reference: site - thurrock · of the by-products of the process is wood dust which is stored in the...

Planning Committee 01 October 2015 Application Reference: 14/01290/FUL

Reference:14/01290/FUL

Site: Rekola RecyclingUnit 12Star Industrial EstateLinford RoadChadwell St MaryEssexRM16 4AT

Ward:East Tilbury

Proposal: Change of use of land and buildings to a Waste Management and Recycle Facility (Use Class B2)

Plan Number(s):Reference Name Received 5435 REV A Site Layout 1st July 2015

The application is also accompanied by:

Flood Risk Assessment Traffic Impact Assessment Noise Report Permit Correspondence from Environment Agency Permit Generic Risk Assessment Design and Access Statement Rev 01.07.2015

Applicant:Mr Adam Honte

Validated: 9 March 2015Date of expiry: 2nd October 2015

Recommendation: To Refuse

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee due to the level of public interest in relation to the proposal.

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the existing commercial site, consisting of approximately 1.49 Hectares within


Star Industrial Estate, to a waste management site involving recycling of wood. This application has been submitted retrospectively and the use currently operates from both existing buildings within the site and in open areas.

1.2 The use consists of the importation of waste wood from construction and civic amenity sites. The vehicles carrying wood are first weighed in the northern area of the site and the wood is off loaded from vehicles and stored in an open area to the south of the processing building waiting to be processed. The wood is then moved to the processing building by plant where machinery sorts and shreds the wood within the open sided industrial building. It is then stored in the open, having been deposited there from a conveyor belt from the processing building. It is stockpiled to the West of the processing building awaiting export to the end users for use a fuel or furniture in an international market. This wood is loaded into empty vehicles by loading grab and deposited into horizontal containers on articulated lorries or loaded into a vertical container via container tilt. One of the by-products of the process is wood dust which is stored in the west side of the site which is also exported (once per week) to be used by abattoirs.

1.3 The equipment used within the open sided building includes a shredder and screener. Other equipment used on the site includes a diesel bowser, dust suppression system, generator and vehicles to move wood around the site.

1.4 The site has an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency, which permits the processing of non-hazardous wood with a maximum treatment limit of 75 000 tonnes per year. The applicant states that the use operates between 0700 hrs and 1700 hrs Monday to Friday, 0700 hrs until 1300 hrs on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site is located to the south of the existing Cowards Industrial Estate and vehicular access, which is via St Johns Road to the north, is shared by both commercial sites. The application site is located adjacent to a textile recycling facility located to the west and the former feathers café which is no longer in use (located to the east).

2.2 The site is found adjacent to the west of Sandy Lane, which is a narrow access, used by residential occupiers to the east of the site. The boundary of the application site is treated with a 2.4 metre high palisade fence. The site slopes down towards the south, with a significant change in land levels between the industrial estate the land to the South. Due to its elevated position, there are distant views towards both Tilbury and East Tilbury from the application site. The site is also visible when travelling along St Chads Road from Tilbury.


2.3 The application site is designated within the Interim Proposals Map as a Secondary Industrial and Commercial Area and the land to the east and west is designated as being within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 The relevant history for the site is as follows:

Application Reference

Description Decision

52/00137/FUL Workshop and store Approved 52/00201/FUL Industrial layout Approved59/00115/FUL Erection of single storey factory building for the

manufacture of precast concrete productsApproved

60/00318/FUL Erection of a single storey factory building for the manufacture of precast concrete products, Stage II

Approved

60/00426/FUL Works Canteen Approved 61/00162/FUL Factory canteen Approved61/00299/FUL The development of two single storey factory

buildingsApproved

63/00190/FUL Single storey building for the manufacture of precast concrete products

Approved

64/00784/FUL New Panel Shed & Carpenters Shop Approved 71/00071/FUL Land to be used for open air storage of timber. Approved71/00129/FUL Amenities Block, Showers, Toilets, Change room Approved71/00684/FUL Installation of replacement concrete mixing plant. Approved77/01204/FUL Container Repair and construction equipment

manufacture.Approved

78/01384/FUL Change of use of two show buildings to office and erect a demountable office building (Additional Plans Received 12.4.79) (Drawing Nos. 1 and E.W.D. 22)

Approved

80/01195/FUL Shed for the curing of precast concrete wall panels. Approved86/00352/FUL Workshop Extension. Approved87/00747/FUL Replacement concrete Batching Plant. Approved 91/00778/FUL Change of Use to Tyre Retreading Plant with

Ancillary Offices/Storage.Approved

05/00633/FUL Change of use of unit no 6 from storage (B8) to mechanical repairs and MOT testing of vehicles (B2).

Approved

13/00779/FUL Change of use from storage and distribution (Use Class B8) to cafe (Use Class A3) to provide refreshment for logistics park drivers and personnel.

Approved

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. The full version of each consultation response can be viewed on the Council’s website via public access at the following link:


www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01290/FUL

PUBLICITY:

4.2 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter, site notices and press notice. 55 responses have been received from 48 separate contributors to the public consultation, including The Chadwell Community Forum. The responses raise the following concerns:

Pollution from wood dust and vehicle movements; Litter and smells; Loss of privacy; Excessive Noise from machinery and vehicles manoeuvring; Spoiling the view; Excessive working hours from 6am until 18.30 Monday to Saturday; Excessive dust; Concerns relating to health; Increased traffic to the site; The Cross Keys Junction is not adequate to allow for turning of large

vehicles; Highway safety concerns and increased congestion on surrounding

roads;

HIGHWAYS:

4.3 No objection subject to conditions.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

4.4 No objections subject to conditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:

4.5 Objection on the basis that the Noise Assessment submitted has not included the assessment of the noise of all the equipment used on site, specifically the wood shredder. It is recommended a more robust noise assessment is carried out to the regulation standard and suitable mitigation measures should be recommended and incorporated into the design of any structure.

FLOOD RISK MANAGER:

4.6 No objections.

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the

http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01290/FUL


Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.

1. Building a strong, competitive economy7. Requiring good design10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change

National planning policy for waste (October 2014) and the waste management plan for England

The guidance contained with these policies seeks to encourage recycling of waste in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

5.3 In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub-topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:

- Design;- Determining planning applications- Noise- Flexible options for planning permissions. - Waste

Local Planning Policy

Thurrock Local Development Framework

5.4 The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011.The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:

CSSP2 - Sustainable Employment Growth CSTP6 - Strategic Employment Provision


CSTP22 - Thurrock Design CSTP29 - Waste Storage CSTP30 - Regional Waste Apportionment PMD1 - Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity2 PMD2 - Design and Layout2 PMD8 - Parking Standards

1: New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2: Wording of LDF-CS Policy and foreword amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3: Wording of foreword to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy.

Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy

5.5 This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The amendments were adopted by the Council is January 2015.

Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD

5.6 This Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. The site is identified as a housing site without permission in the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options (January 2013). The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination where their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation in Thurrock. The report to the 12th February 2014 Cabinet sets out a number of options for taking forward development plan making in Thurrock. Work has commenced on the production on a new integrated Local Plan. In light of this, there will be a fresh call for sites and the draft SSADPD will not be advanced.

Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock

5.7 The above report was considered at the February meeting 2014 of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of


the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up-to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main considerations for this application are:

1. The principle of development2. Transport and Access3. Dust4. Noise5. Impact upon visual amenity6. Flood Risk

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 The site is allocated as being within a Secondary Industrial and Commercial Area on the LDF Core Strategy Interim Proposals Map. The principle of an employment use on this site is therefore presently acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant policies within the plan.

6.3 The use of the site involves the recycling of waste wood. In accordance with Article 4 (Waste Hierarchy) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008, the development would result in less waste being taken to landfill for disposal and enable a more sustainable use of waste products arising from both construction sites and civic amenity sites. In this instance the wood would be used as fuel and to make furniture. In addition, the metal and wood mulch generated as a by-product of the process allows its reuse rather than disposal. The principle of the use on an existing commercial site is generally acceptable subject to compliance with other requirements in the framework and planning policy.

6.4 Policy CSTP29 (Waste Strategy), details the strategy for the waste within the Borough. The aims of the policy are to drive waste up the waste hierarchy and increase the re-use/recycling and recovery of waste. It also requires the co-location of a range of waste management activities within Tilbury, Purfleet and London Gateway as identified within the key diagram. This site is not allocated as a waste site within the key diagram. However, the policy also seeks to ensure waste management facilities are located within appropriate employment locations. The principle of locating a waste management/recycling use within an employment area is in principle acceptable.

2. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS


6.5 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application states that the use generates goods vehicles trips of 14 in and 14 out per day during Monday to Friday and 10 in and 10 out on a Saturday with 5 in and 5 out trips associated with staff at the site. The level and type of traffic generated for this particular use is not dissimilar to previous commercial on this site or the adjacent site, which is used for storage and distribution.

6.6 The advice from the Council’s Highways Team raises no objections to the generation of traffic subject to the imposition of planning conditions on any consent granted requiring the provision of parking for staff within the site and controlling the vehicle routing to prevent goods vehicles travelling along Brentwood Road to or from the A13. Subject to conditions, the proposal would comply with the aims and objectives of PMD8 of the Core Strategy.

3. DUST

6.7 The operators of the site have an Environmental Permit for the site which allows sorting, separating, cutting, pulverising, shredding and chipping of waste wood for recovery. This permit allows for 75,000 tonnes of wood waste to be accepted at the site in any one year and the storage of 10,000 tonnes of wood in total at any one time. Currently, the wood is stored in the open at heights well in excessive of the existing boundary treatments and the ridge heights of some of the existing buildings on site. The processing of the wood is undertaken in an open sided building which is located close to the eastern boundary of the site with a fully open side which faces South. The site is located in an elevated position close to the top of Chadwell Hill.

6.8 Policy PMD1 states that development will not be permitted where it would cause or likely cause unacceptable effects on: the amenity, health and safety of the area, of others or the natural environment. It states that the Council will require assessments to accompany planning applications where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a development may suffer from or cause air pollution. It also states that where the assessment confirms potential harm, planning permission will only be granted if satisfactory solutions can be achieved through design or suitable mitigation measures can be put in place through planning conditions or planning obligation. Where an assessment is not forthcoming the Council may refuse permission on a precautionary basis.

6.9 The Environment Agency (EA) advises that planning permission could be granted if a planning condition were included to ensure that processing of wood only occurs inside a building and a dust suppression system is installed within that building. The EA advises that without such a condition and mitigation measures, the development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and they would object to the application. The EA raises a number of concerns in relation to how the use was operating at the time of their response (April 2015) and these concerns included the processing of wood in the open areas of the site, the height of wood piles stored in the open which were in excess of the boundary


treatments and screening/netting. They recommended that the boundary treatment and fencing is improved and increased in height to mitigate harm to residents in relation to dust emissions. Some netting has been installed on existing boundary fencing and additional netting has been installed adjacent to the wood piles. However, this is not currently adequate to mitigate the dust arising.

6.10 The applicant submitted a Summary of Environment Management System (reference EMS/0013) dated July 2014 (version 2) with the application. Paragraph 4.6 of that document details the mitigation measures for containment of dust, which include management measures within the site, use of sprinkler and misting equipment to dampen down the dust and other ‘soft’ measures, including meetings with residents and attendance at Community Forums.

6.11 On 4th September 2015 the EA advised the Council and residents near to the site that they were working with the operator to improve the dust management procedures. These measures included formulating action plans, significantly reducing the quantity of wood on the site, installing a sprinkler system, moving all processing operations into a building and improving containment measures such as boundary fencing/netting. The latest mitigation measures recommended by the EA are:

1. Fine mesh netting around the site boundary to be increased in height to 5 metres around the storage area and processing building, including the entrance gate beside Sandy Lane.

2. Wood stack sizes to be reduced in size and stack height indicators to be painted at 3 metres on the processing building wall and other site infrastructure

3. Dust emissions monitoring, including regular off site monitoring, to be implemented. This includes deploying a portable dust monitoring device which will alarm at pre-set conditions.

4. A sprinkler system will be fitted on top of the container lift.

6.12 The Environment Agency has also advised that on the 21st August 2015 they served an Enforcement Notice in relation to a Breach of Permit Condition. The breach relates to the storage of waste wood in the southern area of the site for in excess of 3 months. The Notice requires the removal of wood from the southern area of the site, adjacent to the telecommunications mast by 2nd November 2015. This does not prevent the processing of wood on the site but a reduction in the stockpile of wood currently stored. It should be noted that a breach of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 does not preclude the Council from granting consent or taking formal enforcement action in relation to breaches of planning control as the operator would be required to comply with both separate pieces of legislation.

6.13 Although this is an application to retain the use currently operating from the site it also includes a site layout plan which includes additional dust suppression measures, some of which have not been implemented on the


site. These measures include the use of fine mist sprays within the processing building, the use of portable fog cannons located to the south of the processing building and adjacent to the container tipper to the west of the processing building and the use of a fire hose for use on the processed wood pile. In a recent visit to the site it appears that not all of these dust suppression measures were in use. In addition, the proposed dust mitigation plan as detailed in 1-4 above had also not been implemented. The complaints from residents have continued throughout the time that the use has operated.

6.14 In any application for planning permission, the Council must assess the application on the basis of adopted development plan policies and government advice. In this case, the government advice which is contained within Paragraph: 001Reference ID: 21a-001-20140306 of the National Planning Practice Guidance, is particularly relevant. This advises that;

“When used properly, conditions can enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development. The objectives of planning are best served when the power to attach conditions to a planning permission is exercised in a way that is clearly seen to be fair, reasonable and practicable. It is important to ensure that conditions are tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than standardised or used to impose broad unnecessary controls.”

6.15 If it is clear that the use could be controlled to such a level that this would mitigate the harm then an application for planning permission could be approved subject to those limitations. It appears that the dust arising is mainly due to the excessive height of the wood piles and loading is undertaken without adequate dampening. If the wood piles were limited to 3 metres, additional screening was implemented and adequate dampening was utilised during loading and unloading of wood, it is likely that these limitations could reduce the dust arising to an acceptable level.

6.16 In concluding this section, it is considered that suitably worded conditions in accordance with EA advice could adequately control the operation to an extent that they would protect the amenity, health and safety of nearby residents and prevent harm arising due to dust. Therefore, subject to conditions, the proposal would not cause significant demonstrable harm as a result of dust.

4. NOISE

6.17 As described above, the operation involves the processing of wood within an existing building close to the eastern boundary. The southern side of the building is open and the walls and roof consist of single skin corrugated metal sheeting with some glazed sections in the roof. All the wood, whether processed or awaiting processing, is stored in open areas of the


site to a height of approximately 6 metres (although this height is subject to fluctuations dependent on site operation).

6.18 In accordance with Policy PMD1, the application is accompanied by a Noise Assessment which has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Team. The Noise Assessment includes the assessment of an out of date British Standard and was undertaken at a time when not all equipment currently being used was in operation. Therefore, the assessment considered noise generated by diesel vehicles moving about the site but not the noise associated with other equipment required to mitigate the harm arising from dust. Therefore, equipment including the surface mounted weighbridge, dust suppressions system, shredder, screener, container lift, loading grab, loading shovel, diesel bowser, and generator have not been fully assessed.

6.19 The assessment therefore, fails to fully consider all the machinery and the cumulative noise arising from the use in close proximity to the site boundaries and residential properties in the vicinity. In the absence of a proper and robust assessment, together with the concern raised by residents, it is considered that the manner in which the use currently operates has an unacceptable impact upon residents. The wood processing building is poorly sited, designed and insufficiently insulated to contain the plant and machinery and would require substantial changes in order to likely make it a suitable enclosure for wood processing. In the absence of an adequate and robust assessment and thereafter suitable mitigation measures, the use of the site for wood recycling is contrary to Policy PMD1 as it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity and health as a result of noise caused by the use.

6.20 The applicants Design and Access Statement states that the current opening hours are Monday to Friday 0700hrs to 1700 hrs and Saturday 0700 hrs to 1300 hrs. However, a sign attached to the gates advises the opening hours are until 1800 hrs Monday to Friday. The information received from residents and the EA advises that the use has operated prior to 0700 and after 1700 hrs on Weekdays and past 1300 hours on a Saturday. It is clear that the use as a wood recycling site results in noise associated with equipment used for processing. It is acknowledged that other commercial uses, including the storage and distribution use in the Cowards Estate adjacent, have operation times between 0700 and 1900 and the site access from St Johns Road cannot be used by HGVs outside the hours of 6am and 10pm. However, storage and distribution uses are materially different to those uses applied for in this application. It should be noted that in the approval of a general industrial use for Unit 6, Star Industrial Estate a vehicle maintenance use was permitted subject to restriction in operation hours.

6.21 The Council is required to consider whether suitable planning restrictions could make the current use acceptable. It is clear from the assessment by Environmental Health and the complaints received from residents that the current operation has an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of nearby


residents and the hours of use are excessive considering the manner in which the site operates. However, in the absence of an adequate noise assessment which would identify and propose suitable design features which is likely to include additional buildings, and structures such as noise barriers, the Council is unable to use conditions to limit the harm as the mitigation required is unknown at this time. Therefore, the application should be refused on this basis.

5. IMPACT UPON VISUAL AMENITY

6.22 The use operates from the open and within existing buildings. Currently the wood piles associated with the wood processing are in excess of the existing boundary fencing and in some instances above the height of other commercial buildings on the site. The site is located on higher ground, as viewed from the west and the south and the wood pile located in the southern part of the site is clearly visibly from lower ground to the south. The unkempt piles of materials have a detrimental impact upon the landscape and the visual amenity of the wider area.

6.23 As detailed above, the mitigation measures required for both dust and noise mitigation would likely result in changes to the existing buildings on site, construction of new buildings, a reduction in the height of the piles of wood and additional screening and fencing which would likely materially affect the appearance of the site and the impact upon nearby residents and wider landscape. However, in the absence of a robust assessment of noise and dust the level of mitigation required is unknown. Therefore the Council is unable to fully assess the impact of the proposal in line with Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy.

6. FLOOD RISK

6.24 The site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 and utilises an existing commercial site which is covered in hardstanding. There are no objections to the proposal on flood risk grounds therefore.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL

7.1 The existing use, without mitigation is harmful to residents’ amenity, health and safety arising from both dust and noise. The harmful effects of dust may be adequately mitigated by reducing the size and height of the piles of wood in open areas of the site and implementation of other mitigation measures which could also be acceptable in terms of visual amenity and the appearance of the wider landscape. These matters could be controlled by suitably worded planning conditions. However, the noise assessment submitted is inadequate and there is a lack of information in relation to noise mitigation measures.

7.2 The Council has considered potential to control the use by planning conditions to make the use acceptable but due to the lack of information submitted and the existing harmful effects upon residents no suitable


conditions have been found to be appropriate in this instance. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal due to it being contrary to Policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

A) To refuse permission for the reasons set out below.

B) To authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice under S.172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to authorise any subsequent legal action to enforce the provisions of that Notice to remedy the breaches of planning control identified in this report.

Reason(s):

1. Policy PMD1 of the Core Strategy (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity states that development will not be permitted where it would cause or likely cause unacceptable effects on: the amenity, health and safety of the area, of others or the natural environment. It states that the Council will require assessments to accompany planning applications where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a development may suffer from or cause air or noise pollution. It also states that where the assessment confirms potential harm, planning permission will only be granted if satisfactory solutions can be achieved through design or suitable mitigation measures can be put in place through planning conditions or planning obligation. Where an assessment is not forthcoming the Council may refuse permission on a precautionary basis.

Policy PMD2 of the Core Strategy (Design and Layout) requires that all design proposals should respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings and must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed and should seek to contribute positively to local views, townscape, heritage assets and natural features and contribute to the creation of a positive sense of place.

The use of the site as a waste wood recycling facility causes significant demonstrable harm to the amenity, health and safety of nearby residents, particularly those who reside in Sandy Lane. The Noise Assessment submitted is inadequate and there is a lack of information in relation to noise mitigation measures. Due to the lack of information submitted and the existing harmful effects upon residents the Council is unable to ensure the harmful effects are appropriately mitigated. It is also unclear how the mitigation measures would affect the visual amenity of the wider landscape.


Therefore, the development is unacceptable and contrary to policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Core Strategy.

Documents:

All background documents including application forms, drawings and other supporting documentation relating to this application can be viewed online: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01290/FUL

Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL.

http://regs.thurrock.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NFLF7EQG0FD00