APPLICATION NO: 14/0105/STMAJW
DISTRICT REF: S.14/2834/CM
VALIDATION DATE: 24th October 2014
AGENT: Kemp and Kemp Property Consultants, Elms Court, Botley, Oxford OX2 9LP
APPLICANT: Leda Properties Limited
SITE: Building 107 (South), Aston Down Business Park, Gypsy Lane, Minchinhampton, GL6 8HR
PROPOSAL: Retrospective change of use of the southern part of Building 107 and yard from a light industrial (B1) use to a skip hire and waste recycling operation (sui generis) (Resubmission)
PARISH OF: Minchinhampton
SITE AREA: 0.33 ha
GRID REF: E: 390618 N: 201090
RECOMMENDATION: Planning permission is granted for the reasons set out in this report summarised in paragraph 7.57 to 7.60 and subject to the conditions detailed in section 8.0 of the report.
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 The application site is located on the Aston Down Business Park, a former Ministry of Defence (MOD) airfield, south east of Stroud and south of the A419 running between Cirencester and Stroud. The villages of Minchinhampton lie about 3 kilometres to the west and Chalford approximately 2 kilometres to the north.
1.2 The application site measures some 0.33 ha and comprises the southern end of a former aircraft hangar known as Building 107 and land immediately to the east and south of the building. The building is partitioned off internally, separating 658 square metres of the floorspace from another tenant occupying the northern portion of the building. Large sliding hangar doors are located on the southern elevation. The southern boundary of the application site is delineated by a belt of mature conifers. The eastern site boundary abuts a section of grassed landscaping verge. Open pasture land lies beyond the tree belt to the south and west of the application site, although still forming part of the Aston Down Business Park site. Buildings 104 and 105 lie approximately 70 metres to the east of the application site, separated from the application site by an area of former hard surfaced aircraft apron.
1
2
1.3 The application site access is via the security controlled Aston Down main site entrance to the north. Access to the main site is from a side road known as Gypsy Lane heading south from Cirencester Road. This road also provides access to the DEFRA building, located to the west of the Aston Down Business Park entrance. Cirencester Road meets the A419 at a new roundabout approximately 600 metres east of the junction of Gypsy Lane with Cirencester Road. The nearest residential properties to the application site are Hyde Meadows and New Barn Farm, both located on the Cirencester Road more than 500 metres north of the application site.
1.4 The Aston Down Business Park site lies largely on a plateau on the wold top of the Cotswold Hills and within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Rodborough Common Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) along with Minchinhampton Common, also designated a SSSI, are 4 kilometres from the site. There are no public rights of way on or close to the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application has been submitted by Leda Properties Limited (the Applicant), the owners of the business park, although Dave Skinner Groundworks (DSG) is the tenant who has been operating an unauthorised skip hire and waste transfer operation from the application site since September 2011. The application is a resubmission of the same proposal under reference 13/0058/STMAJW which was refused planning permission by Gloucestershire County Council on 12th December 2013. The Applicant appealed that decision but the appeal was dismissed on 15th April 2014 by the Planning Inspectorate for the following reasons. “The proposal conflicts with WCS Policy WCS14 as, by reason of the restrictive area of search, it has failed to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites outside the AONB. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that there is a market need for the development in this location. Although the level of harm caused to the AONB would be limited by the relatively small scale of the site involved and mitigation, there would nonetheless be harm to the AONB from those aspects of the proposal which require external storage. I am not persuaded by the evidence that adequate or sufficient reasons have been put forward for allowing the development and which would outweigh the harm I have identified.” (A copy of the Inspector’s decision can be seen at Appendix 1 of this report).
2.2 The Applicant has sought to address the reasons for dismissal in this application by providing information on alternative locations available, outside the AONB. Property Agents, Montgomery Watton were instructed by the Applicant to carry out a property search for an alternative building of 6,000 square feet (557 square metres) with a secure yard of 10,000-12,000 square feet (929-1115 square metres) with access for HGV, with an economic rent to reflect the nature of the business, within a search area of 20 mile radius of GL6 8GA. The search area included Dursley and Sharpness, although Sharpness slightly exceeded the 20 mile radius (23 miles). The letter from Montgomery Watton submitted with the application states that letters were sent to over 40 commercial letting agents and the Econonic Development 3
Departments of 10 local authorities surrounding the application site. The letting agents were based in Bristol, Cheltenham, Cirencester, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Coleford, Swindon, Chippenham, Bourton on the Water and Leatherhead. The local authorities approached were Cheltenham Borough Council, Cotswold District Council, Forest of Dean District Council, Gloucester City Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Swindon Borough Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council, West Oxfordshire District Council, Wiltshire Council and Wychavon District Council.
2.3 The letter dated 27th October 2014 from Montgomery Watton advises us that only one possible site from an agent, in addition to his own internet search of sites such as Rightmove Commercial and responses from local authorities, came forward for further investigation that was located at the end of the Golden Valley Bypass. This site was found to be not suitable due to the restricted eaves height of the building and the rental was in excess of the client’s budget.
2.4 The Applicant provided access to the Mineral Planning Authority of the Waste Transfer Notes and invoices for skip deliveries between the period October 2013 and September 2014. The information was summarised in a table showing the number of deliveries by month and location in order to protect the commercial sensitivity of the information and for data protection. The table summary explains that 90% of the skips were delivered to customers within a 10 mile radius of the site and less than 1% were delivered to customers beyond a 15 mile radius. This information was provided to show the location of customers served in relation to the site.
2.5 Building 107 has an approved B1 – light industrial Use Class. A planning application was made in August 2012 to regularise the retrospective change of use of the site from the approved B1 Use Class to a skip hire and waste recycling operation. These activities are without a Use Class because it is of its own kind (known as sui generis under the Use Classes Order 1987 as amended). The planning application was subsequently withdrawn and a second application submitted in July 2013 to include a greater area of land to the east of the building to accommodate earth bunds that provide additional visual screening for the external storage area along the northern and eastern site boundaries.
2.6 The Applicant describes the business as skips being dispatched to local building contractors and returning skips being emptied onto the floor of the building for sorting of materials for recycling. Wood, metal, plastic, cardboard, hardcore and soil are separated into skips within the building to be bulked up before onward transportation off the site. “The wood, metals and plastics are taken to a local recycling specialist and the majority of soil and hardcore is reused locally on groundwork contracts. A mini Guidetti mobile concrete crusher will be used within the building.” “The operation necessitates the storage of small quantities of soil and hardcore in the yard adjacent to the building in the locations illustrated on the accompanying plan entitled ‘Block Plan’. The yard is screened from public vantage points by an established line of vegetation and bound by 3 metre high soil bund lining the eastern perimeter of the site. The total quantity of stockpiled material is limited in extent and does not, at any point exceed 3.5 metres in height. ” 4
2.7 The waste material brought onto the site in the skips is primarily construction and demolition and excavation waste with a throughput of up to 15,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), 1,000 tpa of commercial and industrial waste and 2,500 tpa of municipal waste. The operation does not involve the handling or use of hazardous materials. The application form states that the proposal will create 8 full time equivalent jobs and would operate between the hours of 0730 and 1700 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1200 hours on Saturdays with no operations taking place on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays.
2.8 Information supplied shows that the operator generates around 12-15 skip lorry movements into the site per day. The most recent traffic monitoring data supplied by the Applicant presents data from September 2010 to September 2014 for the whole of the Aston Down Business Park site. This data shows an average weekday monthly vehicle flow of 546 with 854 as the highest maximum flow during September 2011 from a site.
2.9 The Applicant is proposing three, 8 metre HGV spaces and five car parking spaces on the application site. There are three allocated car parking spaces on the northern elevation of Building 107.
2.10 A 3 metre high landscape bund around the north eastern perimeter of the site would comprise a 1:3 outer slope planted with grass similar to the grass banks found around bunkers on the main Aston Down site. The cross-section of the bund is shown on drawing entitled ‘Bund Plan’ dated 20th October 2014 and shows a steeper inner face.
2.11 Further information in the form of correspondence dated 11th October 2013 from grounds maintenance staff confirming the feasibility of maintaining the bund was submitted on the 5th February 2015.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2.12 The proposed development falls within that detailed in Schedule 2, column 1 of section 11: ‘Other Projects’ (b) ‘Installations for the disposal of waste (unless included in Schedule 1)’ as it is situated within a Sensitive Area, namely the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Waste Planning Authority (WPA) screened the development and adopted its opinion on 4th November 2014 that having considered the criteria stated within Schedule 3, it would not, in the opinion of the WPA’ be likely that the scheme would in itself or in combination with other approved or pending developments on the Aston Down Business Park have a significant effect on the environment in terms of the need for an EIA. An Environmental Statement was therefore not requested.
2.13 In reaching this opinion, the WPA has taken account of the Secretary of State’s screening direction decision on the previous and now withdrawn planning application reference 12/0042/STMAJW. The Secretary of State’s decision dated the 21st June 2013 confirmed that the development did not constitute EIA development within the meaning of the 2011 Regulations for a similar proposal on a slightly smaller site. In addition, the WPA was mindful of the Environmental Statement produced for the whole of the Aston Down site 5
in 2006 and revised in 2008. The additional vehicle movements associated with this proposal both by themselves are small in number and in combination with other development on the Aston Down Business Park site are not considered to have a significant effect on the highway network or the environment.
Extension of time
2.14 The Applicant agreed to extend the time in which the application could be determined beyond the 13 week target date of 23rd January 2015 until 26th March 2015 so that the application could be determined by the Planning Committee at their meeting scheduled for 26th March 2015. However, as Stroud District Council had not provided their final response (having objected to the previous application), the application could not be determined at the March meeting of the Planning Committee. Further time extensions were agreed with the Applicant until 9th October 2015 to take account of the meeting of the Planning Committee to be held on 1st October 2015 and allow for the submission of Stroud District Council’s views, particularly given their previous objection on lack of evidence.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Until June 2006, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which owned and operated the Aston Down military base, benefitted from wide immunity from the need for planning permission under Department of Environment Circular 18/84 ‘Crown Land and Crown Development’. Since June 2006 the extent of the Crown’s immunity from the need to seek planning permission has been significantly reduced following the publication of DCLG Circular 02/2006 ‘Crown Application of the Planning Acts’. Subject to some exceptions Crown development is now subject to the normal planning system.
3.2 The Aston Down military base has been subject to numerous approvals under Crown exemptions for works to MoD buildings; however the key planning history arises from the consideration of application S.04/2680/COU at a ‘Call- In’ Public Inquiry held in March 2009. The application was for the change of use of buildings on main site and outer sites C, F and G to a mix of Use Classes B1, B2, B8 (business, general industrial and storage and distribution) and sui generis uses including outside storage and the erection of a wash bay that was refused planning permission by Stroud District Council on the 13th March 2007. The decision was subject to appeal.
3.3 The Public Inquiry also considered application 04/03315/FUL (File Ref: CT.2586/Y) for a change of use of buildings B34, B35, D41 and D42 to a storage and distribution use within Use Class B8, and formation of outside storage area (this being a retrospective application) which was refused planning permission by Cotswold District Council on 17 May 2007. (It should be noted that part of the wider Aston Down site falls within the Cotswold District).
3.4 Planning application 06/0026/STFUL for the change of use of Building 107 to process recyclable materials, use of adjacent land for storage of materials and 6
erection of two Portakabins for ancillary office and welfare facilities was refused by the County Council on 21st September 2007. Whilst an appeal was lodged against this refusal, the Appellant withdrew the appeal before the appeal was heard at the Public Inquiry.
3.5 The Secretary of State decided on 1st December 2009 that the appeals against refusal of planning permission should be dismissed in relation to the use of Building 15 and associated land as a depot but allowed the remaining development subject to the imposition of planning conditions. The permitted elements were set out in a schedule of uses and a Masterplan and subject to a planning obligation requiring highway related works with financial obligations to be carried out. Works included the provision of a roundabout at the A419/Cirencester Road junction.
3.6 A planning application was made to Stroud District Council under planning reference S.10/1764/COU for the change of use of land between Building 66 and 104 for the parking of vehicles. DSG was using part of this site to park his vehicles but now proposes to use part of the external area of Building 107 for this purpose. The application was initially approved but the decision was quashed on procedural grounds on August 2012. The application has been resubmitted but following recent enquiries remains undetermined and Stroud District Council has asked if the Applicant wishes to withdraw it.
3.7 Planning application 12/0042/STMAJW to regularise the change of use of part of building 107 and a smaller area of external yard from a light industrial B1 use to a skip hire and waste recycling facility (sui generis) was validated on 22nd November 2012. The application was withdrawn on 10th July 2013 and application 13/0058/STMAJW submitted which had a greater site area, taking a larger yard area to the east of the building in which landscape bunds enclosing the northern and eastern site boundaries have been placed.
3.8 Application reference 13/0058/STMAJW was submitted on 11th July 2013 with a 13 week target date of 15th October 2013. The determination date was extended and agreed until 22 November 2013 to take account of the date of the November Planning Committee. However the November meeting of the Planning Committee was cancelled and the Applicant refused to extend the time period for determination further, instead stating his intention to appeal on the grounds of non determination. The application was refused under delegated authority on 12th December 2013 for the following reasons:
1. The application fails to provide sufficient justification to demonstrate that there is a lack of alternative sites outside the AONB to serve a proven local need contrary to Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy Policy WCS14.
2. Without adequate justification for the use of the site as a skip hire, groundwork and waste transfer operation in the AONB, there is no demonstrable need for outside storage which was specifically prevented by the Secretary of State’s decision reference APP/C/1625/A/07/2055526.
7
3.9 The Applicant lodged the appeal against the refusal on the 9th January 2014 which was dismissed by the Inspector on 15th April 2014 following an informal hearing held on 26th February 2014. The Inspector concluded that the proposal conflicts with Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy Policy WCS14 by reason of the restricted area of search that it had failed to demonstrate that there were no alternative sites outside the AONB. The proposal had failed to demonstrate that there was a market need for the development in this location. Although the level of harm caused to the AONB would be limited by the relatively small scale of the site involved and may be capable of mitigation, there would nonetheless be harm to the AONB from those aspects of the proposal which require external storage. The Inspector was not persuaded by the evidence that adequate or sufficient reasons had been put forward for allowing the development,which would outweigh the harm identified.
3.10 The Inspector considered that the area of search for alternative sites confined to the ‘Stroud Valleys’ was unduly restrictive when in general terms the business operated within 15 to 20 miles of the appeal site. The Inspector considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to show where skips had been delivered and collected from to demonstrate market need within the context of WCS14.
3.11 The Inspector was concerned that the external area did not comply with the submitted plans and that at the appearance of the external areas on the day of the Inspector’s site visit, demonstrated that without rigorous management the site had potential to be unsightly. The Inspector took the view that mitigation measures for landscape screening should be fully addressed before any grant of planning permission and only becomes necessary if the other aspects of the policy WCS14 are satisfied.
3.12 The Applicant submitted the current planning application on 23rd October 2014 after carrying out pre-application discussions with the Council as to the type of information which should be submitted in light of the Inspector’s reasons for refusal. Whilst the proposals in this application are identical to that previously submitted and refused, the Applicant has submitted further information in the form of wider area of search for alternative sites within 20 mile radius in all directions of the site and information about the business customer base in support of the proposals. It should be noted that the customer details were not made public in the planning application due to the information being data sensitive, however the WPA considered and verified the details prior to validation of the application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is a material consideration in determining planning applications. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the focus of the NPPF in relation to both the plan-making and decision making process. However, the NPPF does not
8
include specific guidance for waste development and Planning Policy Statement 10 remains extant for this purpose.
4.2 The NPPF at paragraph 28 states “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.”
4.3 The NPPF paragraph 115 states that “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and AONB which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”
4.4 NPPF paragraph 116 states “Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Considerations of such applications should include an assessment of:
The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it. Upon the local economy; The cost of and scope for developing elsewhere outside the designated area or meeting the need for it in some other way; and Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities and the extent to which that could be moderated”.
National Planning Policy for Waste
4.5 The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) was published in October 2014 setting out detailed waste planning policies which should be read in conjunction with the NPPF. All local planning authorities should have regard to its policies when discharging their responsibilities in relation to waste management. The NPPW was published after the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy was adopted.
4.6 Paragraph 7 of the NPPW states that waste planning authorities should only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan.
4.7 Local authorities are also asked not to concern themselves with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.
Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy (adopted November 2012)
4.8 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Development Plan status must be considered. All the policies within the Waste Core Strategy (WCS) are consistent with the NPPF
9
where relevant. The following policies are relevant to the proposed development:
WCS1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development:
When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the WCS (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:
Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
WCS3 – Recycling & Composting
In order to achieve the Gloucestershire local authorities' household recycling and composting target of at least 60% by 2020, and diversion of an additional 91,000 – 111,000 tonnes per year of C&I [Commercial and Industrial] waste from landfill, the Council will support in principle, proposals relating to the development of new and expanded recycling and composting facilities including businesses that process recyclates and re-use waste.
Planning permission will be granted subject to the following criteria being met:
1. It can be demonstrated that the impact on the environment andneighbouring land uses is acceptable. 2. Proposals for composting generally must be at least 250m from sensitive land uses such as housing unless it can be demonstrated that it can operate in closer proximity without adverse impact; 3. The highway access is suitable for the proposed vehicle movements. 4. The proposal contributes towards providing a sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire; 5. If the proposal is of a 'strategic' scale (>50,000 tonnes/year) it is located in the area defined as 'Zone C' (see Key Diagram). Particular support will be given to proposals that:
- Are located within1 or close to an urban area; and/or - Involve the re-use of previously developed land, vacant or under utilised employment land and/or redundant rural buildings including farm diversification opportunities; and/or
10
- Involve co-location with an existing operation of a similar or complimentary nature; and/or - Incorporate alternatives to the transport of waste by road (rail, water etc.), and/or - Are well located to allow employees to reach the site by foot, cycle or public transport.
Proposals for the development of markets for recycled materials, in particular initiatives to assist small to medium-sized businesses to re-use/recycle their discarded waste materials will be supported and encouraged through partnership working including the Gloucestershire Waste Partnership.
WCS4 – Inert Waste Recycling and Recovery
In order to help reduce the impact of landfill and achieve the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive (2008) the Council will aim to divert around 85,000 tonnes/year of inert waste from landfill through recycling and recovery operations.
Proposals for inert waste recycling and recovery facilities will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The impact on the environment and neighbouring land uses is acceptable including detailed assessment of the impact of noise and dust and attenuation measures. 2. Where viable, the proposal incorporates the use of alternatives to road transport such as rail and water and that where road transport is used the highway access is suitable for the proposed vehicle movements and is supported by a transport assessment and travel plan setting out measures to encourage employees to reach the site by foot, cycle or public transport. 3. The proposal contributes towards providing a sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire. 4. If the proposal is permanent and of a ‘strategic’ scale (>50,000 tonnes/year) it is located in the area defined as ‘Zone C’ (see Key Diagram) except where located within an existing or disused mineral working.
Developments may be acceptable on existing waste management sites and mineral workings where it can be demonstrated that the minimum amount of materials are being used for restoration/engineering purposes and that the use will not unduly prejudice the agreed restoration principles and timescale for the site. Temporary developments may be acceptable where the material is recycled and re-used on site.
WCS10 – Cumulative Impact:
In determining proposals for waste related development for new or enhanced waste management facilities the Council will have regard to the cumulative effects of previous and existing waste management facilities on local communities alongside the potential benefits of co-locating complimentary facilities together. Planning permission will be granted where the proposal would not have an unacceptable cumulative impact.
11
In considering the issue of cumulative impact, particular regard will be given to the following:
1. Environmental quality; 2. Social cohesion and inclusion; and 3. Economic potential.
Within these broad categories this will, subject to the scale and nature of the proposal, include an assessment of the following issues: noise, odour, traffic (including accessibility and sustainable transport considerations), dust, health, ecology and visual impacts.
WCS14 – Landscape
General Landscape Proposals for waste development will be permitted where they do not have a significant adverse effect on the local landscape as identified in the Landscape Character Assessment or unless the impact can be mitigated. Where significant adverse impacts cannot be fully mitigated, the social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal must outweigh any harm arising from the impacts.
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Proposals for waste development within or affecting the setting of the Cotswolds, Wye Valley and Malvern Hills Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: - There is a lack of alternative sites not affecting the AONB to serve the market need; and - The impact on the special qualities of the AONB as defined by the relevant management plan (including the landscape setting and recreational opportunities) can be satisfactorily mitigated; and - The proposal complies with other relevant development plan policies.
In the case of major development within the AONB, a proven public interest must be demonstrated. Planning permission will only be granted in exceptional circumstances following the most rigorous examination and subject to the criteria above.
The County Council will continue to work in partnership with the respective AONB Conservation Boards and/or Joint Advisory Committees to help deliver the vision and objectives of the AONB Management Plans and Waste Core Strategy (WCS).
Core Policy WCS15 – Nature Conservation (Biodiversity & Geodiversity)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserves (NNR) will be safeguarded from inappropriate waste management development. Planning permission for waste management development within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
12
- The development would not conflict with the conservation, management and enhancement of the site unless the harmful aspects can be satisfactorily mitigated; and - The benefit of the development clearly outweighs the impacts that the proposal would have on the key features of the site; and - The proposal complies with other relevant policies of the development plan; and - In the case of a SSSI, there would be no broader impact on the national network of SSSIs.
Local nature conservation designations will also be safeguarded from inappropriate development and planning permission will only be granted for development affecting such designations where it can be demonstrated that the impact of the development can be satisfactorily mitigated and that the benefit of the development clearly outweighs any impact.
Development proposals will be required to assess their impact on the natural environment and make a contribution to local nature conservation targets to ensure net gain for biodiversity.
Proposals that incorporate beneficial biodiversity or geological features into their design and layout will be favourably considered particularly where the proposal would result in a positive contribution to a Strategic Nature Area (SNA) as identified on the Nature Map for Gloucestershire.
4.WCS18 – Bulking and Transfer:
In order to promote greater efficiency and to reduce the potential impact of transporting waste by road, particularly on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) the Council will support in principle, proposals relating to the development of new and expanded bulking and transfer facilities.
Planning permission will be granted subject to the following criteria being met:
1. It can be demonstrated that the impact on the environment and neighbouring land uses is acceptable. 2. The highway access is suitable for the proposed vehicle movements. 3. The proposal contributes towards providing a sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire.
Particular support will be given to proposals that: - Are located within or close to an urban area; and/or - Involve the re-use of previously developed land, vacant or underutilised employment land and/or redundant rural buildings including farm diversification opportunities; and / or - Involve co-location with an existing operation of a similar or complimentary nature; and / or - Incorporate alternatives to the transport of waste by road (rail, water etc.), and / or - Are well located to allow employees to reach the site by foot, cycle or public transport. 13
WCS19 – Sustainable Transport:
In the interests of sustainable development and minimising the impact of waste management on Gloucestershire's roads and the wider natural and historic environment, proposals for waste-related development that utilise alternative modes of transport such as rail and water will be positively supported. This is subject to compliance with other relevant development plan policies and the contribution to a sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire.
Any development exceeding the thresholds set out in the Department for Transport publication 'Guidance on Transport Assessment' must be supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan. Consideration will also be had to the location of the proposed development in determining whether a TA is required.
Development that would have an adverse impact on the highway network which cannot be mitigated will not be permitted. Where a Travel Plan is required the developer will be expected to enter into a Section 106 or unilateral legal agreement to secure the development of the travel plan and any contributions required to support its implementation. A contribution towards costs of monitoring the travel plan will also be required.
Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004)
4.9 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 following ‘saved’ policies are relevant to the proposed development:
Policy 33 – Water Resources – Pollution Control
Proposals for waste development will only be permitted where there would be no unacceptable risk of contamination to surface watercourses, bodies of water or groundwater resources.
4.10 This policy is in conformity with the Planning Principles detailed in the NPPF.
Policy 37 – Proximity to other land uses:
Proposals for waste development will be determined taking into account such matters as the effect on the environment, occupants’ and users’ amenity and health, the countryside, the traditional landscape character of Gloucestershire, the local highway network, any hazardous installation or substance and any adverse cumulative effect in combination with other development in the area. Where appropriate, suitable ameliorative measures shall be incorporated in the proposals to mitigate, attenuate and control noise, dust, litter, odour, landfill gas, vermin, leachate and flue emissions.
14
4.11 This policy is in conformity with the Core Planning Principles detailed in paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
Policy 38 – Hours of Operation:
The Waste Planning Authority will where appropriate impose a condition restricting hours of operation on waste management facilities to protect amenity.
4.12 This policy is in conformity with the Planning Principles detailed in Chapters 11 and 12 of the NPPF.
Policy 42 – Reinstatement:
In considering proposals for temporary waste development, the waste planning authority requires reinstatement measures for the land including appropriate aftercare to secure acceptable and sustainable after-use by a set date. In the case of restoration to agriculture, the land should be returned to a quality equivalent to or better than existed before development commenced. a good environmental standard will be expected that will reflect the character of the land as a valuable resource. Details of reinstatement requirements will be determined by the circumstances prevailing at the time of the planning decision and when any later applications for review are considered.
4.13 This policy is in conformity with the Planning Principles detailed in the NPPF.
Stroud District Local Plan (Adopted 10.11.2005)
4.14 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Stroud District Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies ‘saved’ by the Direction of the Secretary of State on 13 October 2008 until replaced by the draft Stroud District Local Plan 2014. The Draft Local Plan 2014 is expected to be adopted following the publication of the Inspector’s Report later this year. Stroud District Council considers all these policies are consistent with the NPPF and the following are relevant to the proposed development:
Policy GE1
Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to lead to an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or have an overbearing effect.
Policy GE2
Permission will not be granted for any development that is likely to create unacceptable atmospheric or environmental pollution to water, land or air.
Policy GE5
Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to be detrimental to the highway safety of any user of any road. 15
Policy BE16
The re-use and adaptation of a building in a rural area for a commercial, industrial or recreation use will be permitted if all the following criteria are met:
1. the building is of substantial, sound and permanent construction; 2. the form, bulk, and general design of the building is in keeping with its surroundings, and setting within the landscape; 3. the proposed conversion respects local building styles and materials; 4. the traffic to be generated by the new use can be safely accommodated by the site access and the local road system, and will not be detrimental to the rural character of the area; 5. appropriate levels of parking can be provided on site, without detriment to the rural character of the area; and 6. if the building is not in an identified settlement, it is capable of re-use and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction, or major extension.
Policy NE4
Development proposals that would adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, a site supporting any legally protected species or its habitat, or priority species or habitats as defined in the Gloucestershire Biodiversity Action Plan, will not be permitted unless safeguarding measures can be provided through conditions or planning obligations to secure their protection. Where appropriate, development proposals should contribute to Gloucestershire Biodiversity Action Plan targets.
Policy NE8
Within the Cotswold AONB, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape over other considerations, whilst also having regard to the economic and social well- being of the AONB. Development within or affecting the setting of the AONB will only be permitted if all the following criteria are met:
1. The nature, siting and scale are sympathetic to the landscape; 2. The design and materials complement the character of the area; and 3. Important landscape features and trees are retained and appropriate landscaping measures are undertaken.
Major development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated to be in the national interest and that there is a lack of alternative sites.
Policy TR1 Permission will be granted to development that deals satisfactorily with all of the following issues:
1. the need to minimize travel, by locating complementary uses close together, focusing development in the Gloucester Principal Urban Area (PUA), Stroud Urban Area and Principal Settlements, and locations highly accessible by public transport (except in the case of those uses which are 16
considered appropriate for rural locations in Policy EM2); 2. the need to provide access to development via a wide choice of transport modes, including walking, cycling and public transport (with appropriate provision for disabled people, pedestrians and cyclists); 3. the need to design site layouts and the provision of facilities with the aim of encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport; 4. the need to provide for traffic calming measures, through layout and design wherever possible; 5. the need to provide for highway improvements; and 6. the need to provide appropriate levels of parking in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards.
Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2013-2018
4.15 The Cotswolds Conservation Board (CCB) is the statutory body set up by Parliament to conserve and enhance the Cotswolds AONB. The CCB in conjunction with other Public Bodies (including Local and County authorities) produces the AONB Management Plan. The five year Management Plan was adopted by CCB in March 2013 and sets out the CCB policies for the management of the AONB area and carrying out its functions. For avoidance of doubt, the Management Plan is a delivery mechanism and is not part of the Development Plan for Gloucestershire the policies of which are used in the determination of development proposals. The CCB are consulted by local planning authorities when development is located within the Cotswolds AONB and the views expressed may be considered material to the planning determination as with any other consultee. The Management Plan policies and Position Statement carry little ‘weight’ in the planning process, but can still be considered to be a material consideration.
4.16 The CCB Mineral and Waste Position Statement sets out the following policy of the Management Plan:
NRP3: Less waste is produced through waste minimisation and recycling of waste materials generated by residents and visitors, construction and redevelopment, agriculture and tourism providers. Such residual waste is disposed of locally only where there is no harm to the distinctive characteristics of the AONB.
The purpose of this policy is to a) discourage the importation of waste from areas around the AONB into the designated landscape, and b) encourage small scale local recycling and disposal facilities subject to the caveats set out in the policy.
Therefore with regard to waste, the Board would not wish to see any expansion of existing or location of new facilities other than as set out in (b) above within the AONB. In addition to the adverse effect on the landscape, such facilities will also result in additional vehicle movements on rural roads resulting in an adverse effect on tranquillity. The Board would welcome in principle the opportunity to encourage waste reduction and recycling.
17
4.17 The Management Plan sets out the special qualities and distinctive features which need to be retained. Of particular importance to the Cotswolds are unimproved grassland, ancient woodland, limestone streams and rivers and open farmland. However the plan does recognise the development pressures and need to manage previously developed brownfield sites such as ex MoD properties and redundant airfields which can bring economic benefits on the character of the AONB. The biodiversity needs to be carefully assessed.
5.0 PUBLICITY
5.1 The proposal was advertised by a site notice dated the 10th December 2014 and a public notice was placed in the Stroud News and Journal on 10th December 2014. The closing date given for comments was the 5th January 2015. Twenty six letters were sent to neighbouring residents and premises to notify them of the application.
5.2 Two objections have been received from a local resident and a group of local residents known as the Aston Down Action Group (ADAG). ADAG referred to their previous objections dated 25.9.2013 and 4.11.2013 to planning application 13/0058/STMAJW and requested that these previous objections be taken into account when considering this resubmitted application. The previous letters included the following grounds: The applicant has carried out the development without consent and the planning authority should not appear to encourage unauthorised development; the provision of a waste transfer station and skip hire business in this location is a departure from the development plan; The Aston Down site is currently unauthorised and cannot be described as an existing industrial site, the secretary of state’s decision being voided by a breach of condition appeal precedent; The development fails to conserve and enhance the AONB and the location is not necessary to the development; The Cotswold Conservation Board Management Plan does not want waste from outside of the AONB to be brought into the AONB being contrary to the aims of the CCB and the NPPF. The waste transfer facility and the skip hire can be accommodated on sites/ buildings for employment outside of the AONB and not in the public interest in the AONB; Visual intrusion in AONB of high sided vehicles on rural roads; Waste being brought in from extensive catchment area and includes municipal waste so proximity principle is not met; Increase in traffic has been noticed to the detriment of the AONB and SSSI and SAC; Insufficient information has been provided and the application will give rise to noise nuisance travelling over long distances and on skip movements including the removal of recycled waste or site safety and
18
where plant or machinery will be stored; Site run off could contaminate the aquifer and would need to be drained to foul sewer; Further contamination of the site should be avoided to protect the aquifer; There is a potential housing allocation in the Stroud District Council Core Strategy close to the site. The search area was limited to those sites in the Stroud Valleys and does not show whether there is a lack of alternative sites in the AONB; The Cotswold Conservation Board Position Statement for employment does not include sui generis waste or skip hire use and Paragraph 8 advises that “employment which involves many movements by HGVs, will be inappropriate even on disused airfields – the damage to tranquillity would be widespread and unacceptable…” The site is located on roads that are subject to 7.5 ton loading restrictions put in place by Gloucestershire Highways to take these types of vehicles off the local roads in the AONB. Approval of the application would be unreasonable as it would fail to uphold the purpose of the restriction. There are many inaccuracies in the supporting letter from the agent dated 10th October 2013; Policy EI1 of the Draft Local Plan is a material consideration. Policy EI1 proposes the Aston Down site as a Key Employment site which will not allow a change of use to any other use except between the B Classes. A change of use to a sui generis use is therefore contrary to the objectives of the Draft Local Plan.
5.3 ADAG and the local resident considered that the further information submitted by the Applicant in this resubmitted application had not addressed the Planning Inspector’s reasons for refusal and the application as submitted does not address the following:
Harm to the AONB from outside storage; Non-compliance with Policy WCS14 of the WCS due to the restricted area of search and search criteria flawed by restricting to economic rent; Failure to demonstrate a market need for the development in this location showing that there is a lack of capacity at waste management sites serving the area. There are already plenty of skip hire companies and recycling facilities within 20 miles; A transport assessment should be carried out.
5.4 ADAG additionally commented that the applicant’s area of search for an alternative site is based on an ‘economic rent’ which they consider is flawed, as this makes affordability a search parameter that is not part of the policy WCS14 criteria. They also consider that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a proven public interest in allowing this waste application. The supporting documentation on evidence of demand shows 816 skips out of
19
1456 are transporting waste from outside the AONB contrary to the AONB Management Plan. There is still no evidence of the lack of capacity of other sites operating in the area.
5.5 ADAG provided their own commentary on 28th August 2015 to correspondence between the County Council and Stroud District Council dated 17th August 2015 where the County Council sought to clarify the nature of Stroud District Council’s objection to the consultation as they had not been particularly specific in setting out what evidence the Applicant could have provided which would have satisfied their concern.
5.6 ADAG expresses that they are “perplexed at the County Council’s interpretation of the Stroud DC response with regard to this application” as the Case Officer had said that the objection did not appear to be an objection to the principle of development in this location but to lack of evidence which would infer that evidence could be provided that could overcome the issue. ADAG advises the County Council in conclusion to their commentary on the correspondence that, “The Planning Authority will need to give good planning reasons including being in the Public Interest in order to justify overriding the National interest in the AONB, the Secretary of State’s decision letter dated 1 December 2009, the GCC Waste Core Strategy (adopted) and Stroud DC objections and Submission Local Plan 2014 and will involve serious consideration with regard to any change to the planning unit that will jeopardise the protection of the Cotswold AONB and all the sensitive receptors identified in the 2007 Environmental Statement and supplementary evidence that helped form the Secretary of State’s decision.”
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
County Councillor:
6.1 County Councillor Stan Waddington for the Minchinhampton Division requested that the application is determined by the Planning Committee because of the planning history of refusal and appeal on the site.
Stroud District Council:
6.2 Stroud District Council made some initial officer comments and questions on the application on 27th January 2015 advising that concerns raised in the appeal decision and in the previous planning application concerned with the bunding, landscaping, evidence of market need had not been overcome. They did not anticipate any objection with regard to noise, traffic and contamination. They advised that if further information was submitted they would provide further comment.
6.3 The agent responded to the questions raised by Stroud District Council on the 5th February 2015 and sent to Stroud District Council on 6th February 2015. The agent confirmed that the soil bund was included within the application site, the bund was constructed in accordance with the submitted application plans and was largely complete with the exception to a degree of top soiling and grassing over. The Agent advises that the submitted Landscaping Plan 20
and section drawing show the bund. The agent confirmed the landscape management of the bunds would be by grass cutting at 2-3 week intervals by the grounds maintenance staff for the Aston Down site. Additional landscaping would be provided in accordance with a soft landscape scheme to be submitted for approval and would need to include infill hedge planting and some shrub planting of the bund as recommended by the County Landscape advisor.
6.4 Where the Stroud District Council’s officer said he was unable to see evidence of market need or public interest as identified by the appeal Inspector, the agent has responded that information about skip deliveries over a 12 month period had been submitted with the application. The Agent considers that this shows a consistent level of demand and that 90% of the operation occurs within 10 miles of the site, demonstrating the locality of demand which is in the public interest. It was emphasised that it was not considered to be realistic to obtain data from competitors.
6.5 Stroud District Council objected on 6th August 2015 on the following grounds:
“Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no other appropriate sites outside the AONB for this development. The submitted information indicates that one search has been undertaken to cover an area wider than previously undertaken. However this is effectively a snapshot of availability, there is no evidence of an ongoing search over a period of time. The previous application was refused in December 2013 consequently there should be evidence of a search from December 2013 up until the current application was submitted.
There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that there is an overall lack of capacity at existing waste management sites serving the area.
The proposal involves outside storage of vehicles, soil and hardcore. The previous Inspector considered that without rigorous management there was considerable potential for the site to be unsightly. Stroud District Council remains unconvinced that adequate management proposals are in place to ensure that the proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the AONB.
For the above reasons the proposed development is considered not to comply with policy WCS14 of the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy.”
6.6 Stroud District Council were asked by the Case Officer on 11th August 2015 for clarification on what information the Applicant could have submitted to satisfy their concerns about the lack of appropriate alternative sites outside of the AONB had been considered. Stroud District Council responded on 17th August 2015 that, “The information submitted with the application does not give a timeframe for the search. There is no evidence of a continuous search for an alternative premises. I would expect that once the previous application was refused the applicant should have been repeatedly asking agents for details of premises which may be suitable. This should be an ongoing process and the agents/applicants should submit details of who they have asked, what premises were available and why they were not suitable. What has the
21
applicant done since October last year to see if other sites are available? In the absence of this information I do not consider that there has been a thorough investigation of site availability”.
Minchinhampton Parish Council:
6.7 The Parish Council did not consider that there were any material changes to the application and restated their previous objection to the proposals that Aston Down is not identified as a waste site in the adopted Waste Core Strategy for Gloucestershire, and Parish Councillors questioned the need for such a site in the AONB. The Cotswolds Conservation Board did not appear to have been consulted; this is vital for the protection of the AONB. Concern was expressed that the Transport Statement accompanying the application was out-of-date. The open space between buildings is seen as crucial to the appearance of the whole business park. As this application is contrary to the WCS for Gloucestershire, as no valid justification for exception has been made and on that basis the Parish Council believes it should be refused.
Environment Agency:
6.8 The Environment Agency (EA) has no issues with the waste activities which are currently being carried out on site, and has no objections to planning permission being granted. The EA also advised that the operator, Dave Skinner Groundworks Limited, had been granted an Environmental Permit on 14 March 2014 under permit reference number EAWML 104567.
6.9 The EA commented that as the application is materially the same as that submitted previously (reference 13/0058/STMAJW), they reiterate the comments made in their previous letters (dated 21 August 2013, and 01 November 2013). These were that the earth bund surrounding the site at present, complied with the permitting exemption which has been registered for this site. The permit requires all activities to be carried out under an Environment Management system. The permit requires all activities and the storage of waste materials to be carried out within a building, with the exception of specified wastes. These specified wastes are detailed in the Environmental Permit and include inert waste such as soil and concrete. The permit requires that all waste should be stored and treated on hard standing or an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system. Specified waste can be stored within an outside area providing they are on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage.
Highway Authority:
6.10 The County Highways advisor raises no highway objection and comments that the Aston Down Business Park benefits from planning permission for uses in the Classes B1, B2 and B8. This permission involved the provision of highway infrastructure and other mitigation which has been completed and is in place. This application proposes the retrospective change of use from B1 to Sui Generis (Skip Hire). The vehicle movements associated with the proposal are not materially different from those associated with the permitted use and as such can be accommodated on the highway network without any adverse impact. 22
Cotswolds Conservation Board
6.11 The Cotswolds Conservation Board (CCB) maintains their objection to the scheme and does not consider that the reasons for the Inspector dismissing the appeal have been overcome. “The Board considers that despite the information that has been submitted that options do still exist outside the AONB both in terms of alternative sites but also that the need can be met in “some other way” (NPPF Para.116). The site search has only be based on an “economical rent” and with specific building and yard size needs, rather than all options including freehold purchase and even new build on an allocated employment site. Given the site search area, including around major urban areas outside the AONB, we still consider that options do exist and that the treatment of waste could be met in some other way rather than through the specific requirements of this particular business. Any consideration of exceptional circumstances relate to the specific development (i.e. waste processing) and not the exceptional circumstances of the Applicant. The Board would have expected that if there was a specific concern as to how this form of waste should be treated or concern over a potential shortage of sites, more specific reference and provision would have been made through the Waste Core Strategy.” The CCB considers that the site search “(by considering the Applicant’s specific needs and not answering the more general question of meeting the needs of waste treatment generally in some other way) has the resulting conclusion that this is the only available site in the whole part of the region. In fact the only conclusion that can be reached from the site search analysis is that this is the only site that meets the specific needs of the Applicant which therefore leaves the requirements of Paras.115 and 116 of the NPPF and WCS14 as unfulfilled.”
6.12 “The Board also maintains in accordance with their Position Statement (Minerals and Waste Planning 2013) that the importation of waste from areas outside the AONB into the AONB should be discouraged. Based on the information submitted a substantial level of part of this operation is based on the importation of waste into the AONB from outside. The Inspector also considered that the use could not operate without harm to the AONB due to the external storage element. We also do not see how the Inspector’s concerns on this point have been overcome.”
7.0 PLANNING OBSERVATIONS
County Ecologist:
7.1 The County Ecologist does not believe that there would be an adverse impact on biodiversity and has commented that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on Rodborough Common SSSI/SAC or Minchinhampton Common SSSI which are over 4 km distant. The only possible impact would be from significant new traffic generation which might use roads passing through these sites (i.e. and may impact on grazing animals on them). The Applicant has produced a Transport Statement which confirms no significant new traffic generation will occur, pass through the protected sites, and that the
23
existing levels of traffic have already been assessed and approved by an Inspector and the Secretary of State for the Aston Down site overall.
7.2 Previously for withdrawn application 12/0042/STYMAJW an ecological letter report covering building 107 was submitted together with another letter report covering additional surrounding buildings (hangars) and two trees not on this site. An SLR consultant ecologist (acting for the Applicant) confirmed in 2012 that there was no evidence of occupation of building 107 by bats or barn owls which are protected species. This accords with previous surveys in 2005- 2007 and he is still minded to agree with the conclusion. He recommends a planning informative advice note is added to any permission as a precaution if any protected species is found.
7.3 Additional screening is to be provided by the planting of a few new conifer trees at the western end of an existing row of evergreens and now also by a new soil bund around the extended area. A condition for the submission of a simple landscaping and aftercare scheme based on the Proposed Landscaping Drawing Scale 1:1250 that has been submitted is recommended. Additional information sought would be the choice of conifer species for the filling of the gap at the end of the line of evergreen trees plus the type of grass seed mix or other planting (if any) would be implemented on the soil bunds. How the tree line and the vegetation on the bunds would be managed in the future would also need to be submitted.
County Landscape Advisor:
7.4 The County’s landscape advisor provided comments on the previous planning application with the same landscape proposal and advised that he considers the surrounding landscape is typical of the Cotswolds with large fields, stone wall field boundaries and occasional hedgerows, boundary trees and small copses. The scarp slope is wooded and Gatcombe Wood lies some 3km to the south west. The site is bounded by a tall coniferous hedge/line of trees running east-west along the southern boundary of the site and extending beyond the boundary to the east.
7.5 The advisor considered that whilst there are few, very limited proximate views of the site, this location and wider estate is visible in middle and long distant views, in particular from the west and south, however in these views and those from the footpath to the south, the coniferous hedgerow screens views into the site though in itself is a notable, incongruous landmark.
7.6 The application seeks retrospective permission to use the southern part of the building for part of the skip and waste operation. This element of the operation is wholly contained within the building. There are no proposals to change the appearance of the building and he has no comment to make on this in respect of landscape or visual considerations.
7.7 Externally the application is for the use of the land immediately south of the building, between the building and the conifer hedgerow for the storage of soil, hardcore, empty skips and for the parking of up to two HGVs. The Applicant has noted that they would be prepared to take a condition limiting the height of stored material to 3.5m. The Applicant has also proposed new 24
planting, to infill a small gap in the hedgerow at the south western corner of the building, and screen bunding to the east and north of the external storage area. The A4 sketch showing sections through this bund isn’t dimensioned but the bund scales off at approximately 3m high by 5m wide at the base.
7.8 The Applicant has noted that higher level issues of appropriateness within the AONB were dealt with at the earlier public inquiry. The landscape advisor does not consider the application would be against Local Plan Policy NE8 and would not materially change the existing appearance of the site within the AONB. Having viewed the site from within the business park and from publically accessible roads and footpaths in the wider surrounding area, he is content that, with the proposed infill planting; the operational area of the application is adequately screened from view by the coniferous hedgerow, by intervening planting and structures and by surrounding buildings and vegetation of the business park.
7.9 The landscape advisor is concerned at the potential for the proposed mounding to initially appear similar to the stored material and to become unsightly if not specifically landscaped. Other than these, there are no landscape impacts from the scheme to be considered and if minded to approve the application then conditions to cover the following landscape and visual issues are recommended:
1) A soft landscape scheme should be submitted for approval for the infill hedge planting and for the bunding. This should include details of species, size of planting and spacing of plants. Submission of details should be timely to allow planting to be undertaken no later than the autumn 2013/spring 2014 [revised timetable would be considered in respect of the current application] planting season. This is to ensure continuity of visual screening to the western side and to ensure there is no adverse visual impact from the bunding. Simply grassing the bund as proposed by the Applicant is not considered acceptable on the outside slopes which the landscape advisor considers should be planted with a native shrub mix.
2) New planting should be maintained and any planting which fails to thrive or which dies should be replaced. Whilst I would normally seek a period of 5 years for this because of the importance of the hedgerow and the reliance of the application on this to screen the external operations I would recommend that this clause runs until the cessation of the approved operation. This to ensure appropriate mitigation of potential visual impact.
3) Maintenance of the existing hedgerow to maintain a solid visual screening of the site from ground level up for the duration of the operation. As the hedgerow is outside the application boundary you may wish to condition the continuation of external operations on this and provide for alternative, on site, screening proposals to be submitted in the event the hedgerow is lost and before external operations are permitted to continue
4) A condition to limit the height of external stock piles to 3.5m to minimise the risk of adverse visual impact. For the avoidance of doubt you may wish to extend this to include skip storage.
25
5) The bund should be constructed with an external facing slope no steeper than 1 in 3 and that the crest and outer slope should be planted up with an appropriate planting scheme in line with 1) and 2) above.
Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Officer:
7.10 The Planning Policy Officer outlined in January 2015 the policies of the development plan for Gloucestershire which are considered relevant including the Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 and the Waste Core Strategy (December 2012-2027). Specifically in relation to Policy WCS14-Landscape which is considered pivotal to the determination of the proposal, it was acknowledged that a body of evidence had been submitted. This was focussed on demonstrating the degree of availability of alternative sites to undertake the proposal located outside the Cotswolds AONB, within the context of the market area served. The information submitted was deemed adequate to be able to determine whether the proposal would accord with this key part of the policy.
7.11 After receiving Stroud District Council’s objection that they did not consider that the proposal complied with Waste Core Strategy policy WCS14, at the request of the Case Officer, the Waste Planning Policy Officer commented that,
“From a review of the submitted comments it would appear that the focus of Stroud District is on the acceptability of the proposal judged against adopted waste policy WCS14 – Landscape. In particular concern is raised as to the lack of a search over ‘a period of time’, which presumably equates to a desire from Stroud District Council for there to be some kind of trend analysis of availability / unavailability of sites. It also points to a failure to demonstrate that there is a lack of capacity at existing waste sites serving the area and that the proposed outside storage has not been accompanied by sufficient evidence as to the adequate management of the site so as ensure the natural beauty of the AONB will be preserved.
For clarification, the adopted policy seeks for there to be a demonstration that any waste proposal under consideration represents an acceptable option on the grounds that there are a lack of available alternative sites that would not affect the AONB designation and which would also serve the same market need. In considering Stroud District Council’s comments, the case officer will need to consider what the relevance of a trend analysis of the availability of alternative site options would be to the overall assessment of alternative sites. Perhaps, the rate of turnover of potentially useable commercial properties in the locality is deemed to be significant by Stroud District. However , the Policy Officer questions if this is enough of an issue for the Applicant to go away and carry out further analysis and justification.
Adopted policy WCS 14 doesn’t require an assessment that there is a lack of capacity at existing waste sites serving the area to be made; therefore it would seem burdensome for this to be pursed as a matter of course from the Applicant. However, collated evidence of this nature could be of material significance and beneficial to the determination. Nevertheless, a degree of
26
caution is expressed in this regard, as National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW), which was published after the WCS was adopted, clearly states under paragraph 7 that; ‘….waste planning authorities should only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan.’ In effect, this information should only come into play after GCC is confident of its decision that the Applicant has failed / is unable to meet the requirements of WCS 14. To date this doesn’t appear to have occurred.
The adopted policy WCS14 requires that the impact on the special qualities of the AONB as defined by the relevant management plan are satisfactorily mitigated. Sufficient evidence to afford adequate management of the site so as ensure the natural beauty of the AONB will be preserved. The case officer will need to be content that all aspects of proposal will not adversely impact upon these qualities or that if there is potential for this to happen, sufficient mitigation can be put in place that is both realistic to implement and capable of being effectively monitored and managed. The concern raised by Stroud District Council appears to very specifically relate to the ‘natural beauty’ qualities of the AONB.”
Flood Risk Management:
7.12 No comments were received from the Flood Risk Management Team.
Planning Enforcement Officer:
7.13 Complaints regarding operations taking place in a number of the buildings on the Aston Down main site have been investigated by both Stroud District Enforcement Officer and the County Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer. The County Council considered that the operation taking place within the southern part of Building 107 by DSG constitute “waste” development falling to the County Council to determine, as the building does not benefit from such permission. The Applicant subsequently submitted a retrospective planning application on behalf of DSG to regularise the activities. Regular inspections have been made by the County Planning Enforcement Officer to the site since the application was submitted to monitor activities are in accordance with the application as submitted. Changes to the site layout led to the withdrawal of the first application and submission of the second planning application with larger site area. Since the issuing of the Environmental Permit, the management of the site falls within the remit of the Environment Agency, however the Enforcement Officer has continued to make site visits to ensure that the the operator maintains standards so that the appearance of the site does not affect the AONB.
Planning Considerations:
7.14 The main considerations in respect of the proposal to regularise the use of part of a building and external yard area on a business park within the Cotswolds AONB for a skip hire and waste transfer operation and whether the proposal conforms to the policies of the Development Plan, NPPF and NPPW with regard to the waste use within the AONB and the extent to which the 27
Applicant has addressed the reasons for refusal and dismissal of the appeal on the previous planning application. The impact on the highway network, landscape and visual impact on the AONB, impact of the environment in terms of noise, ecology, ground contamination and surface water runoff are also considered.
Reasons Appeal Dismissed
7.15 The Inspector considered that the proposal conflicted with WCS14 as, by reason of the restricted area of search, it failed to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites outside the AONB. The proposal also failed to demonstrate that there is a market need for the development in this location. The Inspector considered that there would be harm to the AONB from those aspects of the proposal which require external storage.
7.16 The Applicant commissioned property agent, Montgomery Watton to undertake a search for alternative sites within a radius of 20 miles of the Aston Down site. This distance was indicated by the Appellant at the appeal hearing to be the distance beyond which it would be uneconomic for DSG to provide skips. The site search of the previous application was confined to the ‘Stroud Valleys’ and was considered to be too restrictive. In order to address the reason for refusal, Montgomery Watton contacted over 40 commercial letting agents and 10 neighbouring local authorities’ economic/regeneration departments for information about available employment sites. The property agent’s letter dated 27 October 2014 advises that there were no sites available which would fulfil the tenant’s requirements. The possible site identified at the end of the Golden Valley bypass was not considered to be suitable due to the low eaves height of the building. The agent considered the Aston Down site “would appear to be an appropriate location both from the point of view of land and building availability and the need to be a good neighbour to other businesses within the locale.”
7.17 In order to address the Inspector’s comment about the absence of evidence of market need for the proposal in this locality, the Applicant provided ‘Evidence of Demand’ information about the location of customers to whom customer addresses where skips were delivered and collected from the 12 months prior to the submission of the application (October 2013 to September 2014). The summary table indicates that over 90% of customers are within 10 miles of the site. Only 8 skips out of the 1,456 delivered and collected over that 12 month period were from a distance greater than 15 miles (0.55%).
7.18 No further information has been submitted by the Applicant regarding the issue of capacity at similar operational waste sites in the broad locality of the application site. However, since the Inspector’s appeal decision in April 2014, the NPPW was published in October 2014 which amends the the position in that NPPW only expects applicants to demonstrate quantitative and qualitative market need where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Development Plan. The Applicant submits that it is unrealistic to obtain such information from competitors and maintains that there is significant demand for DSG skips. Given that the Applicant has presented evidence in his application submission of the market demand for his skips and recycled waste
28
material in the local area, a quantative assessment of the capacity of other waste recycling sites is not considered necessary to the determination of this application. The Waste Planning Authority is aware that another skip hire operator located within the Cotswolds AONB which had previously proposed an element of waste recycling has ceased trading. The operator has sold skips to DSG and reduced the capacity of sites in the AONB.
7.19 No further detailed landscape or planting plan has been submitted with this application with regard to the landscaping of the external storage areas compared with the previous application which was refused. Whilst the Inspector considered that the details of landscape mitigation should be submitted with the application, the Waste Planning Authority considers that based on the submitted landscaping plan the impact of the storage area can be adequately controlled through the submission of details proposed by a planning condition. The landscape advisor considers that this would require a relatively simple scheme, detailing the tree planting and grass mix along with a management methodology.
Conformity with Waste Core Strategy
7.20 A key objective of the WCS is to provide new and expanded waste recycling facilities in order to divert waste from landfill. The contribution the site makes to the County’s recycling targets accords with the overarching objectives of the WCS and the operations comply in general terms with policies WCS1 and WCS3. The site has a satisfactory highway access that raises no objection from the County Highway Advisor. The site also involves the use of under utilised employment land and co-location with the operator’s skip hire and groundworks business, reducing the number of vehicle trips.
7.21 The proposal lies within the Cotswolds AONB and therefore must be considered against the tests of policy WCS14. The ADAG, Cotswolds Conservation Board and Stroud District Council consider that the proposal conflicts with this policy specifically by not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance. The policy sets out three tests for waste development within the AONB areas of the county to demonstrate acceptability. A proven public interest must be demonstrated in the case of major development within the AONB and development granted in exceptional circumstances subject to:
(i) there being a lack of alternative sites to serve the market need; (ii) the impact on the special qualities of the AONB set out within the management plan can be satisfactorily mitigated and; (iii) the proposal complies with other relevant development plan policies.
7.22 The Inspector was of the view that all waste development was major development irrespective of the modest size of this site. The proposal as a waste management operation brings environmental benefits of reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfill and providing recycled aggregates which can be used in other construction or restoration projects in the locality which can be seen to be in the public interest. There could be a potential paucity of localised facilities, exacerbated by a refusal of this application, that
29
could have a detrimental impact upon the implementation of the waste hierarchy, particularly in this part of Gloucestershire. Information provided by the Applicant demonstrates that the majority of construction and demolition waste material is being collected from locations within a 10 mile radius of the site and secondary aggregate is being delivered within a similar radius in order for the business to be economic. Should this application be refused, there is the potential for additional haulage to be generated and the consequential adverse impacts that this may have upon the local highway network in and around the fringes of the Cotswolds AONB. Officers have confirmed the information shown in the Applicant’s summary table does correspond to the skip delivery information provided by DSG for the previous 12 month trading period. It can be concluded that because the business has been operating successfully from Aston Down for 4 years, that the business is serving a reasonably well defined local market need in accordance with the test of Policy WCS14 and the NPPF.
7.23 The first demonstrable test of Policy WCS14 requires the circumstances in which a waste site is granted consent in the AONB to be exceptional and dependent on the lack of alternative sites outside the AONB. The property agent’s letter confirms the lack of availability of similar alternative sites within a 20 mile radius. In spite of this information, Stroud District Council’s outstanding objection is to the Applicant’s lack of an ongoing search for alternative sites and in particular since the application was submitted. ADAG and CCB find the property agent’s information about the lack of alternative sites unconvincing and unfairly based on an ‘economic rent’. The Property Agent commented on the lack of suitable alternative sites could be due to waste businesses favouring freehold sites or locations where long leases can be established. The Property Agent was also of the view that landlords tend to be unhappy housing a waste transfer site within a larger site by virtue of perceived nuisance which could be detrimental to other tenants. However, this is not the case on this application site where the Applicant owns the Aston Down Business Park, but the Waste Planning Authority is aware of the difficulties in finding suitable locations for waste management sites. The WCS does not make any specific site allocations for smaller, non- strategic sites and uses instead criteria based policies. The policy does not require a trend analysis to be undertaken over a continuing period of time or evidence of continued search since the application was submitted as suggested by Stroud District Council. The Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that the information about the search was correct at the time the application was submitted and was carried out with little delay during the 6 month period between the appeal decision of the second application and the submission of the third application. The search was undertaken following pre-application discussions with the Applicant (in respect of the third application) regarding the required information and criteria that the search information needed to meet.
7.24 In addition, based upon published waste management data (the suite of Annual Monitoring Reports and the supporting evidence of the WCS contained in the Waste Data Paper 2010), there would appear to be limited local alternative, operational facilities that could reasonably provide for demand generated within the defined market area as presented in this
30
application. Consequently it is questionable as to whether in a wider context, relying upon these alternative facilities would represent a more sustainable solution upon the implementation of the waste hierarchy, particularly in this part of Gloucestershire, (i.e. a potential increase in volume and distance travelled to haul waste arising particularly through the AONB).
7.25 The Waste Planning Authority considers that it would be unreasonable to insist that the Applicant provides further updated search information. Despite the protracted nature of this case, there is little evidence that circumstances have changed. Not least due to the fact that no new comparable waste operations have been permitted during this time.
7.26 Whilst objectors have referred to this lack of evidence of capacity at existing waste sites serving the area, the Applicant has addressed this point by stating that competitors are not usually willing to share this information. Policy WCS14 does not specifically require an assessment that there is a lack of capacity at existing waste sites serving the area to be made, although such information if provided could be material to the decision. The NPPW which was published after the WCS was adopted, states in paragraph 7 that a, “WPA should only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan.” In effect this information is only required if the Applicant fails the tests of WCS14. The Waste Planning Authority considers that the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show a lack of alternative sites within 20 miles of the Aston Down site and it is considered that the proposal complies with this aspect of WCS14.
7.27 The second test of policy WCS14 requires that the special qualities of the AONB as defined in the management plan can be satisfactorily mitigated. The management plan refers to the special qualities of particular importance to the character of the Cotswolds AONB as unimproved grassland, ancient woodland, limestone streams and rivers and open farmland. The proposed development is not located in open countryside and forms part of an ex-MOD airfield which is itself forms a distinctive part of the landscape character of this part of the AONB. Whilst the CCB objects to the proposal, the basis of their objection is in relation to the lack of evidence of an alternative site search to satisfy Development Plan policy WCS14 and the NPPF. The CCB does not claim that the development negatively impacts on the special qualities of the AONB which is tested in the policy. The County’s Landscape Advisor and Ecologist were both of the opinion that the landscape and ecological impacts of the development on this brownfield site were limited and could be effectively mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions requiring small scale soft landscape improvements around the site.
7.28 The third test of WCS14 is that the proposal complies with all relevant development policies. The relevant development plan policies are discussed under the following headings. The Development Plan for determination of development proposals for this site consists of Gloucestershire WCS, saved policies from the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and saved policies from the Stroud District Local Plan as set out in section 3.0 of this report.
31
Employment
7.29 The application site is part of an existing business park site with a variety of B1, B2 and B8 uses. Building 107 has planning permission for a light industrial B1 use. Whilst the waste and skip hire operations do not technically fall within a business use class which have certain permitted development rights, these operations which are not within any use class (sui generis) provide employment for 8 full time equivalent employees and increase the employment opportunities in a rural area which is supported in chapter 3 of the NPPF and the Stroud District Local Plan policy BE16. It would appear that the acceptability of the Aston Down main site for continued employment use by Stroud District Council will continue as the emerging Stroud District Local Plan designates the Aston Down site as a Key Employment Site where business class uses are to be retained. The approved development plan policies are sufficiently up to date to determine a development proposal of this type. Stroud District Council’s objection does not relate to any conflict of use with the employment uses on the Aston Down site.
Highway impact
7.30 A Transport Statement was supplied with the application and the traffic movements generated from the Aston Down site between September 2010 and September 2014. The monitoring data triggers financial contributions in a Section 106 related to the 2009 Secretary of State decision, to be paid by the Applicant to the County Council if the agreed threshold of vehicles of 1,100 vehicle movements per day is exceeded from the main Aston Down site. The traffic monitoring data supplied shows average daily flows from the site are rising to around 700 movements on a weekday from their lowest point of around 400 movements in December 2011.
7.31 The County’s Highway Advisor is satisfied that the 12-15 HGV movements per day associated with the development proposals are acceptable and raises no objection. A Transport Assessment was not requested. The impact of HGV movements generated from the application site compared to the overall impact of permitted uses on the main Aston Down site would not be significant. This position would appear to be supported by the NPPF which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.
7.32 The application includes proposals to increase the number of car parking spaces available from 3 to 8 by providing 5 more spaces close to the southern site boundary in addition to the 3 already available on the north side of building 107. In addition 3 HGV parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the southern boundary screening. The applicant has stated that there is a Travel Plan and that a shuttle bus is operated as an alternative to the car which can transport staff from the main site’s bus stop to outlying rural areas where bus services are scarce. This number of spaces does not exceed the number of employees working on the site and he does not consider that the impact of additional traffic movements associated with employees travelling to and from the site would be significant and as such would conform to Policy TR1 of
32
Stroud District Local Plan 2005 and NPPF paragraph 32 by offering access to sustainable transport modes.
Landscape and visual impact
7.33 The site is located within the Cotswolds AONB nationally designated for its visual attractiveness and typical of the Cotswolds with large fields, stone wall field boundaries and occasional hedgerows, boundary trees and small copses. The application site forms part of the Aston Down business park site which is visible from middle and long distance viewpoints but the application site is well screened from public viewpoints nearer to the site from the south and west by a well established coniferous tree line. There are no public footpaths in the vicinity of the application site.
7.34 The Applicant proposes to infill a small gap at the western extent of the site boundary with trees of a similar evergreen type. The Applicant also proposes in this resubmitted application to create a 3 metre high bund with 10 metre base around the site’s northern and eastern site boundary to further limit the visual impact of two hardcore and soil stockpiles and parking area both from within the site and to the southeast of the yard. The profile of the bund has been amended by the Applicant in the earlier submission in October 2013 so that the external face has a shallower gradient to take account of the County’s landscape advisor’s comments about maintenance and stability; seeded with grass so as to be consistent in appearance with similar mounds around bunkers on the main site.
7.35 The County’s Landscape Advisor is satisfied with the amended profile of the bund but is of the opinion that the outer face of the bunds should be planted with a suitable native shrub mix. Given that there are other similar features on the main site and the feature is capable of regular maintenance by the existing grounds maintenance staff on the main site, the Waste Planning Authority does not consider that the lack of planting would have an adverse visual impact or the creation of a bund would be an incongruous feature in the open character of the former air base.
7.36 A condition for a simple landscaping and aftercare scheme based on the Proposed Landscaping Drawing that has been submitted has been recommended by the County’s landscape advisor to run until the cessation of the waste operations to ensure the maintenance of the infill and existing hedgerow given its importance as visual screening. Subject to this mitigation, the WPA considers that the visual impact of the use of the building and associated yard can be satisfactorily mitigated so as to protect the rural character of the AONB in accordance with Stroud District Local Plan Policy NE8.
7.37 ADAG has suggested that there is a visual impact from traffic movements arising from this proposal on the AONB. However the purpose of a waste transfer station is to bulk up similar waste products and reduce waste vehicle movements. The WPA considers that given the authorised use of the Aston Down site for business/employment purposes, that the impact of the numbers of skip lorries from this development is not significant when the economic
33
benefit to the rural area are considered in accordance with paragraph 115 of the NPPF.
Ecological Impact
7.38 There are two SSSIs within 5 kilometres of the application site which include unusually diverse grasslands that support fauna of conservation value. Natural England is satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on these designated sites. The County Ecologist has commented that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on Rodborough Common SSSI/SAC or Minchinhampton Common SSSI which are over 4 km distant. The only possible impact would be from significant new traffic generation which might use roads passing through these sites (i.e. and may impact on grazing animals on them). The Applicant has produced a Transport Statement which confirms no significant traffic generation will occur which is evidenced by the traffic monitoring data supplied. The existing levels of traffic have already been assessed and approved by an Inspector and the Secretary of State for the Aston Down site when setting the levels of highway contribution.
7.39 The Applicant’s consultant ecologist confirmed in 2012 in an ecological report covering building 107, surrounding buildings (hangars) and two trees not on this site that there was no evidence of occupation of building 107 by bats or barn owls which are protected species when the previous and now withdrawn planning application 12/0042/STMAJW was submitted. This information accords with previous surveys in 2005-2007 and the County Ecologist agrees with the conclusion.
7.40 The County Ecologist does not believe there would be an adverse impact on biodiversity in approving this application therefore the proposal would comply with Stroud District Local Plan Policy NE4. A precautionary advisory note is recommended to be attached to any consent granted.
Noise Impact
7.41 The waste operation includes the use of machinery which the Applicant confirms would be operated within the confines of the building. The closest residential properties are located to the north of the main Aston Down site and more than 500 metres from the application site. The objector is concerned that large hanger doors open on the southern elevation of the building and face open countryside, although screened by the mature conifer treeline along the southern site boundary have the potential for noise to carry across open land. No objection was raised previously by the District Council’s Environmental Protection officer provided the hours of operation were limited and crushing machinery operated solely within the building. Planning conditions could be attached which can address these issues and are consistent with those attached on waste operations on general industrial estates in accordance with Stroud District Local Plan Policy GE1.
34
Contamination
7.42 There is known contamination of radioactive waste and heavy metals on the Aston Down main site from its historic use as a military base. The Applicant has already carried out investigation of the contamination on the main site. The Applicant’s letter dated 10th October 2013 explains that the site has been classified into 4 zones of radiological risk for low to high and no dig. The Applicant submitted a plan entitled ‘figure 3 Radiological Walkover Survey and Sampling extracted from the Enviros Radiological Report of 2001 which shows artefacts in the grass verge to the immediate eastern boundary of the building but these do not pose a risk producing very low count rates and are best left in situ. As a precaution, the District Council routinely impose a condition to require a ‘permit to dig’ before any groundworks are undertaken on the site. The Applicant confirms that he carries out supervision of all such excavations on the main site. Provided this precaution is met, I consider that the proposal would not lead to any risk to human health and would comply with Stroud District Local Plan policy GE1 and NPPF paragraph 121.
Groundwater protection
7.43 The application site overlies a major aquifer where groundwater is sensitive to sources of pollution. Building 107 is served by an existing surface water and drainage system which was approved by the District Council. The objector is concerned that there could be the potential for pollution of the groundwater from contaminated runoff from the waste.
7.44 In order to avoid the risk of any contamination from runoff from the site, the Applicant in his letter dated 10th October 2013 confirmed that the surface water drainage from the parking area adjacent to building 107 will be connected to the main site surface water drainage system or soakaway via an oil interceptor.
7.45 The EA has been consulted and confirms that the site has an Environmental Permit. The permit requires that all waste shall be stored and treated on hard standing or an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system. Specified waste can be stored within an outside area providing they are on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage. The Agency has no objection to the proposed development.
7.46 The Waste Planning Authority is of the opinion that a condition requiring the submission of drainage plans for the approval of the EA and Waste Planning Authority should provide acceptable protection of groundwater from site run off provided it is correctly installed and maintained. This mitigation would conform with Stroud District Local Plan policy GE2.
External Storage
7.47 The ADAG representation refers to the Secretary of State’s decision in December 2009 under planning reference S.04/2680/COU which sets out the authorised use for building 107 as a B1 light industrial use. There was no external storage associated with this building set out in the decision.
35
7.48 The Inspector at the appeal considered that there would be harm to the AONB from those aspects of the proposal which require external storage. The Inspector specifically referred to the state of the site on the day of the site visit and was not convinced the unsightly nature of the external storage area could be mitigated by the proposals in the planning application. The Inspector was not satisfied by the level of detail shown on the landscape drawing and considered that given the landscape designation and planning history of the Aston Down site that landscape mitigation should be fully addressed before the grant of any permission.
7.49 The Landscaping Plan in this application is the same as previously submitted. However since the planning appeal site visit, the Applicant has improved the appearance of the external area significantly. The screening bunds around the site have now grassed over and have a similar appearance to other grassed screening bunds around the wider Aston Down site. The stockpiles of soils and aggregate materials have greatly reduced in size now that the operator has purchased more efficient and appropriately sized plant to handle and screen the soils. The areas for storage and vehicle delivery and parking are now more clearly defined than on the day of the appeal site visit.
7.50 Taking the improvements to the operation of the site along with the comments of the Landscape Advisor, the Waste Planning Authority considers that the mitigation proposed in the form of the submission of a soft landscaping scheme for approval would now be sufficient to overcome the previous reason for refusal.
Other considerations:
Status of Cotswolds AONB Management Plan and Position Statement
7.51 The ADAG considers that the application is contrary to the aims of the CCB making reference to its Position Statement on the impact on the AONB of traffic from new development and on its Statement on Minerals and Waste Planning whereby “the CCB do not want waste from outside of the AONB to be brought into the AONB”.
7.52 The CCB’s (Minerals and Waste Planning 2013) Position Statement policy is to “discourage the importation of waste from areas around the AONB”. It is a material consideration but of limited ‘weight’ in planning policy. While the CCB makes reference to their Position Statement, their objection is concerned with their view that the requirements of the NPPF and Policy WCS14 of the WCS have not been met by the information submitted in this proposal. The lack of appropriate information to which they refer has been treated as material and consideration of the weight to be attributed to it is set out in preceeding paragraphs of this report concerned with “Conformity with the Waste Core Strategy”.
Human Rights
7.53 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 Article 6(1) of the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way, 36
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 Article 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.
7.54 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 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 in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being 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.
7.55 In compiling the recommendation full consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998 and to the objections received from a local resident, an Action Group, the county councillor representing this division and three objections received from the District and Parish councils and the Cotswold Conservation Board. The objections are primarily on lack of compliance with development plan policy relating to the protection of the AONB. In analysing the issues raised in this application, no particular matters other than those referred to in this report warranted any interference in respect of Article 8.
7.56 In determining this planning application, the Waste Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liasing with consultees, respondents and the applicant/ agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
Summary Conclusions and reasons for the granting of planning permission:
7.57 The WCS encourages the recycling of inert waste material to divert waste from landfill. The proposed waste transfer operation would enable waste to continue to be reused as a secondary aggregate for construction projects and bulk up other construction and demolition waste materials collected which would comply with the WCS policies WCS3 and WCS4. The development of a waste transfer operation associated with the skip hire and groundworks business of DSG is a relatively small-scale waste operation operating from a small site with little machinery. The vehicle movements generated are well within the threshold set by the Secretary of State when he considered what a sustainable level of employment for the whole site would be following the Public Inquiry. Although the proposal involves the sorting and separation of waste including the use of machinery inside the building, the external land 37
would be used for the storage of stockpiled material used in the groundwork aspect of DSG business as well as parking and storage of some company vehicles and skips when not in use. The Secretary of State’s decision in 2009 following the Public Inquiry states that there should be no outside storage so as to maintain the open character of the site around the buildings.
7.58 Stroud District Council, Minchinhampton Parish Council and the Cotswolds Conservation Board have objected to the proposals along with a group of local residents to the continued use of the site for waste recycling. Objections have been raised on the grounds of lack of compliance with policies of the development plan for a waste development in the AONB and traffic generated by the site. The additional information submitted by the Applicant to show the local nature of the customer base and the lack of suitable alternative sites outside the AONB have provided more rigorous evidence than previously submitted that the proposal complies with WCS14, although this continues to be disputed by the objectors. Having sought further clarification from Stroud District Council as to the nature of the further information, it is considered by the Waste Planning Authority that the additional information they seek would not be reasonable in light of the supporting information already provided. The WPA considers that the external storage of material on this site would not be harmful to the AONB after management practices on the site has improved since the appeal and would be in accordance with Policy WCS14.
7.59 The proposals have taken into account their impact on the environment and impact on the local highway network and are in accordance with WCS policy WCS 19 and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. The proposal for mitigation for the effects of noise, dust and disturbance and the imposition of planning conditions to control these elements is considered sufficient to protect the amenity of local occupiers and residents complying with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012. The Waste Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed development would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers/residents. Whilst acknowledging the significance of protecting the special qualities of the AONB, on balance the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable degree of material harm or to biodiversity or the habitat of protected species and is in accordance with the development plan policies of the Gloucestershire WCS (adopted November 2012) – Policies WCS1, WCS3, WCS4, WCS6, WCS10, WCS14, WCS18 and WCS19, Saved Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan (adopted October 2004). The proposal also complies with the NPPW and the NPPF and there are no material considerations that could justify refusal.
7.60 In determining this application for a retrospective skip hire and waste recycling operation to enable the sorting, bulking up and recycling of inert materials the Waste Planning Authority has worked with the Applicant and planning agent in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and by discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary (in light of concerns relating to potential impact of the loss of the open character of the AONB). This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in
38
the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in this report summarised at paragraphs 7.57 to 7.60 and subject to the following planning conditions:
Commencement
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement of development shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Development to be in Accordance with Approved Plans
2. Unless varied by other conditions of this consent, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted application form; supporting statement entitled “Planning Access and Design Statement” by Kemp and Kemp dated October 2014 with Transport Statement dated 14th October 2014 and the following drawings: Location, Scale 1:2500 dated October 2013; Block Plan, Scale 1:500 dated October 2013; Layout Plan scale 1:500 dated October 2014; Layout plan scale 1:200 dated October 2014; Proposed Landscaping Plan, Scale 1:1250, dated October 2014; Bund Plan, scale 1 :500, dated 20th October 2014;
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details in the submitted planning application in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Hours of Operation
3. Waste sorting and processing operations (including the loading and unloading of vehicles) shall take place between the hours of 07:30 to 17:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 12:00 on Saturdays only, except in the case of emergency (which shall be notified to the Waste Planning Authority as soon as is practicable).
39
No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out, and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site at no time on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Scope of Permanent Development
4. Only those inert waste materials defined in the application shall be imported, processed and stored within the site and no additional processes for the management of waste, other than those specified in the submitted application and supporting information shall be carried out at any time on the site.
Reason: In order to define the scope of this consent and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Import Limit
5. The total quantity of inert and mixed waste material handled at the Site shall not exceed 18,500 tonnes in any calendar year (for the avoidance of doubt a calendar year shall represent the period from 1st January to 31st December inclusive).
Reason: To define the scope of the application in the interests of safeguarding the amenity of neighbouring occupiers/residents, highway safety avoidance of any unacceptable impacts on the highway network in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012 and Policies WCS14 and WCS19 of the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy.
6. The parking spaces shown on the Block Plan, dated October 2014 shall be kept free for those vehicles involved in the waste processing operations hereby approved and shall be maintained for the duration of the development. No other vehicles shall be stored or maintained on the site.
Reason: To maintain control over the site in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012.
No Public Retail Operation
7. No public retail operation shall be carried out from the site in association with the development hereby approved.
Reason: To prevent public retail use in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Record Keeping
8. The operator shall maintain records of the monthly importation of materials to the Site, which shall include the quantity, type and source of waste materials. 40
Such records shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of a written request. All records shall be kept for the duration of two years.
Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site and in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Height of Stockpiles
9. The heights of any stockpiled or deposited waste and/or other materials whether in a processed or unprocessed state shall not exceed 4 metres in height.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.]
Burning
10. No burning of materials shall take place on the site at any time.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Groundwater
11. No foul or contaminated waters from the site shall be allowed to discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy 33 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Noise
12. All plant and machinery shall operate only in the permitted hours, and within the confines of the building.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area and occupiers of neighbouring commercial activities in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002.
Highway Safety
13. No commercial vehicles shall enter the public highway unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent materials being deposited on the highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety to prevent mud and dust getting on the highway in accordance with Policy WCS19 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012.
14 No loaded lorries shall leave the site unsheeted.
41
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy WCS19 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012.
15 All vehicles associated with this development shall access the site from the main gate which serves the Aston Down site. No other access shall be taken or formed.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development has a satisfactory form of access and and in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy WCS19 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012.
Landscape
16 Within three months of the development commencing a scheme detailing the soft landscape work based on the ‘Proposed Landscaping Plan’ dated October 2014 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of:
a) species, number, and size of new conifer trees for the boundary gap in the existing tree line; b) the nature of the grass seed mix to be sown on the soil bund and this will be achieved; c) how the tree line and soil bund will be managed to ensure vegetation thrives without adverse effect on the locality.
The scheme shall be implemented as approved within six months of the development commencing.
Reason: To enhance the environment value and amenity of the land and in accordance with Policies GE1 and NE12 of the Stroud District Local Plan (November 2005) and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012, ODPM Circular 06/2005, National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 109 and 118 plus Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
Landscape Maintenance
17 The Landscaping Scheme approved under condition 16 shall be maintained for the duration of the development. Should any plant/shrub die or become diseased or be removed for any reason, it must be reinstated in accordance with the submitted Landscaping Scheme.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity to ensure the site is adequately screened during the development and the existing landscape features protected in accordance with Policy WCS 14 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
42
18 The earth bunding around the site’s external northern and eastern perimeters, as detailed in the drawing reference: ‘Bund Plan’ dated 20 October 2014 shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the local environment in accordance with Policy WCS 14 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
External Lighting
19. All external site lighting shall be directed so that it is not directly visible to the nearest residential properties.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Permitted Development Rights
20. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any order amending or replacing that Order, no extensions or alterations to the external appearance of the structures hereby permitted shall be carried out and no building, structure or any other enclosure shall be erected, constructed or placed at the location [hereinafter known as `the site' and identified as land edged red on drawing Reference – ‘Location Plan, scale 1:2500, dated October 2014’].
Reason: In order to maintain control over the operation of the development, along with safeguarding the visual amenities of the Cotswold AONB in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012 and Policy WCS14 of Gloucestershire’s adopted Waste Core Strategy.
Ground Contamination
21 Prior to the commencement of any ground works, core samples shall be excavated within the area of the proposed ground works and soil samples collected in order to ensure that the ground is free from contamination. The soil samples shall be collected in accordance with a sampling scheme that shall first be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The soil samples shall undergo sufficient analysis to determine whether contamination exists. In addition, the potential for radiological contamination shall be assessed by reference to existing information and if necessary by site screening using handheld measuring equipment by a suitable radiological assessment specialist.
An assessment of the field and laboratory data shall be undertaken to determine whether the disturbance of the ground could mobilise identified contaminants and cause pollution of controlled waters or unacceptable risks to site users and occupants (both temporary and permanent) which require specific remediation control measures. Should the assessments indicate that ground disturbance in the proposed location could mobilise contaminants and 43
cause pollution of controlled waters or risks to site users and occupants, then the proposed ground works shall not commence until remediation works have been carried out in accordance with details to be agreed with the waste planning authority. A certificate shall be provided to the authority that the works have been carried out and completed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of paragraphs 120 and 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework and to ensure the site is free from the effects of any contamination from previous uses of the site and does not pose a threat to human health.
Cessation
22. Should the waste operation hereby approved cease, the operator shall notify the Waste Planning Authority in writing at least 7 days prior to such cessation giving details of measures to reinstate the site to the condition prior to its use as a waste management site, leaving it free of all waste materials.
Reason: to allow the Waste Planning Authority to maintain control of the site in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 42 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.
Applicant Advisory Notes: 1. If a protected species (such as any bat, barn owl or any nesting bird) is discovered using a feature on site that would be affected by any operation or activity on site then a suitably qualified ecological consultant and/or Natural England should be contacted and the situation assessed. This action is necessary to avoid possible prosecution and ensure compliance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and/or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. 2. With respect to the potential contamination issues arising from the site, the history of the site indicates that there are a number of contamination 'hotspots' located around the overall base. In this instance whilst there are no such areas within the application site itself and given that the proposal does not include any ground works, there should be no disturbance of any identified contamination. However as a precautionary recommendation, the previously adopted 'Permit to Dig' regime originally submitted as part of application S.04/2680/COU has been applied to this application.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Planning Application 14/0105/STMAJW can be viewed on the Waste Planning Authority’s Public Access website for supporting information and consultation responses. A paper copy of responses including a letter of representation can be viewed in the planning file by appointment with the case officer below.
44
CONTACT OFFICER:
Linda Townsend – Senior Planning Officer Telephone: Gloucester (01452) 426896 Email: [email protected] Website: www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/planning
45
APPENDIX 1
Inspector’s appeal decision letter dated 15th April 2014 under reference APP/T1600/A/14/2211555 for Building 107(South), Aston Down Business Park, Aston Down, Stroud GL6 8GA.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53