Agenda item

Change of use: vehicle depot to material recycling facility (B2 Use Classes)

Watsons Yard, Barrington Road, Bedlington, Northumberland

NE22 7AH

Change of use: vehicle depot to material recycling facility (B2 Use Classes) 

Watsons Yard, Barrington Road, Bedlington, Northumberland 

NE22 7AH 

R Soulsby, Planning Officer provided an introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.

P Johnstone addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following information:

·       She was addressing the Committee speaking on behalf of residents who were very upset about this application from three separate parishes.

·       The application site was on Barrington Road and was not on the industrial estate, and had historically been used for commercial/storage purposes and it should not be allowed to be used for industrial purposes.

·       A number of new housing estates and individual properties had been built in close proximity to the site and the officer at the previous meeting had not been aware of a new property which had been built just 50m away from the application site. These were not part of the original settlement of Bedlington Station.  The lack of knowledge of the local area was apparent. 

·       Residents were aware that if this application was refused at this stage and the applicant appealed and won then the County Council would be liable for costs, however the residents considered it was the duty of the County Councillors to support their residents and this support was much needed in this instance. 

·       The site visit did not take in any views from residential properties and no skips were in operation at the time and therefore Members did not experience the noise from the site.  The applicant had also moved wagons after 6pm the evening before, which was in contravention of the existing permission, to hide the views and proximity of the residential properties. 

·       She questioned the suitability of the metal shed to house the machinery to be used as buildings such as this were notorious for containing asbestos.

·       The photos contained in the objections showed how close the skips were to properties and the type of waste and rubble collected.

·       The noise currently from the site with the skips already caused distress to neighbouring residents once the trommel was introduced this would cause more noise and disturbance.  This would rotate for 30 minutes per hour for 10 hours per day with all rubble being tipped inside.  A front loading machine would also be used inside the building.  All this with skips coming in and out for 10 hours per day and 6 hours on a Saturday, provided that the timescales were adhered to.  This amount of noise had not been accounted for and policy GP23 was read out to the Committee.

·       This was not the right place for this type of facility, they could not stress how close this was to residential properties.  She highlighted a YouTube video in which the Director of Planning had stated that outdoor space was important to towns and communities and how people shouldn’t be forced into cars to seek out this type of area.

·       Just because this area had become more industrialised it was not right to continue to allow more industrial uses.  There were already 3 other recycling centres within 2 miles of Bedlington.

Councillor Foster addressed the meeting speaking on behalf of residents as the Local Ward Councillor.  Her comments included the following:-

·       Residents feared there would be an adverse effect on their quality of health and wellbeing if this application was approved.

·       She had represented residents a few years ago in relation to another recycling centre, located on the Barrington Industrial Estate, which had been further away from properties and had mitigation provided for dust and noise, however these were not sufficient and residents had continued to suffer and this site would be no different. 

·       She had been pleased that the application had been deferred at the last meeting in order for a site visit to be undertaken, but had been contacted by residents the evening before the visit was to take place to advise that trailers were being moved along the boundary of the site. She had been very disappointed on attending the site visit that trailers had been parked all along the boundary in order in order to screen the residential properties. However there was a small gap and Members were able to see how close it was to the property which reinforced the views of the residents.

·       It had been confirmed that there was asbestos in the building and it was stated at the site visit that this would be stripped out and replaced. She would ask that the Committee request a condition be imposed to any permission granted requesting a scheme be submitted for building works.

·       The application was detrimental to residential amenity with the outdoor use of their properties restricted due to the impact of the noise and dust pollution coming from the site.  Over the forthcoming warmer months this would increase as residents would have windows open for ventilation and were trying to use their outdoor spaces.  It was likely that doors to the building housing the machinery would also be open at these times.

·       It stated in paragraph 7.15 that the nearest residential property was 50m away from the site, it was in fact only 20m from gardens of some properties according to google earth.  One property was only 40m from the boundary of the site.

·       There was also a food establishment very close to the application site and excess dust would be of a concern where food was being prepared and served.

·       The intensification of work at the site would lead to increased noise impacts for residents and would affect their wellbeing.

·       Whilst increased employment opportunities were welcomed this application would create very few jobs at the expense of the amenity of a lot of residents.  There was also the question of whether another recycling facility in this area was needed so close to a larger site which although was not running at full capacity at the current time would shortly return to pre-covid levels.

·       She asked that the Committee listen to residents and refuse the application.

K Wood, Agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       She hoped that the site visit helped Members appreciate the proposed development and the reason why it would not impact on the residents. It was recognised there were a number of residential properties surrounding the site and the operations had been discussed in detail with Public Protection Officers. The operations would also require an Environment Agency permit which would set out exactly how the site would need to operate in order that it would not have an impact on residential properties.  Following the previous meeting she had forwarded details of what this could include and the dust management plan which would be incorporated within this.

·       Whilst the applicant has another operational site on Barrington Road the empty skip wagons were already stored at this site and had been for a number of years.  The waste collected in the skips returning to the site was expected to be mostly demolition or excavation waste and would be tipped and recycled inside the building. 

·       In relation to concerns regarding the trommel and the asbestos, there were no proposals to alter the external appearance of the building at the current time. 

·       All the waste would be tipped and recycled inside the building and any unexpected waste would be isolated and taken to another appropriate facility.  The applicant also intended to provide a concrete skim inside the building to reduce any noise impact.

·       The site was located on an established industrial estate with two concrete batching plants close by.

·       Local and National planning policies support the reuse of the building as a recycling facility.   The applicant already operated a skip hire business from this yard and currently all waste went to the Ellington Road Landfill which had no recycling facilities as the Remondis site was currently shut.  This was not in accordance with waste hierarchy and increased greenhouse gases by increasing road haulage and he wished to be able to recycle on his own site.

·       It was proposed to alter the access to the estate to allow the Football Factory to have its own vehicular/pedestrian access.  The impact of additional traffic on Barrington Road had been considered carefully with transport consultants.

·       Concerns from residents had been discussed in detail with Public Protection and the applicant would continue to do this.  The Environment Agency (EA) permit will ensure it operated with no impact.  If there was a complaint then EA Officers could come out and alter the permit to address any concerns. 

·       There were no objections from statutory consultees and therefore she asked that the recommendation to approve the application be supported.  She advised that the applicant would seek to work with residents to prevent to ensure there were no impacts on them.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·       It was a long established industrial estate with this type of use acceptable and a range of other industrial activities already taking place on the estate.

·       A condition would be attached to any permission granted which would restrict the operation of the site to 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturday with no Sunday or Bank Holiday working.

·       Condition 10 would be imposed to control dust during the construction phase of the development and the Environmental Permit would control dust when the site was operating.  Other standard conditions would also control dust and noise from the site.

·       In respect of possible asbestos disturbance within the building, the submission of a Full Construction Method Statement for the building could be conditioned which would provide details of any works the applicant wished to undertake, steps to be taken and materials to be used.

·       A concrete boundary wall was proposed along the northern boundary of the site, but nothing was proposed for the eastern boundary which ran alongside the railway line, however this could be done under permitted development rights, or this could be conditioned if Members required this to be undertaken. 

·       Works to be undertaken inside the building did not require planning permission however it was indicated that a concrete skim would be incorporated in the existing premises.

·       A statement could be included in the management condition which would state that the doors of the existing building were to remain closed during operations at all times.

·       The use of conditions was a belt and braces approach to this application as Legislation suggested that Public Protection should not seek to duplicate the controls which were imposed through the EA permit.  It had to be presumed that conditions would work to control noise levels from the site with Public Protection providing reactive enforcement

·       The EA permit would control the day to day operations on the site and would proactively carry out visits to provide spot checks with the number of these being dependent on the type of operations being undertaken and any complaints received which was the standard approach for waste management sites.  The tools would be in place to rectify any problems and make sure the use of the site was acceptable.  This was not a new site, it was on an existing industrial estate with a variety of uses and activities able to be undertaken. 

Councillor Dodd proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report with the additional conditions discussed relating to a construction/works management plan including details of any removal of asbestos; internal concrete skim; perimeter treatment to the eastern boundary; and that doors should remain closed at all times whilst recycling operations took place with the precise wording of these additional conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair, which was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

It was clarified that in requesting details in the construction management plan then Planning Officers would consult with Public Protection to ensure that the most appropriate information would be provided.

In debating the application, Members stated that whilst they were not particularly happy with the application and had sympathy with local residents they considered that any refusal would lead to an appeal and a subsequent loss of control over any conditions imposed on the site. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application with the conditions as outlined in the report and additional conditions and delegated authority as outlined above as follows:- FOR 9; AGAINST 0; ABSTENTIONS 2.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and additional conditions related to a construction/works management plan including details of any removal of asbestos; internal concrete skim; perimeter treatment to an existing boundary; and that doors should remain closed at all times whilst recycling operations took place with the precise wording of these additional conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair.

4.50 pm Councillor Foster returned to the room at this point and took the Chair.  Councillor Dodd left the meeting.