Fence o Fence Material o Shear and Baler o End of Life Vehicle (ELV) Building o Officer Block and Weighbridge

• Severn Estuary

• Traffic

• Near Neighbour Representations Comparison of Operations

7.11 The 1.96 hectare site at Sharpness Docks has operated as a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metals facility since approximately 1968. The annual throughput of the site has fluctuated due to market demand over this period to a peak during the 1980s where this figure exceeded 100,000 tonnes. At present the annual throughput of the site is restricted to 95,000 tonnes through the Certificate of Lawfullness (11/0043/STCERT) granted on the 13th December 2011).

7.12 The existing operations involve scrap metal being received via road, then treated, stored and transferred by ship (majority) or road. This proposal does not seek to alter these aspects of the site’s operation. The provision of the fencing is being sought due to the high value of metals on site, for security purposes, which additionally contributes towards screening the site (historically open frontage onto the Bridge Road) in terms of visual impact and noise reduction. The addition of an ELV building, shear and baler form part of the modernisation of the operations so that current environmental standards are maintained and efficiency of the site is improved. The weighbridge and new office/staff amenity block are replacing existing structures/buildings on-site that had become unfit for purpose while the associated works such as lighting and security cameras are also considered to form part of the modernisation of the site.

7.13 I therefore consider, subject to the proposed works being satisfactorily

controlled through planning conditions attached to any planning permission granted, that the operations undertaken at the site remain in essence the same as those that have previously operated since 1968. This proposal provides an adaptation to the current working methods rather than an expansion or intensification of the current operations due to historically higher annual throughputs arising from the site. I consider that the proposed adaptations will contribute towards improving the impacts of the sites operation on the surrounding environment and maintain the character of Sharpness Dock as an industrial employment site. Noise

7.14 In considering the impacts of noise on the surrounding environment the existing site operations need to be taken into consideration and any differences (increases) that occur. The applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment of the site dated 30th July 2011 has been used for reference in this section unless indicated otherwise.

7.15 The movement of scrap metal and loading of ships has historically

occurred at the site and is indicated to provide a noise level of no higher than 51dB LAeq(1hr), with an average ambient level of 53-55dB when measured at the play-area, which is nearer to the site than the residential properties of Oldminster Road, (approximately 85 metres to the southeast).

7.16 Considering the cumulative impacts of the existing and the proposed

operations of the site without screening, the envisaged noise levels would produce 53.6dB LAeq(1hr). (This could be reduced to 51B LAeq(1hr) if the increase in boundary fence height is provided as mitigation to a height of 7 metres.)

7.17 For comparison of the applicant’s submission, noise readings were

taken on the 22nd September 2010 by Stroud District Council (provided

to the Waste Planning Authority at the case officers request). These readings indicate the following:

• Corner of Oldminster Road/Oakfeild Way – Overall 57.2dB LAeq

• Off Dock Road – Overall 53.9dB LAeq

• By Play-area Off Oldminster Road – 52.6dB LAeq 7.18 When measured at the play-area, adjacent to Oldminster Road, the

information provided by the applicant and that provided independently in relation to a separate planning application are consistent in providing similar levels in noise for the sharpness area. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal is in accordance with Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, which indicates that no unacceptable noise should be created on the surrounding environment. However, local concern would suggest that noise emissions and operations have increased following the submission and implementation of the application by the applicant (at their risk). Therefore, further consideration of the proposal is given in the following sections.

7.19 Prior to the application being made to Waste Planning Authority no

complaints had been received by the County Council, Stroud District Council’s Environmental Protection Officers or the Environment Agency with regards to noise arising from the applicants site and existing operations. Following the submission of the application objections about the adverse impacts of noise on the surrounding environment have been received by all of the above. The source of this noise being attributed by local residents to coincide with the installation of the shear and baler; commencing in July 2011.

7.20 The applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment (s) (NIA), prepared by MAS

Environmental, has been provided in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24): Planning and Noise and the relevant British Standard (BS 4142 1997). PPG24 is no longer relevant following the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 27th March 2012, although BS 4142 1997 remains.

7.21 Through protracted discussions and negotiations involving the

applicant the Environment Agency, Stroud District Council’s Environmental Protection Officer and the Waste Planning Authority the applicant has provided additional information on the 10th and 15th February, 5th April and 10th July 2012 respectively for consideration and support of their initial Noise Impact Assessment.

7.22 It is acknowledged (MAS Environmental Noise Impact Assessment

dated 30th July 2011page 13 paragraphs 8.21 to 8.27) that the shear has the potential to generate noise through its operation in general and the associated loading of materials into the shear. However, the shear is envisaged to provide a minimal increase from 51dB to approximately 51.8dB(A) if the boundary fence was maintained at 4 and 5 metres in

height and is therefore not predicted to contribute towards noise impacts on residential properties. By increasing the fence height from 4 metres to 7 metres in the southeast corner of the site it is envisaged that a reduction in noise levels of approximately 0.8dB could be achieved.

7.23 In terms of the baler, noise could be generated through the operation of

the plant in general and the loading of material into the hopper. The operation of the plant generates a low level of noise (inaudible) and I do not consider that this would create any adverse noise impact. However, with the 4 metre boundary fence in place the noise level of loading material into the baler, which takes place at a height of 6 metres, could generate a total sound energy of approximately 49dB LAeq(1hr) at the residential location beyond the play-area south of the site (MAS Environmental Noise Impact Assessment dated 30th July 2011page 12 paragraph 8.12). The applicant has indicated that this could be mitigated by increasing the height of the boundary fence, (4 to 7 metres). This is envisaged to reduce the noise associated with the loading of material into the baler by 9.5 dB(A). Additionally, increasing the fence height could also contribute towards an overall reduction in noise emissions from the site in general i.e. material movement and/or ship loading which have been raised as a reason of objection by local residents but are not covered by this application.

7.24 I concur with the applicant’s assessment that increase the fence height could contribute towards mitigating noise arising from the site and associated operations. Further mitigation measures such as; lining the hopper on the baler/shear; enclosing them within a building (See paragraph 5.2 of this report); implementing SMART working practices; a moveable container screen tracking stockpiles to the shear within the site, have been considered to further reduce noise emissions.

7.25 SMART working practices have been developed and used by the

applicant specifically at their sites to mitigate noise emissions arising through their operations to an acceptable level. This involves implementing practical on-site measures either through installing engineering mitigation i.e. an acoustic barrier, or improving operational processes and/or handling of materials.

7.26 In considering the mitigation measures referred to in the previous

paragraphs I am of the opinion that on balance the erection of a building would be unreasonable. This is due to the scale that would be required to accommodate the operations of the site. Additionally, due to the nature of loading the hopper(s) with scrap metal, any sound absorbent lining could become damaged and require replacing frequently, with the possibility of cross contamination of the metal bales creating a fire hazard and an unsaleable product for the applicant.

7.27 I would however concur with the applicant that the use of SMART

working practices (developed specifically for the EMR site at

Sharpness Docks between the applicant and MAS Environmental) and the provision of a moveable container screen as being the most appropriate for contributing towards noise mitigation in this instance. In addition, I consider that controlling the operational hours of the shear and baler will also contribute towards noise reduction. I am however conscious that if the operational hours of the baler and/or shear are too restrictive that this could result in additional movements associated with the stockpiles waiting to be processed, which in-turn could have a negative impact in terms of noise emissions. I also consider that by restricting the stockpile height (associated with the baler) to a maximum of 7 metres will contribute towards a reduction in noise emissions being generated through the movement of loading material into the baler. I would therefore concur with the Environmental Protection Officer representation that operational hours for the shear and baler should be restricted to 07:00 - 17:00 Mondays to Fridays, 07:00 to 12:00 noon on Saturdays with no operation of the equipment on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

7.28 On balance, and subject to the provisions detailed above, I consider

that the installation of the shear and baler are in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework Policy 11 and Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. These Policies indicate that no unacceptable noise impact should be created on the surrounding environment and that the controlling of operational hours is appropriate in exceptional circumstances; in this instance to mitigate any possible adverse noise emissions on the surrounding community (occasional occurrences are unavoidable given the industrial nature of the site) too within acceptable periods of time.

Design/Visual Impact Fence 7.29 The erection of a 4-5 metre steel plate fence is primarily being sought

for security purposes, with the added benefit of providing a visual and acoustic screen to the site operations. However, the MAS Environmental Noise Impact Assessment dated 30th July 2011 and subsequent additional information and clarification provided by the applicant indicates that noise emissions from the site could be mitigated if the fence is increased to 7 metres in height.

7.30 In considering the need to mitigate noise and the impact of increasing

the fence height in the southeastern corner from 4-7 metres, the setting of the site; industrial working dock with a variety of industrial uses; large existing structures; proximity of residential properties (nearest to the southwest on Bridge Road through to the southeast (Oldminster Road) and increased mitigation of noise emissions (envisaged to be approximately 9.5dB (A)) from the site, has been taken into account. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed fence, with increase in the southeastern corner to 7 metres, is of an industrial nature that maintains the local character and distinctiveness of Sharpness Dock

and that the reduction in noise emissions outweighs the minimal impacts on the surrounding environment that the fence (with increase to 7 metres in part) could have in accordance with Policies 1, 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.31 National Planning Policy Framework Policies 1, 7 and 12 indicate that

existing businesses that contribute towards sustainable economic growth should not be impeded, where an historic asset, in this instance Sharpness Docks, is not adversely affected by inappropriate design. The proposed increase in fence height is envisaged to reduce noise levels by approximately 9.5dB (A) and can be implemented where appropriate i.e. adjacent to the baler and shear, through planning conditions attached to any planning permission granted and would maintain the character of the industrial working dock.

7.32 The Environment Agency and British Water Ways have indicated

support for increasing the fence height to 7 metres (where appropriate) and the reduction in noise emissions that this could provide; as have local residents during the liaison meeting on the 25th June 2012.

Fence Material

7.33 I have considered the use of different types of material (wood or metal) that could be used for increasing the fence height from 4 to 7 metres. I sought clarification on the acoustic properties of the different materials in terms of absorption, reflection, and overall noise reduction to site activities from the applicant’s acoustician.

7.34 The applicant made a representation on the 3rd January 2012

(Information on Noise – Barriers at Metals Recycling Sites prepared by MAS December 2011). This indicated that wood and metal provide similar acoustic properties in this instance. After taking this information into consideration, as well as the visual impact of using either material, I am of the opinion that metal would be the most appropriate material to use. I consider that wood is out of character with the industrial setting of the docks and that metal offers the most robust solution given the site operations as a scrap metal facility. Additionally, I consider that a planning condition(s) could be suitably attached to any permission granted to control the height, length, attachment, and colouration of any additional metal fencing. I therefore consider that the visual impact on the surrounding environment would be mitigated in accordance with Policy 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This Policy aims to reinforce local distinctiveness (where appropriate), which I consider an extension to the 4 metre fence in steel would achieve, while providing significant benefits in the form of reduced noise emissions from the site. Shear and Baler

7.35 The proposed shear has been located in the northeastern corner of the site, adjacent to the cement works. The baler has been located to the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the boundary fence along

Bridge Road. The shear is a large guillotine that compresses and cuts the scrap metal to size, while the baler compresses metal cuttings to produce a dense bale, which is required for smelting by the applicant’s customers

7.36 The shear and baler represent relatively small structures in the context

of the applicant’s existing scrap metal recycling facility and the neighbouring industrial buildings at Sharpness Docks. They enable the applicant to process scrap metal more efficiently to meet with market demands. As such, the proposals represent an adaptation (modernisation) to existing working methods rather than an expansion of the existing operations or the establishment of a brand new facility. Their design is in-keeping with plant associated with a modern scrap metal facility, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality of a working dock, which is predominantly industrial. Notwithstanding this the proposed shear and baler would be contained visually by the erection of the boundary fence, particularly if this is increased to 7 metres as indicated earlier in this report.

7.37 I consider that the installation of the shear and baler are typical of a modern scrap metal facility and that in principle would have minimal impact on the setting of Sharpness Docks. I am therefore satisfied that the installation of the shear and baler generally accord with Policies 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policy 37 and unsaved Policy 13 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. These Policies indicate that development should contribute towards the local character and distinctiveness; in this instance a working dock with a variety of industrial usages, and that adverse impacts should be mitigated, which I consider should be through the increased fence height of 7 metres.

End of Life Vehicle (ELV) building

7.38 The proposed EVL building is located along the eastern boundary adjacent to the cement works access road. The applicant proposes that this will consist of a prefabricated, steel building, measuring 6.3 metres in height by 13.8 metres in width by 6 metres in depth, with a small, ‘tank farm,’ of double skinned and bunded tanks (maximum height 1.9 metres) being located adjacent to the steel building for the storage of waste fluids.

7.39 The EVL provides a small-scale building to house a vehicle decommissioning plant so that scrap vehicles can be de-polluted prior to dismantling. The building and its operation as an EVL facility is required in accordance with the ELV Regulations 2003, as amended 2005 and 2010. This requires cars and vans etc to be de-polluted prior to being dismantled, recycled or disposed. As such, the proposal represents an adaptation to current working methods rather than an expansion of the facility or the establishment of a brand new facility as the site has historically operated as a scrap metal facility where vehicles are processed.

7.40 The proposed ELV building and associated bunded tanks represent relatively small structures in the context of the applicant’s existing scrap metals recycling facility and neighbouring industrial buildings at Sharpness Docks. The cladded building is typical of other modern industrial buildings in style and is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality of the working Dock, predominantly industrial. Notwithstanding this, the building would be contained visually by the erection of the boundary fence. I therefore consider that the proposal would have minimal effect on the wider setting of the area in accordance with saved Policy 37 and unsaved Policy 13 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. These Policies indicate that development should contribute towards the local character and distinctiveness; in this instance a working dock with a variety of industrial usages, and that adverse impacts should be mitigated, which I consider should be through the increased fence height of 7 metres. Office Block and Weighbridge

7.41 The applicant is seeking planning permission for a variety of developments associated with their existing scrap metal facility. The office block and weighbridge are in essence replacing existing structures; albeit the office was previously a traditional brick built building set further within the site. I am therefore of the opinion that the Office Block and Weighbridge are not likely to detract for the character of the docks and are in accordance with Policies 1, 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies indicate that existing businesses should not be impeded that contribute towards sustainable economic growth, where the historic asset, in this instance Sharpness Docks, is not adversely affected by inappropriate design.

Severn Estuary 7.42 The site is located within close proximity to the Severn Estuary, a

designated European Marine Site. I consider that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon the Severn Estuary and complies with Policy 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Polices 24 and 33 of the of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. These Policies indicate that strong protection should be provided to designated sites and that permission should not be granted to waste developments that would have a compromising adverse impact, which are not capable of

mitigation. The site has operated as a scrap metal recycling yard since the 1960’s (Certificate of Lawfulness 11/0043/STCERT) and this application does not seek to alter this.

7.43 The Environment Agency is satisfied with the site’s drainage and

interceptor provisions; authorised under a separate environmental permit. The County Ecologist has no objection to the application subject to a condition covering the submission of a lighting scheme, being attached to any permission granted. Natural England has made no representation. In light of this, and considering that the site has an already established historic waste use (scrap metal facility) and the surrounding industrial uses, it is not envisaged that any adverse impacts on this designated area will occur.

Traffic 7.44 The proposal involves an existing facility that has historically received

scrap metal via the road network, the majority being delivered on HGVs. The metals are then processed on-site before being transferred either by road or ship to the applicant’s facilities/customers around the Country. The majority of materials are transported via ship to the applicant’s site in the north of the Country before being transferred to larger ships (deep water vessels) for transfer to their international customers.

7.45 The delivery of scrap metal to the site generates a large number of

vehicle movements. However, this process is unchanged from that of the existing operations, as is the shipping. The County Highways Officer has no objection to the application. I therefore consider that the proposal is in accordance with Policy 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies 39 and 40 of Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. These policies indicate traffic generated from development proposals should not adversely/severely impact on the surrounding environment and that full consideration of alternative modes of transport should be provided. The site has historically accepted scrap metal via the road network and this is proposed as unchanged. The applicant transfers the majority of the scrap metal by ship around the coast to their other facility in the north of the County. This alternative mode of transport should be encouraged and contributes towards significantly removing vehicle movements from the highway. The Highways Officer has no objection to the proposal. I consider that due to the nature of exported material via ships, and the existing importation via the road network being unchanged, that no severe impact will be generated on the surrounding road network as a result of this application in accordance with the NPPF guidance.

Near Neighbour Representations 7.46 The concern of noise arising from the site is a material consideration.

The representation made by local residents to enclose the whole site within a building I consider is unpractical and unfeasible given the size of the site (1.96 hectares). Additionally, providing planting to the opposite side of Bridge Road between the site area and Oldminster Road, is outside of the applicant’s control. Although this could be feasible, in this instance I consider it unnecessary, as it would provide no additional benefit (I consider) to that of increasing the fence height to 7 metres, which could be provided on land in the applicants control and can be ensured through planning conditions attached to any permission granted. I consider resurfacing Bridge Road would not reduce noise arising from the site. The heights of the stockpiles have historically been large given the nature of the operations and the need to load ships at the quay; no concerns have been brought to the Waste Planning Authority prior to this application being made with regards to the scrap metal facility operating at Sharpness Docks. In consideration of the representation commenting about materials being thrown around the SMART working practices proposed through the Noise Action Plan are envisaged to significantly reduce these activities.

7.47 I consider that although the concerns over noise are a material

consideration that in this instance a suitably erected fence as proposed, with an increase to 7 metres, could sufficiently mitigate the noise emission to an acceptable level. In addition, I consider that SMART working practices and the control of operational hours, stockpile heights and the internal container screen would also improve noise emissions from the site. I consider that these aspects can be conditioned, in accordance with Government Guidance Circular 11/95: Use of Planning Conditions, should any planning permission be granted.

7.48 Having taken the proposal into consideration and the environmental

impacts that could arise, I consider that on balance the proposal offers to modernise an existing scrap metal facility within an industrial working dock and will provide improvements to the efficiency of the applicant’s operations. I consider that, by continuing to use ships for the transport of scrap metal to the applicant’s facility around the Country, a greater environmental benefit to that of transporting the material by road is provided. This also significantly contributes towards reducing the carbon footprint of the applicants business and contributing towards a sustainable approach to recycling scrap metal and removing waste from landfill.

7.49 I consider that mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the

impacts of noise on the surrounding environment, and that these measures can be satisfactorily controlled by the Waste Planning Authority through the use of planning conditions, whilst not duplicating the requirements of other legislative bodies such as the Environment

Agency. I therefore consider that there are no justifiable planning grounds on which to refuse the application.

Human Rights

7.50 From 2nd October 2000 the Human Rights Act 1998 has the effect of enshrining much of the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law. Under 6(1) of the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by Section 6(1) and that he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act, may bring proceedings against the authority under the Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or may rely on the convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings.

7.51 The main Convention rights relevant when considering planning

proposals are Article 1 of the First Protocol (the peaceful enjoyment of property) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life). Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life. Article 8 also provides that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the freedom of others.

7.52 Hinton Parish Council’s and 11 local residents have objected to

Gloucestershire County Council’s Waste Planning Authority on the application on the grounds of noise and traffic increase. For the reasons set out in the Planning Observations and the mitigation measures proposed through the use of planning conditions it is not thought there would be any breach of the convention rights. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development. Conclusion and Summary, reasons for granting of planning permission and relevant development plan policies.

7.53 This application is for the adaptation (modernisation) of an existing scrap metal facility that has operated from Sharpness Docks since approximately 1968. The application proposes to enclose the eastern, southern and western boundaries with a perimeter steel plate fence of 4 to 5 metres in height. It is further proposed, through the mitigation measures in the Noise Impact Assessment dated 30th July 2011 and subsequent supporting information, to increase the southeastern corner of the perimeter steel plate fence in a north and west direction from 4 to 7 metres, to significantly contribute towards mitigating noise arising from the site. In addition, the application proposes that a new weighbridge, office block and associated works be undertaken. These

are in essence replacing existing facilities that have become unfit for purpose. Finally the application proposes that additional plant; shear, baler and end of life vehicle building, can be installed so that the scrap metal facility can be brought up to modern standards and provide improved efficiency to the applicants scrap metal business.

7.54 Taking all considerations into account, in particular the design; height

and materials of the boundary fence; the shear, baler and end of life vehicle building, noise and impact on the Severn Estuary and the near neighbour objections, I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the policies and principles as set out in the development plan for the area. These plans and policies consist of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 particularly unsaved Policy 13 and saved Policies 24, 33, 37, 38, 39 and 40 and the Policies 1, 4, 7, 11 and 12.

7.55 I consider that the proposal does not seek to alter the existing

operational capacity of the site from that approved through the Certificate of Lawfulness permission (11/0043/STCERT); having an annual throughput of 95,000 tonnes, but to modernise the site and improve efficiency through the introduction of new plant and facilities. The boundary fence will provide security as well as the added benefits of visual and acoustic screening of the sites operations from the surrounding environment, particularly if increased where appropriate to 7 metres, which I consider can be controlled through planning conditions so that minimal impact on the surrounding environment occurs. I therefore consider that on balance there are no justifiable grounds to refuse the application.

7.56 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant development plan policies, including the following:

National Planning Policy Framework. 1, 4, 7, 11 and 12 Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012. Saved Policies 24, 33, 37, 38, 39 and 40

Unsaved Policies 13

8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 That planning permission is granted for the reasons set out in

paragraphs 7.53 to 7.56, subject to the conditions outlined below.

Commencement 1. The increase in the boundary fence height from 4 to 7 metres from the

southeastern corner of the development shall be commenced within 3 months of the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Scope of Development 2. The proposed development shall only be carried out in accordance with

the submitted application, supporting information and following plans:

• Plans (received 25th February 2011): o Location Plan (Promap) o Site Access and Circulation Routes o Drainage Plan o 13.6 x 6 m Elevation (EVL building) o Former Layout o Lighting and security Cameras o Machine Layout Drawing no G20527-772A o Proposed Office o Proposed Office Floor Plans o EMR Sharpness – Proposed 4 metre perimeter fence o EMR Sharpness – Proposed 5 metre perimeter fence o EMR Sharpness – Proposed Shear o Planning Application for Improvement Works o Details of 15 or (18) x 3m Weighbridge

• Plans (received 31st July 2012): o Revised Layout Plan Drawing no SH1RV dated 26-07-12 o Extension of Fence details by Car Park Drawing no SH

2Rv dated July 12 o Extension of Fence details by Road Drawing no SH3Rv

dated July 12 And

• Noise Impact Assessment (MAS Environmental) dated 30th July 2011 received 3rd August 2011

• MAS Environmental - Information on Noise – Barriers at Metals Recycling Sites dated December 2011

• MAS Environmental - Response to specific questions from Gloucestershire Planning - EMR Sharpness Planning Application

• MAS Environmental - Noise management plan (Consultation Draft subject to Peer Review) dated 10th February 2012 MAS

• Environmental – Noise Management Plan (Version 1 (April2012)) dated 2nd April 2012.

• MAS Environmental – Response to additional points raised by the Environment Agency on Planning and Noise Management Plan Submissions dated 10th July 2012.

Reason: In order to define the scope of this permission in accordance with Policies 11 and 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Operating Hours

3. The Shear and Baler hereby approved at the site shall operate only in

accordance with the following hours for the duration of the development:

07:00 - 17:00 Mondays to Fridays 07:00 to 12:00 noon on Saturdays No operation of the Shear an/or Baler shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays or other public holidays

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Lighting 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting scheme based on the approved

drawing entitled ‘Lighting and Security Cameras’ dated 12/11/10 to the Waste Authority for written approval within 3 months of the date of this permission. The lighting scheme shall include such details as:

• Specification of lighting being used

• Height of lighting columns

• Shrouding to be/being used

• Direction of light spill Thereafter the approved lighting scheme shall be fully implemented within 3 months of approval by the Waste Planning Authority and maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the surrounding environment is not adversely affected by light spillage from the site in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV)

5. The applicant shall submit a CCTV scheme based on the approved

drawing entitled ‘Lighting and Security Cameras’ dated 12/11/10 to the Waste Authority for written approval within 3 months of the date of this permission. The CCTV scheme shall include such details as:

• Specification of CCTV units to be/being used

• Height of CCTV columns

• Locations to be covered by CCTV cameras Thereafter the approved CCTV scheme shall be fully implemented within 3 months of approval by the Waste Planning Authority and maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining residential properties

within close proximity of the EMR site in accordance with policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Throughput 6. The annual throughput of the site shall not exceed 95,000 tonnes in

any calendar year (1st January to the 31st December). Reason: To accord with the permission granted through the Certificate

of Lawful Use (11/0043/STCERT) on the 13th December 2011 and to ensure that minimal impact is created on the surrounding highway in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012.

Record Keeping

7. From the date of commencement (as notified by the applicant through

other conditions of this permission) all records of imported/exported materials shall be kept for the duration of 3 years. The records will be made available within 7 days of a written request by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the maximum permitted throughput is not

exceeded to safeguard the surrounding road networks, residential properties and the environment in accordance with Policy 37 and 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Noise Fence Height 8. The boundary fence shall be erected and extended fully within 3

months of the date of commencement as notified by the applicant through other conditions of this permission. The extension of the fence shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans:

o Revised Layout Plan Drawing no SH1RV dated 26-07-12 o Extension of Fence details by Car Park Drawing no SH

2Rv dated July 12 o Extension of Fence details by Road Drawing no SH3Rv

dated July 12

And thereafter maintained as approved for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure that acoustic emissions are mitigated on the

surrounding environment in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 and Policy 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Fence Colouration 9. All steel plate security fencing shall be erected and coloured Empire

Green (BS 14C389) and maintained this colour for the duration of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the fencing does not detract from the

industrial setting and character of the working dock in accordance with Policies 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Container Wall 10. Any container wall screen within the boundary of the site created

through the stacking of steel containers shall not exceed 3 containers (approximately 7 metres) in height at any time for the duration of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the visual impact upon the surrounding

environment is mitigated to an acceptable level without outweighing the benefits that the container screen will provide in mitigating that are being used to mitigate noise emissions arising from the site in accordance with Policy 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012.

SMART Working Practices

11. The applicant shall implement the Smart Working Practices as approved in the Environmental – Noise Management Plan (Version 1

(April2012)) dated 2nd April 2012 fully within 6 months of the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that noise arising from the site is mitigated on the

surrounding environment in accordance with Policy 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012.

Noise Limits 12. The noise from the site caused by the operations hereby permitted

shall not exceed 55dB(A)Leq(1hour) as measured or calculated at the nearest sensitive noise receptor, in this instance the nearest residential property in either a north, east, south or west direction from the EMR site boundary with the microphone at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level and 3.5 metres from any reflective surface other than the ground.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residents and the local

environment in accordance with Policy 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Stockpile Heights 13. The stockpile(s) height directly associated with feeding the Baler in the

southeast corner of the site shall not exceed 7 metres in height at any time for the duration of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the visual and noise impact on the surrounding environment is mitigated to an acceptable level in accordance with Policy 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Storage Facilities

14. 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 shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank/vessel plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipe work, vents, gauges, and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Reason: To prevent the pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy 33 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Permitted Development Rights

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of parts 4 and 8 of Schedule 2 of the

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order), no fixed plant or machinery, building or structures shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced on any part of the site permitted through this permission.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the local environment in accordance

with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

Burning of Materials and/or Substances 16. No materials or any substances shall be burnt or permitted to be burnt

at the site hereby approved for the duration of the development. Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people

living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 - 2012.

BACK GROUND PAPERS:

Planning Application 11/0012/STMAJW District Ref: S.11/0542/CM

Forms and accompanying plans Consultation Responses Letters of Representations

CONTACT OFFICER Mr Stephen Colegate Senior Planning Officer Planning Unit 01452 425771

Application History.

Consultee Time Taken in Weeks

Stroud District Council 3 Weeks 1 Day

Hinton Parish Council 27 Weeks 2 Days

Archaeology

6 Days

Development Co-ordination 4 Weeks 6 Days

British Waterways 3 Weeks 5 Days

Natural England No Representation

Ecology 1 Week 2 Days

County Drainage Engineer No Representation

Environment Agency 4 Weeks 2 Days

County Mineral and Waste Policy No Representation

Time Taken. 79 Weeks 3 Days

Reason for Delay: Initially held in abeyance with agreement from

applicant until the Lawful Use of the site had been determined through planning application 11/0043/STCERT; established Lawful on the 13th December 2011. Thereafter through protracted discussions with the Environment Agency’s Environmental Permitting Team and Acousticians and the need for the applicant to submit additional information/clarification on noise emissions.