APPLICATION NO: 07/0081/GLMAJW VALIDATION 20Th November DATE: 2007 DISTRICT REF: AGENT: P E Duncliffe Ltd, Stonecroft, Park Road, Nailsworth, GL6 0HW

APPLICATION NO: 07/0081/GLMAJW VALIDATION 20th November DATE: 2007 DISTRICT REF: AGENT: P E Duncliffe Ltd, Stonecroft, Park Road, Nailsworth, GL6 0HW

APPLICANT: Allstone Sand and Gravels, Myers Road, Gloucester, GL1 3QD

SITE: Allstone House, Myers Road, Gloucester, GL1 3QD

PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 7 of Planning Permission 05/01126/FUL to allow the door on the east elevation to be used in association with the waste transfer station.

PARISH OF N/A SITE AREA: 0.75 Ha

GRID REF: 384687 218258

That planning permission be granted for the RECOMMENDED: reasons set out in this report and summarised at paragraphs 7.8–7.13, and subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION

1.1 Allstone House is a portal steel frame warehouse building, 120m long and 30m wide, set on a 0.75 ha site within the built up area of Gloucester. The building accommodates a waste transfer station handling household, commercial and industrial wastes including putrescible and hazardous wastes.

1.2 The application site lies a short distance to the east of the city centre on former railway land immediately north of the main Gloucester to Birmingham railway. Access to the site is derived from a short private road that joins Myers Road to the west which in turn links with the A3042 Metz Way via Horton Road. Vehicles enter through a gateway in the north western corner of the fenced site and waste lorries track right to enter the building on the southern elevation. After depositing their load they leave via the same entrance and continue around the building in an anti-clockwise direction to leave via the gateway.

1.3 The building is set within a yard that accommodates the lorry route around the building, and to the east and north east accommodates an open storage area used for bulk storage of aggregates, and for storing skips. The yard area is enclosed by a railway sleeper fence beyond which the land falls to a watercourse and the residential area known as Armscroft Park.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 1 1.4 To the north of the site lies Armscroft Park itself, an area of parkland with rugby pitch and a rugby club house immediately beyond the northern application site boundary. To the north west and north east of the site lie areas of residential development comprising Swallow Park and Armscroft Park respectively, the nearest residence being about 70m north east of the eastern gable of the building.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the variation of Condition 7 of planning permission reference 05/01126/FUL, granted 22 September 2005, to allow use of the door on the eastern elevation to be used in association with the waste transfer station. The door in question is a 6m width opening in the centre of the eastern elevation, with a roller shutter closure. Condition 7 of the 2005 permission was imposed “In the interests of the amenity of the area”. The condition reflects a similar earlier condition imposed at the time of the original permission granted on appeal in 1997for the use of the site as a Waste Transfer Station. An application to vary the condition to allow use of the door three times weekly was refused in 2001and that decision was upheld at appeal.

2.2 The applicant proposes to use the doorway for ‘bulking out’ residual waste. This is the process of removing from the building those wastes which it is not possible to recycle or transfer for further processing, and which need to be taken to licensed landfill for disposal. The process involves enclosed lorries entering the building to be loaded and then driving out and leaving the site by the normal lorry route.

2.3 The applicant wishes to use the doorway because the internal building arrangement, and scale of operation mean that using the southern doorway for the bulking out operation conflicts with incoming waste vehicles, leading to inefficiencies and potential danger to operatives.

2.4 The applicant’s agent has submitted a report in support of the application, which presents the results of an ambient noise monitoring exercise at the site. This concludes that:

2.5 The ambient noise levels at the site have noticeably increased since November 2005. The daytime ambient noise levels compared with those of November 2005 having risen to an average (in June 2007) of 59.2 dB LAeq at the site. This was recorded as 0.8 dB above the average (non site activity Table 3) level of 58.4 db LAeq at 0700 hours.

2.6 The on-site monitoring results confirm that the ambient noise levels exclusive of any Allstone’s activity have increased quite significantly in recent times. This is not at variance with national trends and the conclusion must be drawn that the increase is principally attributable to an increase in road traffic activity.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 2 2.7 The most prominent noise source at the site in the absence of Allstone’s activity appears to be the motor traffic on the elevated roadway of Metz Way. The average background ambient noise level for the period 0400-0700 hours is close to that of the daytime level in the general vicinity of the site.

2.8 The question as to whether or not the status (open or shut) of the eastern door of the waste transfer building has any effect on the average ambient noise levels on the site and its general vicinity would appear to be answered by comparing the noise levels during those days when it was open with those when it was not.

2.9 No readily discernible difference appears to result from a direct comparison between the weekday LAeq averages of 14.05.07 to 21.05.07 (58.3 LAeq door open) with the period 25.06.07 to 30.06.07 (59.2 dB LAeq door closed). The result of the 1 day exercise of 28.09.07 (61.6 db LAeq door closed) serves also to illustrate the point.

2.10 It should be noted that the steel roller shutter type eastern door has poor acoustically attenuating properties as does the fabric of the building itself. The reason for the imposition of the closed door ‘condition’ was, initially, twofold, arising from concerns relating to possible dust emissions as well as noise.

2.11 A full monitoring survey of atmospheric particulates undertaken in May 2005 disposed of this concern. Therefore the only overriding reason for the requirement to maintain the eastern door in the closed position during operational hours relates to noise attenuation. In view of the findings detailed in this report it would now appear that this requirement is superfluous.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

Application Description of development Decision number /date 05/01126/FUL Variation of condition 2 of appeal decision ref Approved T/APP/U1620/A/98/294844/P7 to allow use 22/09/2005 of the site for putrescible and special wastes (in addition to the approved use of the site as a waste transfer station for household, industrial and commercial wastes. 01/00254/FUL Variation of condition 5 on planning Proposal to use permission 97/00789/COU to allow door in the eastern door west elevation to remain open during refused and operational hours and door on east elevation refusal upheld on to be opened three times per week for appeal. Inspector operational reasons. based decision on ‘precautionary principle’ in respect of potential noise

DC JULY08 3 GJ 3 and dust impacts on neighbouring properties 01/00255/FUL Variation of condition 2 on planning Approved permission 97/00789/COU to allow use of 03/07/2001 East part of waste transfer station building for door to be used storage of building and garden products. only in emergency 97/00444/FUL Erection of 2 storey workshop with ancillary Approved offices. Installation of weighbridge and 01/10/1997 aggregate bays, construction of parking area, landscaping and planting works, demolition of storage building and open store. 97/00789/COU Change of use from warehouse (Class B8) to Refused Waste Transfer Station. 31/03/1998. Appeal allowed 09/10/1998

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10)

4.1 PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. The statement promotes sustainable waste management whereby waste is moved up the waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting and waste to energy, with waste disposal to landfill as a last resort.

4.2 When determining planning applications the PPS is a material consideration which may supersede policies in development plans and Waste Planning Authorities should therefore not place requirements on applicants which are inconsistent with the PPS.

4.3 In considering application for waste management facilities the statement indicates that authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and amenity.

4.4 The requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), which was a requirement of previous guidance (PPG10) has been removed.

Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23)

4.5 PPS23 sets out the material considerations that should be taken into account determining planning applications for developments that may give rise to pollution. PPS23 notes that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 4

4.6 PPS23 states that any air or water consideration is capable of being a material consideration in so far as it affects land use. The planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of the processes or emissions themselves. Planning Authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it.

4.7 PPS23 recommends close liaison with pollution control authorities and that Planning Authorities should ensure that the pollution control authority is satisfied the proposal can be regulated under the pollution control regime. Planning Authorities should also ensure that the cumulative effects of the pollution from a proposal, taking into account the existing sources of pollution, do not make a proposal unacceptable.

Regional Planning Guidance 10 – Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (2001) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006)

4.8 RPG 10 interprets the national planning policy framework at the South West regional level and is part of the statutory development plan and therefore must be considered. Policy RE5 sets down regional targets for reducing landfill of industrial waste and gives priority to recovery facilities in or near the Principal Urban Areas in order to achieve sustainable waste management.

4.9 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 - 2026 has been issued for consultation and a panel report of the Examination in Public has now been produced. The RSS is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, although the policies do not have full weight at present. Policy W2 is relevant which advocates the following hierarchy when making provision for waste facilities:

1. On-site management of waste where it arises, where possible;

2. Proximity principle i.e. waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. (However the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, although the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste); and

3. Preference for established and proposed industrial sites and previously developed land,

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (Adopted 1999)

4.10 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Structure Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies are ‘saved’ under the transitional arrangements and are relevant to the proposed development:

DC JULY08 3 GJ 5 Policy WM.2 – relates to the provision of an integrated network of waste management facilities in the county, and their potential environmental impacts including the amenity of local communities and the water-based environment. Policy WM.3 – promotes establishment of facilities in appropriate locations to deal with local waste. Policy P.1 – relates to the potential polluting impacts of development.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration (Unadopted) incorporating Proposed Modifications (July 2004) and Proposed Second Modifications (January 2005).

4.11 The Third Alteration had an Examination in Public in November/ December 2003. Two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005 a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations.

4.12 The following policies are material considerations in respect of determining the proposed development:

Policy SD.1 - New development to be focused within the PUAs of Cheltenham and Gloucester. Policy SD.23 - Applies to the provision of waste management facilities – gives preference to industrial sites or existing facilities as locations for waste facilities. Policy MR.10 - Controls development in respect of pollution impacts.

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004)

4.13 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Waste Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004. However, following the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s Direction (dated 5 October 2007) the following WLP policies are ‘saved’ until replaced by Development Plan Documents contained in the Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks.

• Policy 37 - Relates to the effect of the proposal on nearby properties and indicates where appropriate ameliorative measures should be incorporated to control noise, dust, litter and odour.

• Policy 38 - Indicates that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict hours of operation where necessary.

The following policies of the Waste Local Plan are ’unsaved’ but still have a degree of materiality as they have been through an inquiry process: Those relevant to the proposed development are:

DC JULY08 3 GJ 6 • Policy 3 - Relates to the proximity principle, which states that waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. Although the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste.

• Policy 7 - Safeguards existing waste management facilities. The supporting text to Policy 7 indicates that current sites are part of the existing infrastructure and help to deliver waste management services to Gloucestershire and such sites may have the potential to increase their capacity, or to diversify to provide additional waste services.

• Policy 13 – Relates to Materials Recovery and Waste Transfer Facilities.

Gloucester Local Plan (Adopted September 1983)

4.14 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Gloucester Local Plan’s development plan status must be considered. 53 of the plan’s 137 policies are saved under the transitional arrangements but none of these are relevant to the proposed development.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The proposal was advertised by a site notice erected on the 3rd January 2008 which expired on the 24th January 2008, and an advertisement in a locally circulating newspaper dated 10th December 2008, which expired on the 4th January 2008. In accordance with the protocol contained within the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (Adopted December 2005) 58 letters were sent to residents and businesses located within 250 metres away from the site boundary to notify them about the application.

5.2 Correspondence has been received from 11 local residents, including one letter sent on behalf of the Armscroft Residents Association, objecting to the proposal. The objections raised may be summarised as follows:

• Unacceptable increase in noise disturbance to local residents from within the building and arising from vehicles using the doorway; • Unacceptable increase in dust, vermin and disturbance as a result of the door being opened and used; • Waste is likely to be stockpiled outside the door and loaded outside the building; • The original appeal decision imposed the condition and a subsequent appeal against the refusal to remove the condition has been dismissed; therefore this application should also be refused.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 7 6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 The local Members for Westgate division were consulted and no comments have been received.

6.2 Gloucester City Council Environmental Health Officer does not object to the proposal subject to an appropriate condition that will limit the use of the door to vehicles bulking out residual waste for onward disposal. The following condition is suggested:

6.3 The rear door shall only be used by vehicles bulking out residual waste and not by skip loaders or other waste carrying vehicles. Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring residential premises.

6.4 The County Highways Representative does not object to the application.

6.5 The Environment Agency has no comment to make on the application.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Planning

7.1 The proposal is to use an existing doorway in the eastern elevation of the building, facing out onto the yard area and aggregates storage bays, and beyond towards dwellings on Armscroft Park. The use of this doorway has been the subject of previous visits by the Enforcement Officer and has been used in breach of condition by the operator of the site.

7.2 The applicant’s reason for seeking the variation of Condition 7 of planning permission reference 05/01126/FUL is to allow more efficient use of internal areas of the building and to reduce hazard risk to operatives within the building. This would be achieved by segregating vehicle movements associated with the delivery of waste for processing from those removing residual waste for disposal.

7.3 The primary issue is that of potential adverse effects on the amenity of residences nearest to the site, since this was the basis for the condition requiring the door not to be used and the reason why an earlier application was refused, the decision upheld at appeal, a precautionary approach being taken by the Inspector. These potential effects are at the heart of the objections raised by residents in the vicinity. The nearest house is about 70m distant from the eastern façade of the building.

7.4 Potentially significant effects are noise and dust emanating from within the building associated with the roller shutter being open, and noise and dust associated with vehicle movements in and out of the doorway.

7.5 The noise report submitted in support of the application presents noise measurements taken of ambient noise levels before the morning opening hour

DC JULY08 3 GJ 8 of the facility, and during normal operation with the door open and closed. Measurements were made on two separate occasions to a survey specification that was prepared by an officer from Gloucester City Council’s Environmental Health Department. One survey period was monitored by an officer of Gloucester City Council’s and one was unmonitored. The results indicate no material variation in noise levels associated with activities within the building with the door open or closed.

7.6 Noise levels associated with vehicles using the doorway would be set against the existing noise from lorries already using the route around the building from the southern entrance to the site exit. Although there will be lorry movements in and out of the door, it is not considered that noise arising from this source would be materially different to that from lorries leaving the site via the route around the eastern end of the building.

7.7 The dust monitoring report mentioned by the client that was produced in February 2006 concluded that airborne particulates at the site fell into the ‘low’ band of the Air Pollution Bulletin System operated by DEFRA. There may be potential for additional dust to be generated from loading of residual inert wastes inside the eastern doorway. It is considered that this can be controlled effectively by the installation of a dust suppression system within the building in the lobby area at the eastern doorway. It is considered potential dust arising from vehicle movements using the doorway would not be materially different to those from lorries passing the doorway that exist at present.

7.8 The existing use of the facility is not at issue and the proposed use of the doorway will allow efficiency improvements to be made in the way the facility is operated, together with improvements in the safety of workers within the building. The facility forms part of waste management capacity in the local area, handling commercial and industrial wastes and construction and demolition wastes from Gloucester and hence is well aligned with PPS10 advice that communities should seek to take greater responsibility for wastes arising in their local area. The facility supports the driving of waste up the waste hierarchy and a reduction in the quantities of waste requiring disposal by landfill.

7.9 Based on the noise assessment submitted in support of the application and the consultation response of the Gloucester City Council Environmental Health Officer I consider that noise effects with the door in use will not be materially different from those which currently exist at the site. I consider that the risk of dust impacts on nearby residential properties can be satisfactorily controlled by a Grampian condition requiring the installation of a dust suppression system within this part of the building.

7.10 Therefore I consider that proposal accords with Policy MR10 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration and Policy 37 of the 2004 Adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

7.11 Human Rights.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 9 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. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Objections have been received from local residents relating to concerns about increased noise, dust, vermin and disturbance from use of the doors. However this proposal has been widely consulted upon and for the reasons set out under the Observations of the Head of Planning and Development, I do not consider that there would be any breach of the convention rights and in any case since these rights are qualified, and have to be set against other considerations, any interference that there may be, is considered to be justified. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development

7.12 Conclusions and summary reasons for grant of planning permission and relevant development plan policies and proposals. I consider that this application is acceptable and accords with the relevant development plan policies. This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan policies, including the following:

• Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review - policies WM2 and P1. • Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft - policy MR.10. • Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan – ‘saved’ policy 37.

7.13 The summary of reasons for granting approval is as follows:

The Council is of the opinion that the proposed development gives rise to no material harm, is in accordance with the development plan and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made otherwise.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Therefore I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

Commencement

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later that the expiration of 3 years from the date of the permission. Written notification of the commencement of development shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 10 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, and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

Operating Conditions

2. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority or varied by other condition(s) attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out with the site edged red with a continuous line on the ‘Site Location Plan’. Drawing Number ASG/001/2005, dated June 2005, Revision A (‘the Site’), and in accordance with the ‘Building Layout’, Drawing Number ASG/001/2005, Dated June 2005, Revision B and with the details in the submitted planning application and supporting information.

Reason: in order to define the scope of the consent and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

3. The premises (defined as the building shown on the ‘Building Layout’, Drawing Number ASG/001/2005, Dated June 2005, Revision B (‘the Premises’) attached to planning permission 05/01126/FUL granted planning permission dated 22nd September 2005) shall be used for a waste transfer station and for no other purpose other than that specified by permission 01/00255/FUL dated 3rd July 2001

Reason: In order to define the scope of the consented use at the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

4. No material other than inert wastes, soil and subsoils and naturally excavated material, biodegradable waste, non-biodegradable waste, hazardous waste and metals, from household, construction and demolition commercial and industrial sources shall be imported to the Site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

5. The Premises shall not be used for a purpose of processing, handling and storing of liquid chemical waste, solvents, pesticides, clinical waste or waste oil products, unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 11 Reason: In order to define the scope of the consented use at the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

6. All operations and activities for the processing, handling and storing of waste shall take place within the Premises.

Reason: In order to define the scope of the consented use at the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

7. All doors to the Premises except those existing on the south and east elevation shall be kept closed at all times, except for emergency purposes. The door to the west elevation may be opened solely for the purpose of providing access to the stored goods area permitted under application reference 01/00255/FUL dated 3rd July 2001 and shall not be used in conjunction with the operations of the Waste Transfer Station.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policies BE.21, FRP.10 and FRP.11 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority the use hereby permitted of the eastern doorway shall only be for vehicles bulking out residual waste and shall not be used by skip loaders or other waste carrying vehicles or for any other purposes.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

9. There shall be no burning of any waste or other material of substances on the Site, unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 and Policy FRP.11 of the Second Deposit of City of Gloucester Local Plan.

Permitted Development

10. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, no buildings, no extensions or alterations to the Premises, external floodlighting or other illumination or fixed or mobile plant shall be erected on any part of the Site without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: There is a need to secure control over additional plant and machinery in the interests in the amenity of the area and in accordance with

DC JULY08 3 GJ 12 Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

Traffic, Transport and Highway Safety

11. The throughput of the facility shall be limited to 75,000 tonnes in any calendar year (for the avoidance of doubt a calendar year shall represent the period from 1st January to 31st December inclusive). The 75,000 tonnes per annum shall comprise no more than 27,000 tonnes per annum of biodegradable waste, non-biodegradable waste, hazardous waste and metals. All waste materials brought to the Site shall be weighed, and monthly figures shall be submitted in writing to the Waste Planning Authority for monitoring purposes. If, after any 9 month period it seems that the annual limit may be exceeded, measures to reduce the rate of throughput for the remainder of the calendar year shall be agreed in writing to the Waste Planning Authority for monitoring purposes.

Reason: To limit the scope of the development to that described on the application, in order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site, and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and also in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy BE.21 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

12. From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of the quantity of material brought onto the Site, and shall make them available to the Waste Planning Authority at any time upon request. All records shall be kept for at least 24 months.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan..

13. No mud, debris or materials shall be deposited on the highway from vehicles entering or leaving the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud, debris and materials getting onto the highway. In accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

14. No loaded vehicles carrying waste, or recycled or recovered material, shall enter or leave the Site unsheeted, except those only carrying materials in excess of 500 mm in any dimension.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

15. The Site shall not accept waste direct from members of the public and members of the public shall not be permitted access to the facility

DC JULY08 3 GJ 13

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan

Hours of Working

16. No operations shall take place, no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out, no skips shall be moved and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the Site except between the following hours, without the prior written agreement of the Waste Planning Authority:

7.30 am and 6.00 pm Monday to Saturday There shall be no operations on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents in accordance with Policies 37 and 38 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policies BE.21, FRP.10 and FRP.11 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

Noise

17. In order to help attenuate noise and mitigate dust and odour, the building enclosure roof and walls shall be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure gaps or cracks do not appear on the premises.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policies BE.21, FRP.10 and FRP.11 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

18. The equivalent noise level of the noise emitted from the Site shall not exceed a 15-minute LA eq of 55dB at the Site Boundary.

19. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a scheme for the control of noise from reversing bleepers attached to lorries or other vehicles operating or visiting the Site, has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented and complied with at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policies BE.21, FRP.10 and FRP.11 of the second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan

20. All plant and machinery shall operate only during the hours permitted under condition 16 of this consent, except in emergency (which shall be notified to the Waste Planning Authority as soon as practicable), and shall be silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 14

Dust, Odour and Windblown Litter

21. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a scheme and programme of measures for the suppression of odour, dust and windblown litter has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(a) Measures for the suppression of dust, odour and litter caused by the moving, processing and handling of waste materials on the Site and a definition of the occasion(s) when those measure will be used; (b) Procedures for the handling and movement of skips; (c) Twice daily monitoring at the Site boundary for odour, dust and litter. A provision of a written record specifying weather conditions, results of monitoring and any remedial action taken. This record shall be kept for a minimum of 2 years and be available for inspection by authorised officers; (d) Provision for monitoring and review of the scheme.

The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented and complied with at all times.

Reason: to protect the amenities of the locality from the effects of any dust arising from the development in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policies BE.21, FRP.10 and FRP.11 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

22. Prior to the use of the eastern doorway commencing, details of a dust suppression system for the loading area within the building adjacent to the eastern doorway shall be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. Use of the eastern doorway shall not commence until such system has been installed and is operational, and said system shall be maintained at all times thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

23. No loading of bulked out waste into lorries for removal from the site shall take place except within the building.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

24. There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the Site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

DC JULY08 3 GJ 15

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy 33 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy FRP.6 of the City of Gloucester Local Plan Second Deposit.

25. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the area being drained. Roof water shall not be passed through the interceptor.

Notes to applicant

Bulking out is defined as the periodic removal of accumulated residual waste that is not capable of recycling or onward transfer for further processing, and its transfer for final disposal.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application Forms and accompanying report and plans Consultation Reponses and letters of Representations

CONTACT OFFICER: Case Officer – Atkins (Marcus Wood) Gillian Parkinson Legal and Democratic Services

Application History. Consultee Time taken (weeks) Gloucester City Council 16 weeks Environment Agency 2 weeks 5 days County Highways 1 day Time taken. 35 weeks

DC JULY08 3 GJ 16 APPLICATION NO: 08/0008/FDMAJW VALIDATION 1st February 2008 DATE: DISTRICT REF: AGENT: Brock Planning Consultancy, Kingston House, 45 Victoria Road, Coleford, GL16 8DS

APPLICANT: Mr P Yarworth, Little Haven, The Green, Newnham-on- Severn, GL14 1AF

SITE: Orchard Court, Ruddle, Newnham-on-Severn, GL14 1DS

PROPOSAL: Alterations and extension to an existing building and use in association with the storage of animal carcasses allied to an established slaughterman’s business (part retrospective)

PARISH OF Newnham SITE AREA: 0.25 Ha

GRID REF: 368810 211247

That planning permission be granted for the reasons RECOMMENDED: set out in this report and summarised at paragraph 7.18–7.19, and subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION

1.1 The site is located on the south side of the A48, in the small hamlet of Ruddle, which lies about 1km south west of the village of Newnham-on-Severn and approximately 15 kilometres south west of Gloucester. Access to the site is directly onto the A48 which is subject to a 50mph speed limit at the location, via an established farm track. The same access point also serves a dwelling, Callow Cottage, which lies about 100m east of the application site.

1.2 The Newport to Gloucester railway line runs north-south on embankment about 80m to the west of the application site, and the River Severn lies about 110m to the south east of the site. The boundary of the application site to the A48 is formed by a well established hedgerow while the other boundaries are formed by fencing. To the west and south of the site lies land also within the control of the applicant which is grazing pasture and to the east areas of pasture and relic orchard.

1.3 The application site is predominantly level and comprises a yard area accommodating a number of older corrugated iron clad agricultural style buildings, together with a more modern agricultural building dating from 2002. It is this building, orientated north/south in the south western corner of the application site, that is used for the storage of carcasses and to which this application relates.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 1 1.4 The nearest residential properties to the building within which carcasses would be stored are located on the north side of the A48 opposite the site and consist of a row of terraced cottages in Wellington Terrace, approximately 80m north of the building and Underhill Farm which is located directly opposite the entrance to the site and is about 95m north east of the building. Callow Cottage lies about 130m to the east of the building.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the alteration and extension of the 2002 building in the south west corner of the site and its use for the temporary storage of animal carcasses. Specifically, the proposal is retrospective for the continued use of two bays (about 157m2) of the building to store carcasses. Planning consent is also sought for the erection of a one-bay extension on the southern end of the building to provide an 80m2 floorspace loading/unloading bay with lorry ramp and roller door. The intention is that this will allow the unloading and loading of carcasses with door closed in order to control odour problems associated with the transfer and storage of carcasses.

2.2 The building, which is partially incomplete, is of concrete block and profiled aluminium cladding construction with a mono pitch roof sloping toward the rear (west). The building is 6.1m high on the front elevation facing onto the yard and 5.7m high at the rear, with a 2m high concrete block wall base and c.4m high dark green profiled aluminium cladding above. Part of the rear of the building has full height cladding. The yard frontage has two double door openings, for the bays used for carcasses and a workshop respectively, and the northern end of the building accommodates an office, kitchen and shower. At the southern end of the building is a small lean-to which accommodates a ‘dirty’ wash room and WC. This lean-to would be removed and replaced by an additional bay’s width extension of the same height and profile as the existing main building.

2.3 The planning application is partly retrospective in that storage and use associated with the slaughterman’s business already takes place at the building. The building was specifically excluded from the Lawful Use Certificate application approved in January 2008 since the period the building has been in that use has not established a lawful use and the inclusion of the building was the basis for refusal of the first Lawful Use application in 2005.

2.4 In support of the proposal, the applicant’s agent has submitted a Design and Access Statement and an Environmental/Planning Assessment, extracts from which are set out below:

Use

2.5 The Local Planning Authority have acknowledged through the issuing of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use that a substantial proportion of the application site enjoys a lawful use for the operation of the applicants business as a mobile casualty slaughterman. Such a use dealing principally with the agricultural community is clearly appropriate within a rural location.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 2 Historically the business developed utilising the range of existing buildings at Orchard Court, although it is acknowledged that since 2004, the modern building at the southwestern corner of the site is now an important resource, bearing in mind changes in legislation. From the enclosed plan details it will be noted that the applicant would wish part of this building to be utilised as an office and this application seeks retrospective planning permission for two bays (extending to approximately 157m²), to be utilised for the storage of animal carcasses. An area between the carcass storage area and office will provide for a workshop for the maintenance of vehicles, machinery and equipment associated with the applicants business. An extension providing an additional 80m² floor space will enable the loading and unloading of carcasses which would also take place under cover. This is being proposed principally in order to address previous concerns regarding odour emissions from the site as will be highlighted below. With these activities being contained within an existing building, the environmental impact of the current uses will be minimised. This use is appropriate to a rural area as confirmed not only by the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7, but also having regard to consideration of policies such as Policy (R) FNE.1, of the District Local Plan Review. The significance of the continued operations of the applicant to the local agricultural community cannot be overestimated.

Transport/Access

2.6 The applicant has utilised the existing access to the A48 for this use of the premises since 1989 and there is no evidence to suggest that his use creates highway dangers. Visibility for vehicles emerging onto the A48 is good and because of the nature of the highway, traffic speeds are reasonable and no problems have arisen in connection with vehicles turning from the A48 in towards the application site. It will be important to stress that these proposals will not result in any intensification in use of the application site but rather have been prepared to regularise current activities. The vehicles operated by Mr Yarworth from the site are confirmed at paragraph 4.6 and apart from his own vehicles, the only other vehicles which enter and leave the site comprise occasional collections by articulated lorries from the incinerator or rendering companies. The applicant estimates that such vehicles would call at the site on average once per week, although it should be noted that the frequency of such vehicle movements does vary seasonally. Although turning movements of larger vehicles from Class 1 highways can create hazards, over the last twenty years the applicant is unaware of any accidents occurring as a result of these manoeuvres and such manoeuvres of various sized commercial vehicles is not unusual for a large number of farm premises along the length of the A48 highway (e.g. milk tankers, feed supplies etc). As these proposals will not involve any increase in activities on the application site there is no reason to conclude that these proposals are unacceptable in terms of access/accessibility.

Odour

2.7 The applicant is aware from previous correspondence and discussions that in the past concern has been raised by local residents to odour arising from the

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 3 storage of carcasses. The Enforcement Notice issued by Gloucestershire County Council specifically referred to concerns in respect of the local environment and amenity with regard to odour pollution from the movement and storage of dead and decomposing animals, with reference being drawn to the effects specifically to people living in close proximity of the application site. Similarly from discussions with Officers of Gloucestershire County Council it was agreed that one of the main issues to be addressed within this submission were measures to be incorporated in order to reduce problems in terms of odour which have arisen in the past.

2.8 Historically, the details at Section 4 confirm that up to 2004 carcasses were stored on the open yard and on trailers parked within the existing yard area. As a result of the 2003 Regulations, carcasses must now be stored undercover and the building in the southwest corner of the application site has been licensed as being appropriate for that purpose. In view of the responses of local residents to the Enforcement Appeal it would, however, appear that those residents consider themselves adversely affected in terms of odour notwithstanding the fact that carcasses are now stored within a building. The County Council Officers appear to conclude that odours derive from both the storage and in particular the movement of dead and decomposing animals. In these circumstances, having taken advice the applicant proposes an extension on the southern end of the building furthest away from residential properties in order to ensure that all loading and unloading of carcasses can take place undercover. Additionally, all existing doors to the carcass storage area and loading/unloading area will be lined with rubber sheeting and doorways can also be individually fitted with rubber seals. Within the building when carcasses are being moved deodourising will take place. No residues from the carcasses will be retained within the building. Regular deliveries either to the incinerator or to the rendering plant will ensure a reduction in odour through good management. The Local Planning Authority can impose conditions in the grant of any planning permission to ensure that these measures are effective, and if any further information is required in connection with these odour mitigation measures, this can be supplied if requested.

Landscape Impact

2.9 The application site now includes a number of buildings which have been established within the landscape for a number of years. Such groups of buildings are certainly not uncommon and in previous discussions with Officers of the County Council there has been no suggestion that the existing premises create any adverse landscape impact. The modest extension at the southern end of the existing building is of a scale which would not alter the landscape impact of the group of buildings as a whole. The modest extension has been design to match the existing building and external materials will match those of the existing building in the interests of continuity of appearance. From the west, the group of buildings is screened by the existing railway embankment and bearing in mind the course of the River Severn to the east and south, these proposals will have a minimal effect. Should the Local Planning Authority deem any landscaping to be appropriate, no

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 4 objections would be raised providing the scale of landscaping is proportionate to the works proposed and the scale which is affordable to the applicant.

2.10 To the applicants knowledge there is no significant wildlife interest on the applications site. Whilst traditional farm buildings can provide roosting sites for bats and barn owls, it will be noted that no works are proposed to any of the existing buildings, which will largely be retained in their current usage for storage of hay/straw, farm implements and for storage of equipment associated with the applicant’s business interests. The building proposed to be extended is of modern construction and is inappropriate to provide for any significant wildlife interest. In these circumstances it is not anticipated that these proposals will have any effect upon wildlife in the locality.

Drainage

2.11 The manner in which the site is drained has been the subject of consultation historically with the Environment Agency. Within the building there is a drain with a 6mm filter. That drain extends to an existing septic tank. Dirty water from that septic tank goes to another tank for settlement and then proceeds to a soakaway system, which has been agreed by the Environment Agency. All areas are steam cleaned rather than specifically disinfected as a more sustainable way of dealing with sanitation. In these circumstances pollution is avoided in terms of groundwater.

Archaeology/Geology

2.12 From investigations it is understood that there are no archaeological or geological matters of interest in connection with the application site.

Residential Amenity

2.13 In the past is understood that some local residents have raised concerns in connection with the effect of the establishment in terms of residential amenity with specific reference to odour. As far as the applicant is aware no objections have been raised by local residents in connection with any other issues associated with residential amenity. In these circumstances, addressing the issue of odour has been the applicants’ prime consideration, and it will be noted from the above that a number of measures are proposed to be put in place to deal with odour. The view of previous concerns expressed appears to indicate that concerns in respect of odour are seasonal particularly during periods of warm weather. In these circumstances the applicant will ensure appropriate management throughout the year to avoid such occurrences and particularly during summer months. As highlighted above, occasional slaughtering does take place on the application site, but this does not appear to have resorted in any specific concerns being raised from local residents.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 5 Flood Risk

2.14 The application site lies close to the River Severn but is not in the flood plain being elevated above the flood plain and to the applicants knowledge has never suffered from flooding, notwithstanding the recent frequency and occurrences of flooding in the Severn Valley.

Details of Uses That Have Taken Place at the Premises

2.15 In 1989 following a period of apprenticeship in the trade, the applicant established the business of a mobile slaughterman from his premises at Orchard Court, Ruddle. It is not alleged on behalf of the applicant that the buildings and yard area have been utilised exclusively for his trade and business associated with the slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities, but he is full-time employed in this business and has been full-time self-employed in the business since 1989 and has only ever operated his business from these premises. It is, however, acknowledged that the land and buildings have also been utilised for agricultural/equestrian purposes, including for grazing together with the storage of hay, straw, machinery etc.

2.16 The Local Planning Authority will acknowledge that the scale of the agricultural/equestrian use of the land and buildings would clearly not provide a full-time livelihood. The application site is Mr Yarworth’s base for his work as a mobile slaughterman. He kills and disposes of casualty animals (injured and sick animals). The vast majority of the killing is dealt with at client’s premises with carcasses then being taken away by the applicants back to Orchard Court. A small number of animals are brought by their owners directly to Orchard Court where they are slaughtered by Mr Yarworth. It is estimated that this probably occurs on average once per week and this scale of slaughtering on the site has remained largely unchanged since Mr Yarworth occupied the site in 1989. Historically carcasses have been stored both on trailers in the yard area and also on the concrete yard to the south of the original buildings. Regulations introduced in 2003 required carcasses to be kept under cover from 2004and since that date the new building at the southwest corner of the yard has been utilised for that purpose, although occasionally covered trailers are retained in the yard with carcasses. In terms of vehicles Mr Yarworth owns a 30 tonne four wheel lorry, various trailers and a Range Rover, all of which are utilised for the business and are usually kept at the site, washed down at the site etc.

2.17 Part of one of the buildings in the yard area has been utilised as a small office and other machinery associated with his trade and business is kept within other buildings around the yard. These buildings are not exclusively utilised for his trade and business as a slaughterman but also contain agricultural machinery, straw, hay etc. Since 1989, the applicant has had no other full time occupation and he has, not unreasonably, considered his trade and business to be closely allied to agriculture bearing in mind the vast majority of his work is for farmers in the locality. He has also been commissioned by various public bodies to deal with animal road casualties. The nature of his

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 6 trade and business has not altered over the period between 1989 and the current date, except insofar as national regulations requiring changes in best practice. Mr Yarworth is self-employed and does not employ any other parties. The principal area within which he operates comprises Forest of Dean District Council’s administrative area extending to Chepstow to the south, the outskirts of Monmouth and Hereford to the north, and the City of Gloucester to the northeast.

2.18 Since 1989 there have been changes associated with the way in which a slaughterman operates. When Mr Yarworth commenced his business the slaughter and disposal of casualty animals often also involved the salvage of meat for human consumption. In those instances, many of the animals were taken straight to slaughter houses after being shot. Other animals were disposed of by rendering or taken to hunt kennels. Those carcasses of animals to be disposed of by rendering or taken to hunt kennels were stored at Orchard Court prior to disposal. In 1990 the Ministry of Agriculture required a Schedule 19 “On Farm Slaughter Certificate”, to accompany farm animals that were deemed fit for human consumption. These Certificates were only valid for twenty-four hours and as such animals fit for human consumption were taken directly by Mr Yarworth to slaughter houses at Abergavenny, Minsterworth or Cinderford. All other animals could be shot and disposed of without this Certificate and normally carcasses were taken back to Orchard Court until he was able to dispose of them at incinerators, and knacker’s yards. In the early 1990’s the BSE crisis occurred and in March 1996 it was found that there was a potential link between BSE in cattle and the contraction of the human form CJD.

2.19 In April 1996 all bovine animals over the age of 30 months were banned from the food chain as a result of which most animals falling into that category had to be either incinerated or rendered. The introduction of this scheme led to a major welfare problem with a backlog of 60,000 cattle countrywide that needed to be killed and disposed of. There are also specific problems in terms of incineration capacity. Most over 30 months (OTM) carcasses from this locality were taken to the incinerator at Stoke Orchard whereas Abergavenny Slaughterhouse provided a rendering facility. In 1997 a selective cull of cattle most at risk from BSE was introduced which again resulted in an increase in workload with all cows most at risk from BSE being culled and incinerated. At this time Mr Yarworth continued to store other casualty carcasses at Orchard Court, and continued to have to store carcasses until incineration or rendering facilities were available.

2.20 In 1998 the Rural Payments Agency required clearer recording of all cattle disposed of and it is as a result of these requirements that such comprehensive records are available to demonstrate the level of the storage of carcasses which occurred at Orchard Court. Periodically local incinerators were unable to deal with demand as a result of which it was not unusual in the late 1990’s for carcasses to be taken from Orchard Court as far as Newton Abbot or Exeter. In 2000, the Stoke Orchard incinerator was closed and since that date most carcasses stored at Orchard Court have been taken to the Wessex incinerator at Frome. Normally Mr Yarworth travels at least twice

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 7 weekly to Frome, storing carcasses at Orchard Court between deliveries. Also in 2000 Mr Yarworth suffered burglary at Orchard Court with his main work vehicle being stolen, together with guns, extensive work equipment etc. As a result it was decided that a secure building was required and an application was made to Forest of Dean District Council under the determination system. Following approval, work commenced in early 2002.

2.21 In 2004 animal by-products legislation was implemented which required that all animal by-products i.e. carcasses, had to stored and disposed of in a proper manner and all farm animals unfit for human consumption had to be incinerated and were not allowed to be buried. In August 2003 prior to introduction of these requirements Mr Yarworth enquired of DEFRA what he would need to do to comply with the legislation. Mr Roderick of the State Veterinary Service advised Mr Yarworth of the requirements and in 2004, Orchard Court was licensed for the storage of carcasses unfit for human consumption to be stored at the premises. Whilst up to 2004 the majority of the work had involved cattle there was greater demand for other farm animals. The premises at Orchard Court now provide facilities to the necessary standards and as such represent an essential local facility. At Appendix A to this report is a paper produced by Mr R Blowey confirming the recent history of how fallen stock is dealt with, the importance of storage of carcasses and the role played by Mr Yarworth. Substantive details relating to the storage of carcasses throughout the period has been provided to the County Council’s Enforcement Officer, Mr Harris who has also seen the records at Mr Yarworth’s premises. At Appendix B is a copy of the applicant’s last license for the premises from DEFRA under The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003.

2.22 In support of the application the Environmental/Planning Statement includes as an appendix a report prepared by MR R Blowey BSc, BVSC, FRCVS, ARAgs of the Wood Veterinary Group, a veterinary practice based in Gloucester. The report reviews the legislative changes affecting the management and disposal of fallen stock and the importance of storage of carcasses within this process. The report sets out the author’s expert opinion that the service offered by the applicant is very important to the local farming community in particular.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

Application Description of development Decision number /date DF.13371/A/LD Application for a Certificate of Lawful Granted 11th C Use for the use of land and buildings in January 2008 connection with a business of a slaughter man, excluding; 1. The storage of animal carcasses and parts thereof; and 2. The slaughtering of animals

05/0100/FDCER Application for a Certificate of Lawful Refused

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 8 T/CAPS Use for the use of land and buildings in 2006 connection with the applicants business of slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities.

PE/AG/277 Application to Forest of Dean DC for a Determined (Application for prior approval determination under Part 4th January a Prior Approval 6 of the General Permitted Development 2002 Determination) Order in respect of the proposed erection of an agricultural barn.

3.1 The site has a relatively complex planning history that is relevant to the application. In 2002, a prior approval determination was issued by Forest of Dean DC in respect of the erection of an agricultural barn. This is the building subject of the current application. It may be noted that use of the barn for storing of carcasses requires express consent, hence the part-retrospective nature of the current application.

3.2 Prior to the current application, the same site has been the subject of two previous applications for Certificates of Lawful Use. The first of these applications was submitted in November 2005 following correspondence with Gloucestershire County Council’s Enforcement Officer. That submission sought a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use of land and buildings in connection with the applicants business of slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities. The application was refused primarily on the basis that a new building had been constructed within the application site, which altered the planning status of the site.

3.3 A second application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use was submitted in 2007 altering the boundaries of the application site to exclude the new building referred to in the earlier decision notice. The application was approved and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use issued on 11th January 2008.

3.4 One further aspect of the planning history at the site involves an Enforcement Notice issued in January 2007 by Gloucestershire County Council. The Notice alleged a Breach of Planning Control at Orchard Court, Ruddle, comprising use of land in connection with a business of the slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses (or parts thereof) and associated residues and ancillary activities. The applicant appealed in February 2007. Following submission of evidence by the appellant that the relevant activities had been taking place for over ten years it was subsequently agreed that the Enforcement Notice would be withdrawn and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use would be issued by the County Council. This would be in respect of that part of the overall site for which the second application had been submitted albeit in limiting terms.

3.5 Effectively as a precursor to the planning application now being considered, the applicant agreed that if the Enforcement Notice were withdrawn and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use issued, then the only outstanding

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 9 matter would relate to use of the modern agricultural building at the southwestern corner of the existing yard and that matter would most appropriately be dealt with by means of a planning application which would be forwarded to the County Council by the end of January 2008, as this has been.

3.6 Related to the planning history has been an extensive history of odour complaints made by nearby residents, arising from the storage of carcasses at the site. This resulted in the service of a formal Odour Abatement Notice and a subsequent successful prosecution of the applicant due to breaches of that Notice. Further regular complaints have been made since that time, and a further Abatement Notice is pending at the site.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10)

4.1 PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

4.3 In considering application for waste management facilities the statement indicates that authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and amenity.

4.4 The requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), that was a former requirement of previous guidance (PPG10) has been removed.

Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23)

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 10 4.7 PPS23 recommends close liaison with pollution control authorities and that Planning Authorities should ensure that the pollution control authority is satisfied the proposal can be regulated under the pollution control regime. Planning Authorities should also ensure that the cumulative effects of the pollution from a proposal, taking into account the existing sources of pollution, do not make a proposal unacceptable.

Regional Planning Guidance 10 – Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (2001) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006)

1. On the site management, where possible;

3. Preference for established and proposed industrial sites and previously developed land,

In rural areas there should be provision of a network of local waste management facilities. Major sources of waste arising in rural areas will be treated locally, unless specialised facilities are required.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (Adopted 1999)

Policy S4 Development in rural settlements. Policy S.6 Local Character and Distinctiveness. Policy E4 which relates to rural commercial and industrial development and seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 11 Policy WM.2 – relates to the provision of an integrated network of waste management facilities in the county, and their potential environmental impacts including the amenity of local communities and the water-based environment. Policy WM.3 – promotes establishment of facilities in appropriate locations to deal with local waste. Policy P.1 – relates to the potential polluting impacts of development.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration (Unadopted) incorporating Proposed Modifications (July 2004) and Proposed Second Modifications (January 2005).

4.11 The Third Alteration has had an Examination in Public in November/ December 2003. Two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005 a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration still remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations.

4.12 The following policies are material considerations in respect of determining the proposed development: Policy SD.23 - Applies to the provision of waste management facilities – gives preference to industrial sites or existing facilities as locations for waste facilities. Policy MR.10 - Controls development in respect of pollution impacts.

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004)

• Policy 25 – Relates to conserving biodiversity.

• Policy 33 - Relates to the impact of waste development on surface watercourses and ground water bodies.

• Policy 37 - Relates to the effect of the proposal on nearby properties and indicates where appropriate ameliorative measures should be incorporated to control noise, dust, litter and odour.

• Policy 38 - Indicates that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict hours of operation where necessary.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 12 • Policy 40 - Relates to traffic on the highway network and highway safety.

The following policies of the Waste Local Plan are ’unsaved’ but still have a degree of materiality as they have been through an inquiry process; policies relevant to the proposed development are:

• Policy 1 - Indicates that waste proposals should represent the best practicable environmental option. However, the subsequent national PPS10 has no formal requirement for applicants to undertake a BPEO analysis.

• Policy 2 - Restricts the transportation of waste outside the county boundary to circumstances when it is necessary for regional self- sufficiency.

• Policy 3 - Relates to the proximity principle, which states that waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. Although the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste.

• Policy 6 - Relates to development of waste management facilities at sites other than those identified within the Waste Local Plan. These will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the facility is essential to support sustainable waste management; meets the relevant policies and criteria of the WLP; are likely to be a better option than the methods and sites identified in Schedules 1 and 2. The WLP suggests that waste management facilities will normally only be acceptable within industrial sites, previously development land or on mineral workings.

• Policy 13 – Relates to Materials Recovery and Waste Transfer Facilities.

• Policy 34 - Relates to the impact of development on the flow of surface water, or otherwise resulting in flooding.

Forest of Dean Local Plan (Adopted November 2005)

4.14 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Forest of Dean District Council Local Plan’s Development plan status must be considered. The complete Local Plan remains part of the Development Plan at present and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 13 • (R)FE.2 Development on Established Employment Sites • (R)FE.5 Employment in the Countryside • (R)FBE.22 Environmental Pollution

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The proposal was advertised by a site notice erected on the 21st February 2008 and which expired on the 13th March 2008, and an advertisement in a locally circulating newspaper dated 21st February, which expired on the 13th March 2008. In accordance with the protocol contained within the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (Adopted December 2005) 16 letters were sent to residents and premises located within 250 metres of the site boundary to notify them about the application.

5.2 Correspondence has been received from seven local residents raising concerns about the application and operation of the site and objecting to the proposed development. The objections raised may be summarised as:

• Ongoing odour problems are completely unacceptable and would be increased as a result of the proposed development; • The site has been operated with a disregard for neighbours and there is no guarantee that this will improve in the future; • Increased lorry movements would result in noise and road safety problems, and are not compatible with the Severn Way footpath that uses the same access point from the main road; • Unrestricted working hours could lead to an intensification in activities with attendant unacceptable noise and disturbance, at any time of the day and week; • Potential pollution of a water course; • The main road alignment is unsafe and not appropriate for additional lorry movements at the location.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Forest of Dean District Council objects to the application and comments as follows:

6.2 Conservation Officer – Collow is an attractive small hamlet with a long association of river trade. The principle building is Underhill Farm (Grade II Listed) which has recently undergone restoration and been removed from the local Buildings at Risk register. It is used as a high quality visitor accommodation. The footpath that approaches Underhill Farm directly from the river Severn follows the boundary of the site. Any increase in volume or scale would have further visual impact on the setting of and approach to, the listed building. It may also be a consideration that any increase in trade may have further impact on the tourism business operated from Underhill Farm.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 14 6.3 Environmental Health Officer – Objection, I am not satisfied that that the details submitted with the application will adequately control environmental issues of odour and noise. (See further comments below).

POLICIES

6.4 (R)FBE.1 – Built Environment; (R)FT.2 – Transport; (R)FE.5 Employment; (R)FNE.6 – Natural Environment; (R)FHE.3 – Historic Environment; (R)FNE.1 – Natural Environment; (R)FTRL.2 – Tourism, Recreation and Leisure. District Local Plan Review (Adopted)

EVALUATION

6.5 The following issues are considered relevant in determining this application:

• Visual Amenity • Residential Amenity • Impact Upon Listed Building • Building History • Impact on Tourism

Visual Amenity

6.6 The extension proposed is considered to be in character and scale with that of the existing buildings. It is not going to be any higher that the existing building and therefore it is felt that the extension is not going to be visually intrusive. In considering the visual impact the comments under the heading ‘Building History’ should also be considered.

Residential Amenity

6.7 The nearest neighbouring properties to the application site are Underhill Farm (Grade II Listed Building) and 1-6 Welling Terrace situated on the opposite side of the A48 road, approximately 80m distance away. The use of the site has resulted in an extensive history of odour complaints from nearby residents. Environmental Health Department has received regular complaints, which were substantiated and resulted in service of a formal abatement notice and a subsequent successful prosecution. Since this prosecution further regular complaints have been made which are the subject of on-going investigation. Therefore it is considered that the proposal to store carcasses, with the associated odours, is not acceptable and would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents, contrary to Policy (R)FBE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.

Impact Upon Listed Building

6.8 Underhill Farm is situated on the other side of the A48 road and is a Grade II Listed Building in use as tourism accommodation. Due to the proximity of the Listed Building to the site the proposal would be detrimental to the beneficial use of the adjacent Listed Building, as tourist accommodation. This would

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 15 adversely affect the Listed Building contrary to policy (R)FHE.3 of the District Local Plan Review.

Building History

6.9 An agricultural prior determination was submitted to this authority in 2001 and was approved. The building that has commenced on site and is the subject of this application is in a different position to that approved under the agricultural determination. Consequently6 the lawful status of the building is in question. The County Council should in their determination of the application consider the impact of the building itself as well as its use.

Impact on Tourism

6.10 The District Local Plan Review identifies the need to increase the number of staying visitors within the Forest area. Retention of the use of the application site for storage of carcasses would, due to the odour problems associated with the use, have an adverse effect on the tourist accommodation at Underhill Farm, contrary to policy (R)FNE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.

CONCLUSION/REASONS FOR APPROVAL

6.11 The proposal would allow an inappropriate commercial use to continue near to residential and tourist properties, including a Grade II Listed Building (Underhill Farm). The continued storage of carcasses would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of nearby residential properties and the operation of tourist accommodation by reason of odour. Furthermore it may adversely affect the Listed Building Underhill Farm contrary to Policies (R)FNE.1, (R)FBE.1, (R)FHE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.

6.12 Forest of Dean Environmental Health Officer objects to the application

6.13 The current use of this site, for which this application relates, has resulted in an extensive history of odour complaints from nearby residents. Since 2003, the Environmental Health Department has received regular complaints, which were substantiated and resulted in the service of a formal abatement notice and a subsequent successful prosecution. Since then, further regular complaints have been made which are the subject of on-going investigation.

6.14 Therefore I am very concerned that unless operations carried out on the site are designed and managed appropriately, there is a proven potential for substantial detriment to amenity of nearby residential properties.

6.15 I am not satisfied that the details submitted with the application will adequately control environmental issues of odour and noise. In my professional opinion, I consider that facilities could be provided on-site, or the existing building could be modified, to accommodate systems to control and abate odour and noise to an acceptable level. However, any such acceptable modifications would be substantial and beyond the scope of the current application. For the reasons

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 16 described above, to ensure that any future operations at the site do not cause the substantial nuisance that the current operations have proved to cause, I must object to this current application.

6.16 However, if this application is NOT refused for any reason, it will be crucial that the following condition is included with the consent in order to minimise any potential nuisance, if granted:

6.17 A scheme for the effective control and management of odours and noise produced by activities at the site shall be submitted and approved by the Divisional Environmental Health Officer, Environmental Protection & Licensing Team at the Forest of Dean District Council within three months of the permission [if granted]. Operations at the site shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the scheme as submitted and approved, unless under and in accordance with a variation approved in writing by the above officer. The scheme shall include, as minimum:

1. Odour impact assessment; 2. Odour management plan (including specification of fully enclosed building maintained under negative pressure at all times, all stock handling within fully enclosed building, specification and use of suitable odour abatement system); 3. Noise impact assessment (including details of vehicle movements on, to and from site; 4. Noise management plan; 5. Complaint response procedure.

6.18 Newnham Parish Council has not responded

6.19 Councillor S McMillan, local councillor

In case you are not aware, this site has a history where neither the District Council nor County Council have covered themselves in glory, in my opinion. (That would probably be seen as too kind by some residents).

Some comments on this application if it connected to a prospective increase in business activity (I can’t tell from the paperwork I have seen):

1) I believe there is potential for an increase in size of lorries using it. 2) I believe the frequency of lorry use may increase. 3) I believe that there is a an issue with highway safety at the entrance to the site as vehicles have to pull out onto the opposite side of the road to get in and out as the entrance s too narrow. 4) I suspect that on egress, the visibility to the left from the entrance is not good either.

I do hope that a proper level of dialogue is maintained from the start with the District Council to avoid some of the communication and decision making difficulties that have occurred over this site in the last five years.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 17

I particularly request that proper compliance with whatever planning permissions allowed is monitored and enforced. I note that an element of the application is retrospective, implying that works have been carried out without proper permission. Given that this application for an extension and alteration is to a building that should not have been allowed in the first place, and with a retrospective element included, you may understand the heightened sense of interest and concern locally.

6.20 County Highways Representative does not object to the application and states:

I recommend that no highway objection be raised subject to the following condition(s) being attached to any permission granted:-

The office and vehicular workshop shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the development hereby authorised.

REASON: To ensure that no separate additional use/unit is established on the site requiring further vehicular access or parking provision.

Within 1 month of the development hereby being granted consent details for the modification of the existing vehicular access shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning manager. These details shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the approval.

REASON To ensure that a satisfactory access is provided in the Interests of Highway Safety.

NOTE: The proposed development will require the modification of a vehicular crossing from the carriageway and the Applicant is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire Highways on 08000 514 514 before commencing works on the highway.

NOTE: The details required to modify the existing access should include the extension of the existing drop kerbing by 2m minimum and a 1m taper towards Newnham and the associated adjustment of the footway.

NOTE: I note from the supporting documentation that the agent has included the number of anticipated weight and number of vehicular movements consideration should be given to a condition covering this.

6.21 The Environment Agency: The Agency has no objections to the proposed development and comments: Due to the small scale slaughtering operation involved and the discussions we have had with the applicant, we are happy that the proposed alterations and extension to the development will not result in a significant effect on the environment.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 18

6.22 Animal Health

REGULATION (EC) NO 1774/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HEALTH RULES CONCERNING ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION THE ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 2005 (SI 2005/2347)

No one may use an intermediate plant for handling and or temporarily storing animal by-products for the purpose of further transportation to its final destination unless the plant is approved for that use in accordance with the above Regulations.

Mr P Yarworth’s intermediate plant at Orchard Court, Newnham on Severn is currently approved under the above Regulations and his new proposal will be assessed on its merits, and full approval will only be granted when approval conditions are met in full. Animal Health is the licensing authority for such approvals and this approval is in addition to and separate from any planning approval granted by your department.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Archaeology

7.1 The application site has been checked against the County Sites and Monuments Record and there is no known archaeology at this location. It is the view of the Senior Archaeological Officer that this development has low potential to adversely affect archaeological remains, and I therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation or recording should be required in connection with this scheme.

Ecology

7.2 The County Council’s Ecology Officer comments:

7.3 “The development lies over 3km from the Severn Estuary SSSI, SPA and cSAC site but its scale and nature are such that there is no likelihood for there to be a significant effect on this European Marine Site either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

7.4 I note that the new extension (only part of this application) will mean the loss of a section of an existing bank in the southwest corner. This bank is well vegetated and over time would develop some value for breeding birds and small mammals. I therefore advise that the developer should compensate for this loss. An appropriate measure would be to (re-) create a continuous hedgerow along the northern boundary of the application site. The benefit of doing this is that the hedgerow abutting the A48 would be strengthened to the advantage of various species. This could be easily achieved by a short section of infill planting of native shrubs on the western end of the northern

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 19 boundary. I would also recommend one or two appropriate native trees are planted here to be managed as standards above the hedge line.

7.5 To conclude, a hedgerow and tree planting scheme for the northern boundary is required as a condition for any consent granted.”

Planning

7.6 This proposal is for the erection of a single-bay width extension to an existing agricultural style building and would extend the building by 6.35m, using the same roof heights and other dimensions. The extension would be at the southern end of the building, facing away from the road, and it is considered that it would not be prominent in any views from nearby dwellings or public vantage points. It would not affect the setting of the Grade II Listed Underhill Farm. In addition, I do not consider that any potential impact on the nearby Underhill Farm’s use as a tourist facility should be accorded any weight as a material consideration in terms of either that building’s Listed status or Policy (R)FHE.3 of the District Local Plan Review, November 2005 . Therefore, from the perspective of appearance, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable.

7.7 The proposal is part retrospective in that the use of the building to store animal carcasses, which already takes place, is not permitted, and requires planning permission. The use of the wider application site in connection with a slaughterman’s business has been established, and that use is not at issue. However, due to changes in animal health legislation since the use commenced at the site, there is a requirement for storage of carcasses in a building. As a consequence, use of the wider site for a slaughterman’s business would not be able to continue without planning permission being granted for carcase storage.

7.8 The service provided at and from the site is important to the local agricultural community and economy, and is also important as part of animal health management beyond the agriculture sector. Loss of the facility would require significantly increased transport requirements at economic environmental cost. In terms of the local economy this has to be balanced against the potential for loss of tourism trade at the nearby Underhill Farm that is used as a bed and breakfast and for holiday lets.

7.9 There is an extensive history of odour complaints at the site, which have arisen principally from the storage of carcasses. These complaints are referred to in the consultation response of the District Environmental Health Officer. Past performance is not in itself a valid reason for refusal, but the past and continuing effects on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in this instance is a significant planning consideration. If the application is approved then it is implicit that storage of carcasses will continue at the site.

7.10 There are two main options for addressing the odour problem permanently. The first would be to refuse permission for the proposed development,

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 20 preventing use of the building for carcase storage, and therefore leading to slaughterman activities largely having to cease at the site. This would improve the living conditions of residents in the locality, but would have the adverse economic and environmental effects outlined above.

7.11 The second option would be to grant permission, allowing the business to continue, but subject to conditions controlling the scale of activities taking place, and which ensure that odour control is fully addressed. The District Environmental Health Officer considers that it would be possible to provide facilities to control and abate odour and noise but that such modifications would need to be: “substantial and beyond the scope of the current application.” However, the planning condition recommended by the Environmental health Officer does require odour and noise impact assessments and management plans including the use of a fully sealed building maintained under negative air pressure. With the provision of such a scheme I consider that the second approach offers the most appropriate balance between protecting the amenities of local residents and securing an important sectoral waste facility. The impact on the nearby tourist-related business at Underhill Farm is a material consideration. However, the odour mitigation measures and planning conditions mean that significant detrimental odour will not arise at the nearby residential properties and therefore it should not adversely affect Underhill Farm’s trade.

7.12 The facility forms an important element of waste management capacity handling predominantly agricultural animal waste from the local area, and hence is well aligned with PPS10 advice that communities should seek to take greater responsibility for wastes arising in their local area. There is demand for increased waste processing capacity for commercial and industrial wastes in particular. I also consider the proposal accords with the ‘unsaved’ Policies 3 and 6 of the adopted Waste Local Plan.

7.13 The proposed development would not create any risk to water resources and does not conflict with Policy 33 of the Waste Local Plan. The site does not give rise to any flood risk and the Environment Agency does not object. Therefore there is no conflict with Policy 34 of the Waste Local Plan.

7.14 I consider that, subject to conditions concerning operation of the facility, the proposed development can be accommodated at the site without unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the local area and it would not conflict with Policy 37 of the Waste Local Plan or policies R)FBE.1, (R)FNE.6, (R)FHE.3, (R)FNE.1, or (R)FTRL.2 of the Forest of Dean

7.15 The County Highway Officer does not object to the proposed development.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 21 Human Rights.

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

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

Objections have been received from local residents relating to concerns about odour, increased lorry movements, noise, highway safety, water pollution and impacts on a footpath. For the reasons set out in the observations of the Head of Planning and Development it is not thought there would be any breach of the convention rights. Even if there was to be an interference with convention rights then, in this case, it is thought that the interference would be justified in the interests of public safety and for the protection of the health of the wider community. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development.

7.17 Conclusions and summary reasons for grant of planning permission and relevant development plan policies and proposals.

7.18 I consider that, subject to conditions, this application is acceptable and accords with the relevant development plan policies. The specific issues of odour, noise and HGV movements to which objections have been received can be suitably mitigated and controlled through the use of appropriate planning conditions. This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan policies, including the following:

• Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review - policies Policy S4, S.6, E4, which relates to rural commercial and industrial development and seeks to. Policy WM.2, WM3 and P1.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 22 • Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft - policy SD.24, MR.10. • Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan – ‘saved’ policies 37 and 40. ‘Unsaved’ policies 3 and 6. • Forest of Dean District Local Plan Review policies R)FBE.1, (R)FNE.6, (R)FHE.3, (R)FNE.1, and (R)FTRL.2.

7.19 The summary of reasons for granting approval is as follows:

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Therefore I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

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.

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, or unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted application form, supporting information and plans 2054.08.i, 2054.08.iv, 2054.08.v and 2054.08.vi dated January 2008. For the avoidance of doubt, the area subject to this application, hereafter referred to as ‘the site’, is the area outlined in red on plan 2054.08.i.

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 Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Hours of Operation 3. Except in emergencies, which the Waste Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of, no Heavy Goods Vehicles shall enter or leave the site other than between the following hours: 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 23

Highways 4. The office and vehicle workshop shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the development hereby authorised.

Reason: To ensure that no separate additional use/unit is established on the site requiring further vehicular access or parking provision.

5. Within 1 month of the date of this consent details for the modification of the existing vehicular access shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority . These details as approved shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the date of approval.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory access is provided in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Waste Local Plan.

6. No more than 10 vehicles per day shall deliver material to the site, unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict the number of lorry movements, to enable monitoring and regulation, in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Waste Local Plan.

7. The maximum weight of vehicles delivering or collecting waste materials at the site shall not exceed 20 tonnes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict the size of lorries attending the site, to enable monitoring and regulation, in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Waste Local Plan.

Odour 8. A scheme for the effective control and management of odours and noise produced by activities at the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority within two months of the date of this permission, and its measures will be implemented as approved in full within four months of the date of this permission. Operations at the site shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the scheme as submitted and approved, unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include, as a minimum:

1. Odour impact assessment; 2. Odour management plan (including specification of a fully enclosed building maintained under negative pressure at all times, all stock handling within the fully enclosed building, specification and use of suitable odour abatement system); 3. Noise impact assessment (including details of vehicle movements on, to and from site); 4. Noise management plan;

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 24 5. Complaint response procedure.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Landscaping 9. Within two months of the date of this permission a scheme for the planting reinforcement of the hedgerow on the northern boundary of the application site extending for the width of the frontage to the A48 highway shall be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented no later than the next planting season following the commencement of development of the building extension hereby permitted. Within five years of planting, any trees, shrubs, or other plants that die or become diseased, are removed or damaged, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of a similar size and species in accordance with the details of the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies 37 and 43 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Notes to applicant

The proposed development will require the modification of a vehicular crossing from the carriageway and the applicant is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire Highways before commencing works on the highway

The details required to modify the existing access should include the extension of the existing drop kerbing by 2m minimum and a 1m taper towards Newnham and the associated adjustment of the footway.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application Forms and accompanying plans Consultation Reponses and letters of Representations

CONTACT OFFICER: Case Officer – Atkins (Marcus Wood) Gillian Parkinson Legal and Democratic Services.

Application History. Consultee Time taken (weeks) Tewkesbury Borough Council 2 weeks 4 days Newnham Parish Council No response Environment Agency 13 weeks 2 days County Highways 5 weeks 3 days Ecology 2 weeks 3 days Archaeology 2 days Time taken. 24 weeks

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 25

Comreps/DC JULY08 1/GJ 26

APPLICATION NO: 08/0020/TWM VALIDATION DATE: 4th April 2008 AJW District Ref 08/00597/CM

AGENT: Land and Mineral Management Ltd, 40 Cheltenham Road, Cirencester, GL7 2HX

APPLICANT: Complete Utilities Ltd

SITE: Overton Farm, Main Road, Maisemore, Gloucester, GL2 8HP

PROPOSAL: Recycling facility for inert waste with associated storage and ancillary development

PARISH OF Maisemore SITE AREA: 0.7 Ha

GRID REF: S0 380, 222

RECOMMENDED: That planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons set out within this report and summarised at paragraphs 7.52 and 7.53, and subject to the conditions detailed at section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION

1.1 The site is located at Overton Farm within Maisemore parish, which is situated 5 km (3 miles) to the northwest of Gloucester. The site is accessed from the A417, connecting Gloucester to Ledbury and the M50.

1.2 Maisemore is located 1.5 kilometres (0.9 mile) to the southeast, Hartpury is located 2 kilometres (1.2 miles) to the north and Highnam is located 2 kilometres to the south of the site.

1.3 The site covers approximately 0.7ha of the farmyard to the north of Overton Farm. The north-eastern part of the site comprises a farmyard area, an open Dutch barn and a fully enclosed barn/workshop. The western part of the application site comprises an area which has been excavated and levelled (formerly agricultural land). Adjacent to the site boundary, within the levelled area, is a small stable block. Immediately to the south of the farmyard area is an established small business unit. The business premises are approximately 15m from the application site boundary and are owned by the applicant.

1.4 The nearest residential property, other than Overton Farm itself (which is the applicant’s private residence), is Woodcroft Cottage, which is approximately 100m to the north of the application site boundary. A further cottage, Overton Cottage, is located to the south, approximately 140m away from the application site boundary. Beyond that the closest residential properties are

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 1

over 0.5 km away (0.3 miles) at Upper Hyde, Maisemore and Chargy Hill and Dents Lane, Hartpury.

The farm complex is situated towards the top of a small ridge, which rises up from the Vale of Gloucester to Woolridge Hill, at approximately 60 to 65m AOD. The farm is surrounded by agricultural land, primarily arable, with few properties in the immediate vicinity of the site.

1.5 The site is screened by existing farm buildings, trees/hedgerows and topography. The land rises to the south and west. The levelled western part of the site cuts into this rising ground, with a level difference of 2-4 metres between the site and the adjoining land. Thus views of the site from the south and west are limited.

1.6 The landscape surrounding the Overton Farm complex comprises open fields, in agricultural and equestrian use. Approximately 1.5km to the north west of the site is Hartpury College.

1.7 A public right of way (PROW) (ref CMA/6/2 ), planned for diversion, crosses the centre of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the permanent establishment of a specialist recycling facility for the treatment of up to 18,750 tpa of inert wastes, in the form of road trenching wastes. This process involves Complete Utilities processing road trenching wastes and then using the recycled products for backfill in their trenchwork. This proposal is solely for the treatment of the applicant’s own trenching wastes.

2.2 The applicant proposes that the facility will be a true recycling operation for the wastes that are excavated from the creating and repairing of trenches. The two products created from recycling processes will be used by the operator to reinstate trenches and for the final layers of landscaping. The applicant envisages a 100% recycling rate.

2.3 Information submitted with the application indicates that the material would arise from Cheltenham and Gloucester and surrounding areas and that the facility is hoped to achieve a 100% recycling rate.

2.4 The operations were previously located at Monk Meadow Dock, Hempsted Lane, Gloucester for a period of over 10 years but had to vacant this site as it was required for ‘redevelopment’ as part of the Gloucester Quays Scheme, which involves the regeneration of 62 acres of brownfield land and industrial heritage buildings. The company has managed to stay in business by operating from a number of temporary sites in Gloucester and is now desperate to establish itself in a permanent site.

2.5 This subsequently led to the applicant having to find an alternative location for their operations.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 2

2.6 The applicant found a suitable location at Overton Farm and applied for planning permission for a larger operation than the current application which was turned down by members at the County Planning Committee meeting in September 2007. The company have considered the reasons for the refusal of this previous application and the comments made by the members of the public and have sought to address these with the revised proposals in this new application. The main revisions to the application are:

• omission of new office and maintenance building • omission of crushing activities • use of the facility only for the company’s own waste • more extensive landscaping • reduction in the proposed throughput by 25% • reduced traffic movements.

2.7 The proposal is for the development and use of the application site for the storage (stockpiles of less than 4 metres in height), sorting and recycling of inert wastes with ancillary development. Additionally the proposal includes the conversion of the existing Dutch barn into a two storey office building.

2.8 The proposed hours of operation are between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturday (for use of the site office and maintenance building, including vehicles entering or leaving the site). The proposed hours of the processing plant are between 9am and 4pm Monday to Friday with no processing on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.

2.9 The applicant indicates that the output will be a 100% recycled secondary aggregate, a soil-like material and a fill material for trenches. The company will use these materials in their civil engineering works, in the place of primary won materials. 2.10 The processing will be undertaken outside, on the concreted processing area, using mobile plant. No fixed machinery is proposed. The machinery that will be used outside comprises:

• Screen • Trommel (Achiever Trommel Screen) – secondary screen • Loading Shovel 0 • 360 Excavator

2.11 The processing plant will operate on an individual basis i.e. at no point will either the screen or trommel be operated on site at the same time.

2.12 The outside processing will entail the screening of the material. This activity will be located in the western part of the site adjacent to the waste storage area.

2.13 The application includes the provision of a new hedge along the eastern, north and western sides of the site and some coppices on the eastern boundary to provide additional screening. All existing hedgerows and trees are to be retained.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 3

2.14 It is also proposed that the southern boundary of the western part of the site will have an acoustic screen (2m high brick wall topped with 1m of close board wooden fencing) and the eastern side of the western area will have an acoustic barrier provided in the form of a green living wall. The height of this barrier will vary with the depth of the slope between the original ground level and the farmyard level. Overall the acoustic barrier will be a minimum of 3m high difference above the level of the processing and storage areas.

2.15 A summary of further details about the operation submitted by the applicant are provided below:

“Introduction Complete Utilities Ltd, the applicant, are seeking planning permission for a recycling facility for inert materials together with ancillary development at Overton Farm, Maisemore. The proposal will provide the applicant with a new permanent site to replace its closed depot in Gloucester and allow the company to recycle the trenching wastes generated by their operations. The recycling facility will sort and recycle up to 18,750 tonnes per annum of wastes excavated when undertaking ground works and digging and repairing trenches. The development will also provide a base for the company’s vehicles, associated storage and utilise existing buildings for maintenance, storage, welfare facilities and offices purposes.

Complete Utilities Ltd are an established Gloucestershire company with more than twenty years experience in civil engineering and ground works across the County. The company specialises in working with suppliers of gas, water, electricity and tele-communications. Complete Utilities provide the support to these companies in any works involved in trenching or ducting of cables or pipes. At present the company are responsible for all BT’s and Central Network’s work in Gloucestershire.

The company, have been looking, unsuccessfully, in the central Gloucestershire area for a new permanent site for several years. The company had been operating from a site in Hempsted for over 10 years but had to vacant this site as it was required for ‘redevelopment’ as part of the Gloucester Quays Scheme, which involves the regeneration of 62 acres of brownfield land and industrial heritage buildings. The company has managed to stay in business by operating from a number of temporary sites in Gloucester. However the company are desperate for a permanent replacement site which can accommodate their operations on a single site.

The company applied for planning permission for a larger operation at Overton Farm which was turned down by members at the County Planning Committee meeting in September despite a recommendation for approval by the Head of Planning & Development. The company have considered the reasons for the refusal of this application and the comments made by the members of the public and have sought to address these with the revised proposals in this new application. The main revisions to the application are:

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 4

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2.16 The previous application 07/009/CM for a recycling facility for inert waste with associated storage and ancillary development was screened in May 2007 in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. It was then the opinion of the WPA, following consultation with the appropriate consultees, that an Environmental Statement was not required as although the proposal fell within Schedule 2 of the Regulations it was considered that it would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment. With this being the case an EIA was deemed unnecessary considering the short time period between applications and the similarity of the application.

2.17 As the proposed development falls into Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 1999 the applicant has submitted supporting information to demonstrate that an EIA was not required for this application as it did not comply with the indicative thresholds of Annex A of Circular 02/99 of the 1999 Regulations. For waste facilities the circular considers a EIA is more likely to be required where new capacity is created to hold more than 50,000 tonnes per year, or to hold waste on a site of 10 hectares or more.

The capacity of the proposed development is for up to 18,750 tonnes per annum of inert waste which is below the 50,000 tonnes per annum suggested as significant in Circular 02/99 and the site area is below 10 hectares. The waste types are inert which are also considered by the circular to be unlikely to require EIA.

The site is not located in an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ as outlined by the Regulations (e.g. in a Site of Special Scientific Interest or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

The previous planning application for an inert recycling facility which was for a higher throughput of waste, 25,000 tpa, was screened by the County Council on the need for an EIA. The Screening Opinion issued by the County Council on the 3rd July 2007 was that the development was not EIA development.

Therefore having regard to the scale, location and characteristics of the development together with the Screening Opinion on the previous planning application, it is the view of the Applicant that the development is not EIA development.

The Application Site and Immediate Surroundings The application site is found at Overton Farm which is situated to the north west of Gloucester in the parish of Maisemore in Tewkesbury Borough,

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 5

Overton Farm lies to the west of the A417 between the villages of Maisemore, 1.5 kilometres to the south, and Hartpury, 2 kilometres to the north. The existing farm complex comprises the main farmhouse together with a variety of farm buildings and other accommodation which includes a small business unit complex in some converted barns. The application site is less than 5 kilometres from the company’s previous site in Gloucester.

The farm complex is situated towards the top of a small ridge, at approximately 60 to 65m AOD. The farm is surrounded by agricultural land, primarily arable, with few properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest residential property, other than at Overton Farm, is Woodcroft Cottage located on the A417 some 100m to the east of the application site boundary and Overton Cottage lying some 150m to the south.

The application site covers part of the farmyard area associated with Overton Farm and includes several agricultural buildings, currently used for agricultural storage. A farm track crosses the centre of the application site from north to south. Several mature trees and a stretch of hedgerow run along the track. The track effectively splits the application site into two, an eastern area and a western area.

The eastern part of the site has a partially open Dutch barn, with a footprint of 7m x 23m, and a smaller barn with a footprint of 8m x 14m round an open yard area, which has a consolidated hardcore surface. The western part of the site comprises an open yard area which has been levelled, cutting into the slope of the rising ground with a difference of approximately 4 metres with the adjoining land level at the northern end of the site. The application site is bounded primarily by post and rail fencing but with some small stretches of trimmed hedgerows and a new hedgeline on the western part of the site.

Overton Farm has a direct access onto the A417, which is the main road between Gloucester and Ledbury. The access has good visibility and has recently been improved to meet highway requirements. A public right of way (EMA/6/2) crosses the application site. The footpath starts at the farm access onto the A417, follows the farm road then heads north in front of the office complex. The footpath enters the application site from the east between the two barns then crosses westwards joining the farm track and heading north. The route of the footpath is shown on drawing no. 2007/3/2.

Proposed Development The proposal is for a replacement site for a specialist recycling facility for the treatment of up to 18,750 tpa of inert wastes, in the form of road trenching wastes. The proposals will allow Complete Utilities to continue their existing operations which involve the processing of road trenching wastes and then the reuse of the recycled products back into their trenchwork. This proposal is solely for the treatment of the applicant’s own trenching wastes.

The facility will be a true recycling operation for the trenching wastes and will sort and recycle the wastes that are excavated in the course of creating and repairing trenches. The recycling processes create two products: a soil like

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 6

material and a fill material for trenches. The fill materials will be used in place of primary won materials in reinstating trenches. The soil materials will be used in the final layers of the re-instatement works for landscaping purposes. The applicant envisages a 100% recycling rate.

Processing Plant and Recycling Operations The processing will be undertaken by mobile plant, no fixed machinery is proposed. The machinery that will be used on site includes:

• Screen • Trommel • Loading Shovel • 3600 Excavator

Due to the nature of the site and operations, with restricted space and limited throughput, the processing plant will operate on an individual basis i.e. at no point will either the screen or trommel be operated on site at the same time.

The recycling, including the sorting, stockpiling and processing, will take place in the western part of the site, located as far away as possible from the nearest residential properties. The waste brought onto site will be visually checked to ensure that there is no unsuitable material, any loads with unsuitable material will be removed directly without being deposited on the site. The ‘as dug’ trenching waste will be initially sorted into different stockpiles. The screen will be used to initially separate the ‘as dug’ waste trenchings into material >50mm and topsoil. The screen is a dry screen which has also been designed to undertake recycling and has a maximum working height of 3.75m.

The trommel will primarily be used to mix the bulk of the >50mm material with a dry blending agent so that it is suitable for use back in trenching work. Approximately 15 tonnes of blending agent will be used on a weekly basis. The maximum working height of the trammel is 4m.

The 3600 excavator and loading shovel will be used to load the processing plant, move materials on site and transfer materials on and off vehicles.

The operations maximise backloading. The applicant’s vehicles will reload with recycled material, which will ensure the lowest number of traffic movements. This will ensure that there is minimal material, in either processed or unprocessed stockpiles, on site at any one time. The stockpiles of inert material for recycling, and subsequent recycled material, will be no more than 4m high. The maximum material stored on site at any one time will be no more than 500 tonnes.

Hours of Operation The hours of operating hours at the site are proposed to be: 0700 – 1800 Monday – Friday 0700 – 1300 Saturday With no operations on Sundays or public holidays.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 7

The processing plant will only be operated: 0900 – 1600 Monday – Friday With no operations on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.

As mentioned in paragraph 5.3 above only one item of processing plant (screen or trommel) will operate at any one time. The reduced working hours for the processing plant reflect the throughput of the site and the capacity of the plant. Processing activities such as the screening and blending will only take place for a few hours each working day.

Ancillary Operations The site will provide the operational centre for Complete Utilities and its recycling business. In addition to the main recycling activity, the other elements of the operation will include offices, a maintenance building, limited storage and associated parking. A large part of the previous site in Gloucester was occupied as a storage compound for other utilities contractors’ equipment and materials, such as road signs and piping. It is not proposed that these uses will take place at Overton Farm.

The eastern part of the site will be used primarily for parking and storage with the existing barns used for maintenance and office purposes. The northernmost barn will be used for maintenance and storage and no adaptation of this building is necessary. The offices will be provided for with the conversion of the existing Dutch barn structure on the site. The recycling operations, processing and storage of materials will take place on the western part of the site which is located furthest away from the nearest residential properties.

A condition survey has been undertaken on the Dutch barn which concludes that the barn is capable of conversion, a copy of this is reproduced in Appendix B. The Dutch barn is a steel framed structure with corrugated iron sheeting, (coloured grey and bright yellow), on two elevations and the roof. Elevations and plans of the proposed conversion are shown on drawings reference LMML/Elevations and LMML/Plans. The building will provide offices, toilets and welfare accommodation over two floors. It is proposed that the cladding will be colour profiled steel cladding for both the walls and roof. The Applicant is happy to agree a suitable colour for the cladding”.

Traffic and PROW 2.18 The applicant has submitted a Highways statement by Cooper – Roberts as part of the application which is available on line at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk. The conclusion of the Highways statement can be seen below:

CONCLUSIONS

• The proposed recycling facility would handle up to 18,750 tonnes of inert waste per annum and would generate in the region of 34 hgv

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 8

movements per day and 40 cars and light goods vehicle movements associated with the operational side of the business.

• The majority of hgv movements to and from the site would be outside of the recognised peak hour flows on Route A417.

• The appellant is likely to reduce the number of hgv’s in Company ownership which would further reduce the traffic impact below the levels identified in this report.

• The appellant is promoting an improved access onto Route A417 which would be in accordance with nationally recommended visibility standards for a 50 mph road.

• The proposed landscaping proposals have had full regard to the interests of highway safety and it will be noted that hedge lines are to be re-established to the rear of the improved sightlines on both sides of the improved access onto Route A417.

• We have given due consideration to the representations made by external parties as part of the previous planning consultation process and given our response, notwithstanding that there were no highway objections raised by the Highway Authority nor highway reasons for refusal offered by the Waste Planning Authority.

• The accident record for Route A417 has been examined past the appeal site and through the village of Maisemore and we can find no commonality of accident causation. None of the accident reports considered cited deficiencies in either highway geometry or condition as a primary cause of the accident. It should be noted that all accidents within the 3 year period analysed resulted in slight injuries with only one serious injury.

• The proposed development would give rise to an increase of less than 0.8% in the traffic flows through the village of Maisemore, which has a generous carriageway width and segregated footways. There are no road capacity problems and the road would be capable of carrying additional traffic volumes subject to the limitations at Over Roundabout, which during the am peak hour is congested. From our analysis there would be no increase in hgv movements through Maisemore during the am peak hour.

• The proposed planning conditions as set out in the officer’s Committee report in respect of the previous planning application, provide adequate safeguards and would limit and control the number of hgv movements generated to and from Overton Farm.

• Having reviewed the planning history and undertaken a comprehensive review of the traffic information, we are satisfied that the proposed recycling facility at Overton Farm would not affect the safety and free

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 9

flow of traffic along Route A417 nor would it have any detrimental affect on highway conditions through the villages of Maisemore and Hartpury.

• In the light of the above we can find no bona fide highway reasons to support a refusal of planning permission on highway grounds and we believe this latest planning application, which has reduced the amount of throughput to 18,750 tonnes per annum, should be granted consent.

2.19 Waste material would be transported to the site by the applicant’s own vehicles. In summary, the proposal envisages a maximum of 34 lorry movements per day. An additional 40 movements per day from staff cars, deliveries and collections are also envisaged. Thus the total envisaged daily vehicle movements are 74.

2.20 Further details regarding traffic movements provided with the application are outlined below:

Transportation “The applicant typically operates 15 gangs each day, some of the vehicles would be based at Overton Farm but a number of these would be parked overnight at the home of employees. The gangs each generate an average arisings of trenching wastes of 5 tonnes. This means that on a daily basis Complete Utilities deal with approximately 75 tonnes of trenching wastes which translates to an annual throughput figure of 18,750 tonnes.

A detailed analysis has been undertaken of the traffic movements associated with the Applicant’s operations which have been gradually changing over the past year reflecting operational constraints and issues. A detailed highways statement has been prepared and provides details of the traffic movements that will take place, see Appendix C. The Applicant has developed a more efficient ‘milk round’ collection of trenching wastes from the individual gangs. Rather than each gang returning to the site with their waste the Applicant now has vehicles collecting the trenching arisings from several gangs.

This collection system would continue at Overton Farm with vehicles bringing trenching wastes to the site for processing collected from a number of gangs. Individual gang vehicles will not need to return to the site, reducing movements of vehicles carrying waste, although a number of gang vehicles will be based there overnight. The processed material will be similarly transported by the lorry undertaking a ‘round’ of the gangs and also by the gangs vehicles based at the site overnight. In effect this means that only 6 loads per working day would be brought to the site, far fewer than previously proposed. However the highways statement does look at all the hgv movement to ensure as full a picture of traffic movements as possible.

In addition to the traffic generated by the direct movement of the waste and recycled product there will be movements due to staff arriving and leaving. The previous practice at Gloucester saw all staff come in by road with approximately a third sharing lifts. No staff cycle, walk or use public transport to travel to work. A number of gang vehicles park overnight at employees

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 10

homes and these would have no need to come to Overton Farm. The applicant is prepared to put in provision for cycle parking if deemed necessary. There are opportunities for public transport to travel to work at Overton Farm as a main bus route to Gloucester passes in front of the farm on the A417. However, it is anticipated that the pattern of travel to work will be by road for employees and parking is required for up to 15 cars during the day, to accommodate this. The additional movements due to staff arriving and leaving site is estimated to generate a further 40 trips per day, Monday to Friday with only 5 on a Saturday.

The site will only be used by the applicant’s vehicles. The site will not be open to the general public and nor other utilities operators. The site will be secured by means of the existing fencing and a lockable gate at the entrance. The only external lighting proposed at the site is external security lighting which is motion activated. A weighbridge will be located in the western part of the site.

The development will utilise the existing access onto the A417 which will be improved as detailed in the Highways Statement, Appendix C. The access into the site will be via a new access road across a field linking the A417 access and the site, without the need to use the existing farm access road. The access road will be tarmaced and have a minimum width of 5.5m. The site itself will be surfaced by a combination of tarmac and concrete providing a hard surface which will be swept and kept clean at all times so that the wheels of lorries using the site will not carry mud on to the highway.

The applicant proposes to apply to divert the public footpath, EMA/6/2, which crosses through the east and centre of the site. The proposed route diversion would take walkers round the eastern and north eastern sides of the site. The applicant is prepared to provide a hard surface for the new footpath route if required.

Employment The applicant already employs a total of 55 people. Importantly this proposal will secure their continued employment as without a permanent replacement site to for the previous Gloucester depot the business will not be able to continue. Since losing their previous site the company has been operating from a number of sites, all are on short term leases in advance of redevelopment. The current situation is causing logistical problems and does not provide a secure long term future for the business.

The majority of the employees (40) are involved in the ground work operations which mean they work out on site. Approximately 15 people will work at Overton Farm, working the recycling plant, conducting maintenance and undertaking office duties including the co-coordinating off site operations. This breaks down to 2 in the workshop, 2 operating the yard/storage, 1 works programmer and 3 on the recycling plant.

Boundary Treatments/Landscaping The existing boundaries are largely demarked by post and rail fencing with the exception of the southern boundaries. A new hedge has recently been planted on the western site boundaries. A more extensive landscape

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 11

planting scheme is proposed than in the previous application to help screen the site and assimilate into the surrounding landscape. The proposed landscaping is detailed in the Visual Impact Assessment report in Appendix D, plan 403/10. All existing hedgerows and trees in the site and on the site boundaries will be retained.

The southern boundary of the western area will have an acoustic screen comprising of a brick wall of 2m in height with a further 1m of close board wooden fencing on top. The eastern side of the western area will also have an acoustic barrier provided in the form of a green living wall. The height of this will vary with the depth of the slope between the original ground level and the farmyard level. The overall aim is to ensure that there is an acoustic barrier with a minimum 3m high difference above the level of the processing and storage areas.

2.21 Environmental Impacts – The applicant’s agent has outlined the environmental impacts of the proposal and states that the proposal should be viewed in the context of the diversified farm complex’s uses.

2.22 The application is supported by a noise report, visual impact assessment, highways statement and a design and access statement all of which can be viewed on the internet at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk.

Traffic The proposed throughput of this site is not substantial and is fully detailed in the Highways Statement. The traffic generated from the movement of material will be limited and will be restricted to Monday to Fridays for vehicles bringing material to and removing it from the site. As this proposal is for an existing operation the traffic movements are not new journeys but a ‘transfer’ of existing movements i.e. these traffic movements are already occurring. Therefore in traffic terms the proposal represents a continuation of an existing number and pattern movements as currently generated by the operations in Gloucester, only 5 kilometres away. In addition employees’ vehicles will equate to approximately 4 to 5 movements per hour.

The development will utilise an existing access on to the A417 which was improved for the business unit development but the Highways Statement includes further details of modifications to ensure a safe access. No restrictions were placed on vehicle movements when business units were permitted. The Highways Statement considered, taking account of the capacity, current level of usage and safety record of the A417, that there will not be any highway safety issues arising from the proposed development. No highways objections were raised to the previous proposal which involved moving higher quantities of materials.

Wheel Cleaning The site operations will be strictly controlled such that all material will be deposited and stored at the western end of the site which is furthest from the public highway. The intervening yard area will have a tarmac or concrete surface which will be swept clean. The new access road between the site and

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 12

the A417 access will be over 90m long and will have a tarmac surface and which will be kept swept clean. It is considered that the length and surfacing of the road will prevent any material being deposited onto the public highway and that it is not necessary to have formal wheel cleaning facilities on site.

Public Rights of Way A public footpath, CMA/6/2, crosses the east and central area of the site, as shown on plan 2007/3. Whilst the eastern area will only be used for parking, the applicant intends to apply for a footpath diversion in order to divert the route of the footpath around the eastern side of the site. The overall length of the diverted footpath will not be substantially different to the existing route. Users of the footpath will be aware of the site’s operation but the diverted route will keep them physically separated from the site’s activities.

2.23 Noise - The applicant has submitted a noise report to support the application. The noise survey was undertaken on 27th April 2007 by Dr R. Crawford of Barnhawk Acoustics. The conditions were dry, mainly overcast early, sunny periods later, temperature 140C, with an easterly wind of 2-4m/s (metres per second), equating to a gentle easterly breeze.

The noise report has calculated the noise impact on the closest properties, Woodcroft Cottage and Overton Cottage, using the advice of Planning Advice Note 24 and British Standard 4142. The report concludes that impact of noise from the operation of the processing plant at these properties would be less than of marginal significance, in accordance with the advice of BS4142. The report also applied the noise acceptability criteria approach, which rates the impact according to the predicted level of noise change on a ‘significance criteria’ issued by the IEA and Institute of Acoustics. The impact rating for the development on the nearest property is considered to be of ‘slight impact’.. The report also provides a subjective assessment of the noise impact on the adjacent business premises.

In undertaking the noise assessment the report takes account of the proposed mitigation measures i.e.

• Reduced daily working hours for the operation of the processing plant. • Processing activities not to be undertaken simultaneously. • Provision of acoustic fencing to the east of the processing area maintaining a 3m high screen incorporating the change in ground levels. • Provision of a 3m high acoustic screen on the southern boundary.

2.24 In order to assist with the assessment of the likely noise impact due to the primary screening operation, the assessment used noise measurements from the operation of the trommel and screener from the Applicant’s previous screening operations at Monk Meadow Dock, Gloucester. The measurements were taken at a distance of 25m from the ‘activity’, and they both shared the same sound power level of 110dBA.

2.25 The noise report has calculated the noise impact on the nearest properties,

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 13

using British Standard 41421. The results are in the table below:

Table 2 – Receptor Noise Levels and BS 4142 Assessment

Receptor Noise Measured Difference Assessment Level, dB Existing LAeq Background LA90 Woodcroft 51 48.5 +2.5 Less than marginal Cottage significance Overton 52 49.5 +2.5 Less than marginal Cottage significance Overton 57.5 49.5 +8 Worse than marginal Farmhouse significance but less than ‘complaints likely’

2.26 The report also applied the noise acceptability criteria approach, which rates the impact according to the predicted level of noise change on a ‘significance criteria’ issued by the IEA and Institute of Acoustics. The impact rating for the development on the nearest residential property is considered to be of ‘slight impact’.

The report concludes that there is no reason on noise grounds in the community as a whole to withhold planning consent. No objection was raised by the District Environmental Health Officer on the previous application. This revised proposal is for a reduced throughput and omits any processing by crushing and as such is considered will have less of a noise impact than the previous proposal.

2.27 With regards to other potential environmental impacts the supporting statement states:

“Dust Assessment, Monitoring and Mitigation Dust has the potential to be created at this site from the inert waste that will be recycled from a number of sources:

• Vehicles unloading the waste; • Processing activities; • Stockpile storage; • Loading vehicles with recycled materials.

The amount of dust that has the potential to arise is principally affected by the nature of the wastes when brought to site and weather conditions. Typically the material that is brought to the existing site at Gloucester is damp, having recently been excavated and this helps to minimise dust creation when unloading vehicles.

The nearest residential property is that of the applicant, who lives in Overton Farmhouse. The next nearest residential properties outside the farm which could be affected by dust are Woodcroft Cottage and Overton Cottage. Both

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 14

are situated over 100 metres from the closest edge of the site and further from the area of processing and storage.

In terms of Overton Farm and Overton Cottage there are a number of structures in the intervening ground and prevailing wind direction is away from the properties, as they lie to the south of the site. Woodcroft Cottage is more susceptible to the prevailing wind coming over the application site however the processing activities and storage areas are located in an area cut into the ground which, together with the noise fencing, would provide a screen to all bar the final metre of the stockpiles and the very tops of the machine. Additionally there is a hedge line and also planting on the boundary of Woodcroft Cottage on the intervening ground which would settle/trap any fugitive dust. It should also be noted that although there are three main parts to the processing plant which are all capable of generating dust, there will only be one piece of plant in operation at anyone time.

Monitoring of dust arising from any of the waste activities on site will be the responsibility of all members of staff working at the facility. Monitoring will be ongoing during operational hours, with any incidents of dust creating a significant nuisance outside of the site being noted and appropriate action taken.

Dust suppression measures will be implemented when significant releases of dust have the potential to occur, or do occur beyond the boundaries of the site which could cause a nuisance to the adjacent properties. The most effective form of mitigation will be the monitoring of the operations to ensure that the potential for dust occurring is reduced by actions taken on site. Dust suppression will be by the addition of water to reduce dust arising. A water supply will be available on site and, again as appropriate to the weather conditions, a hose with spray head will be used to distribute water over any stockpiles which are a potential dust source.

It is proposed that all dust suppression will be applied as relevant to the conditions on site and the activities taking place at any given time rather than as a regular occurrence as this could result in excess surface water being created on the site which would then have additional impacts.

Visual Screening The existing farm complex sits toward the top of a rising spur of land set back from the main A417 road. The farmyard complex has an extensive range of buildings. The location of the proposal to the north west of the farm complex helps assimilate the proposed development into the surrounding countryside and provides a large element of visual screening cutting out direct views form the nearest public views and residential properties. The advice of the Council’s Landscape Consultant was that the previous proposal would have a slight visual impact.

The proposal will not result in any ‘additional’ buildings as the required office accommodation will be provided in the existing Dutch barn structure. Similarly with the maintenance accommodation this will be provided in the other barn structure on the site. The revised proposal, with more extensive

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 15

landscaping proposals is considered to have less visual impact than the previous proposal.

The proposed mitigation measures in terms of visual impacts and landscape include:

• the conversion of the existing Dutch barn structure to provide offices and welfare facilities. • the use of similar construction materials for the external finishes of the Dutch barn conversion • Dark non reflective colour on external walls of Dutch barn • Curve in access road to reduce views into site • Planting of new native hedgerows around the site. • Planting of new copse areas • Planting of standard trees to create tree lined road • The construction of the southern acoustic screen partly as wall (in similar brick to the farm buildings) and close board natural wooden fencing with hedge planting on southern side to provide ‘green’ screening’. • No processing plant/machinery to exceed 4 metres • No stockpiles of material to exceed 4 metres

A visual assessment of the site and proposed development has been undertaken and can be seen at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk. Photographs are included of the main view points round Overton Farm. The proposed development is on an area of existing farmyard although it will introduce new elements to the landscape. However the proposal has been designed to minimise the overall visual impact of the new elements. The main visual impact of the proposal relates to the impact on the footpath crossing the application site however it is proposed to divert this footpath which will, together with maturing of the landscape planting, lessen this impact. Overall the visual impact of the proposed development is considered to be slight.

Biodiversity and Ecology The application site comprises an area of farmyard which is currently used in association with the adjacent farm buildings. There are no designated nature conservation sites in the vicinity of the site and there is no evidence of any features of ecological interest on the site. The proposals will see the retention of the existing mature trees on the site and offers a small ‘gain’ with the creation of new hedgerows and small coppices using native species. The County Ecologist raised no objection to the previous proposal and noted the ‘biodiversity enhancement’ with the landscape planting.

Ground Water and Surface Water Protection This application proposes that only inert waste will be handled therefore no significant pollution risk to ground or surface water arises. The area used for storing and recycling inert materials will have a concrete surface. All stored materials will have been checked prior to stockpiling to ascertain that they do not contain any wastes that could give rise to pollution. The whole site will either be surfaced in concrete or tarmac with drainage into interceptor drains.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 16

The site will be constructed and operated in accordance with the Environment Agency licensing requirements in respect of site drainage.

Litter, Vermin and Odour The nature of the waste is such that it will not contain any material with the potential to cause a litter problem nor attract vermin (birds, rats or flies) nor generate odour i.e. it does not contain biodegradable material or paper, cardboard or plastics. All loads entering the site will be inspected and if any such materials are detected then the load be sent directly to landfill or transfer station and not brought to site.

Archaeology and Heritage The site does not include any undisturbed areas of ground as it comprises an area of farmyard which has buildings and hardstandings and areas excavated below ground level. There are no features of archaeological interest or heritage designation affecting the site. An archaeological investigation was undertaken with the previous application, a copy of this is included in Appendix F and can be seen at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk. The investigation concluded the majority of the site had a low to medium potential for archaeological remains from the medieval period with negligible potential on the north western corner of the site. On receipt of this the County Archaeologist did not object to the previous application. It is not considered that the proposal will have any adverse impact on archaeological or heritage interests

Policy Considerations 2.28 As part of their supporting statement the applicant has submitted information on the national, regional and local policies that they believe support their application. These policies can be seen in full on our website at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk. Below is a summary of these policies:

Waste Policy Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) The objective of the Directive is to reduce as far as possible the amount of waste going to landfill and minimise the impacts of landfilling on the environment and human health. The Directive requires that waste must be treated before it goes to landfill.

Waste Strategy for England 2007 This contains the government’s strategy, which is part of the government’s implementation of the EU’s Framework Directive on Waste, taking into account the landfill directive for managing wastes, and outlines targets for the reduction of landfilling commercial and industrial waste by 2005 to 85% of 1998 levels.

Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb 2005)

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 17

Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1): Planning and Minerals (Nov 2006)

` Pnning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) 2005 and Companion Guide (June 2006)

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG 10) 2001 RPG 10 interprets the national planning policy framework at the South West regional level and is part of the statutory development plan.

Regional Waste Strategy (RWS): From Rubbish to Resource 2004 The vision of the RWS is that the Region will become a minimum waste producer by 2030, with business and households maximizing opportunities for reuse and recycling.

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (DRSS) 2006

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (Adopted Nov 1999) The relevant Structure Plan policies are:

• Policy WM.1 – Best Practicable Environmental Option. • Policy WM.2 – Integrated Waste Management Facilities. • Policy WM. 3 – Provision of Facilities for Gloucestershire’s Waste • Policy WM. 4 – Provision of Recycling Facilities • Policy NHE.1 – Development and the Environment. • Policy W.1 – Water Resources • Policy P.1 - Pollution.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft (November 2002) & Proposed Modifications (July 2004 and January 2005) The EIP for the Third Alteration was in November/December 2003 and two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005 a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration still remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations. The following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

• Policy SD.22 – Best Practical Environmental Option and Development Operation. (This policy is unchanged from the adopted Structure Plan Policy WM.1). • Policy SD.23 – Waste Management Facilities. • Policy SD.24 – Need for Waste Management Facilities. • Policy MR.10 – Pollution Impact • Policy MR.15 – Secondary Materials as Aggregates

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 18

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 (Adopted October 2004) The aim of the Waste Local Plan (WLP) is to help put in place a sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire. The relevant policies of the plan, as ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State in his letter dated 5th October 2007, are:

• Policy 1 - Best Practicable Environmental Option • Policy 2 - Regional Self Sufficiency • Policy 3 – Proximity Principle • Policy 12 – Inert Recovery & Recycling. • Policy 33 - Water Resources – pollution control. • Policy 37 - Proximity to other land uses. • Policy 38 - Hours of operation. • Policy 40 - Traffic. • Policy 41 – Public Rights of Way

Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options (Consultation Document January 2008)

Conclusions The proposal is essential for a replacement site for a successful specialised recycling operation with the continued employment of 55 people. The proposed development will secure the future of recycling operation which is already part of the County’s sustainable waste management system.

The proposal has been substantially revised to overcome the previous reasons for refusal with a reduction in throughput, processing activities and no new buildings. The proposal includes appropriate measures to address any environmental nuisance such as dust or noise. There are extensive landscaping proposals designed to minimise the visual impact of the development on the surrounding landscape. The nature of the wastes that the facility will deal with will not give rise to any water pollution issues, odour, vermin or litter problems.

The proposal utilises an existing access onto an ‘A’ road and only involves relatively low volumes of traffic. The proposal will in essence have the same pattern of traffic movements as the previous operation and is only 5 kilometres from the previous site.

Recycling waste materials is an important goal incorporated into policies for sustainable development at all levels of government. This application fully accords with Local, National and European policy by providing a facility which will meet policy objectives, is sustainable and does not have an adverse impact on the environment or surrounding amenities.

Permission should be granted for the proposed Recycling Facility at Overton Farm, Maisemore.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 19

3.1 The County Council has dealt with one planning application at the site of the proposal which was refused by planning committee in September 2007. The table below provides the main planning history relating the wider farm unit.

Application number Description of development Decision/date 07/00911/CM Recycling for inert waste with Refused 25th associated storage and September 2007 ancillary development 02/11001/0619/FUL Development adjacent to the Granted by application site: Tewkesbury BC Conversion of existing farm 17.12.2002 outbuildings into business units.

Part of the planning permission required the improvement of the farm access. There are no restrictions on the hours of use or vehicles numbers under the terms of this consent. 93/9143/0229/FUL Development at Overton Farm, Granted 0.5 km to the south of the 13.07.1993 application site: Use of land for the disposal of inert waste material.

This was a time-limited permission and operations have now ceased. 89G/5600/01/02 Development at Overton Farm, Granted 0.5 km to the south of the 01.03.1990 application site: Extraction of clay fill material, refilling with imported inert naturally occurring material and restoration to agricultural land.

This was a time-limited permission and operations have now ceased.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb 2005) 4.1 The government considers that sustainable development is a core

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 20

principle of planning and one of its main aims is the prudent use of natural resources.

Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1): Planning and Minerals (Nov 2006). 4.2 One of the governments main objectives of MPS1 is to reduce the amount of minerals used and wastes generated by using as much recycled and secondary material as possible. MPS1 states:

• to ensure, so far as practicable, the prudent, efficient and sustainable use of minerals and recycling of suitable materials, thereby minimising the requirement for new primary extraction;

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management 4.3 PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. The statement promotes sustainable waste management whereby waste is moved up the waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting and waste to energy, with waste disposal to landfill as a last resort.

4.4 In finding suitable sites for new waste management facilities, the statement indicates that a broad range of locations including brownfield and industrial sites should be considered. Companion Guide to PPS10 indicates that redundant agricultural and forestry buildings may also be appropriate for accommodating waste management uses.

4.5 When determining planning applications the PPS is a material consideration which may supersede policies in development plans and Waste Planning Authorities should therefore not place requirements on applicants which are inconsistent with the PPS.

4.6 In considering applications for waste management facilities the statement indicates that authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and amenity. In respect of noise the PPS indicates that considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors and that it may be appropriate to use planning conditions to control noise impacts. The PPS highlights that intermittent and sustained operating noise may be a problem if not kept to acceptable levels.

4.7 The requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), that was a former requirement of previous guidance (PPG10), has been removed.

Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise 4.8 PPG24 outlines some of the main considerations which planning authorities should take into account when determining planning applications for development which will generate noise. The PPS confirms that the impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 21

applications.

4.9 The PPG states that new development involving noisy activities should, if possible, be separated from noise-sensitive land uses, such as offices and housing. The PPG acknowledges however that there will be circumstances when it is acceptable or desirable, in order to meet other planning objectives, to allow noise generating activities on land near housing.

4.10 If separation cannot be achieved, planning authorities should consider controlling noise levels, or mitigating the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance and should bear in mind that subsequent intensification on a site may result in greater intrusion so they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.

4.11 Planning authorities should take into account the character of the noise (whether it is an irregular noise or noise which contains a distinguishable continuous tone) as well as its level and the fact that the background noise level in rural areas is very low, and the introduction of noisy activities into such areas may be especially disruptive.

4.12 Annex 3 of PPG24 provides advice regarding noise emanating from landfill sites (although the advice is not directly applicable for a recycling operation, noise from a landfill site will be similar e.g. in that some of the same types of activities will occur albeit operations may be more intermittent). The annex indicates that the main noise sources will be from vehicular movement, tipping operations, and site plant and appropriate planning or licensing conditions may relate to hours of working, the number/capacity of vehicles using the site and access points and the provision of acoustic screening.

4.13 Annex 5 of PPG24 provides advice regarding meteorological conditions. It states that the noise level measured at a monitoring point will be affected by wind speed and direction, particularly when the monitoring point is remote from the source (>30m) and recommends that measurements (or predictions) should be made under reasonably stable conditions as the size of the effects of wind are hard to predict.

4.14 Finally, the PPG highlights the fact that statutory powers to control noise exist outside the planning system (for example local authorities can serve abatement notices where the noise emitted from any premises, or from vehicles, machinery and equipment constitutes a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993). The granting of planning permission does not remove the need to comply with these controls.

Regional Planning Guidance 10: Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (2001) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006) 4.15 RPG 10 interprets the national planning policy framework at the South West regional level and is part of the statutory development plan and therefore must be considered. Policy RE5 sets down regional targets for reducing landfill of

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 22

industrial waste and gives priority to recovery facilities in or near the Principal Urban Areas (i.e. Cheltenham and Gloucester) in order to achieve sustainable waste management.

4.16 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 - 2026 has been issued for consultation and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. As the Draft RSS has not been adopted its policies have limited weight. Relevant policies are:

• Policy W2 – Advocates the following hierarchy when making provision for waste facilities:

1. On the site waste management, where possible;

2. Proximity principle i.e. waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. (However the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, however the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste); and

3. Preference for established and proposed industrial sites and previously developed land,

• Policy RE12 - This policy relates to the provision of facilities for secondary and recycled aggregates to meet targets for utilising alternative materials and supports sustainable construction principles.

4.17 In rural areas there should be provision of a network of local waste management facilities. Major sources of waste arising in rural areas will be treated locally, unless specialised facilities are required.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (2011) 4.18 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Structure Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies are ‘saved’ under the transitional arrangements and are relevant to the proposed development::

• Policy WM.2 - Relates to the provision of an integrated network of waste management facilities in the county, and their potential environmental impacts including the amenity of local communities and the water-based environment.

• Policy WM.3 - Promotes the establishment of facilities in appropriate locations to deal with local waste.

• Policy WM.4 - Applies to the provision of waste recovery facilities - advocates preference for industrial, redundant or brownfield sites in close proximity to major concentrations of waste arisings i.e. areas coincident with population centres.

• Policy S6 - Seeks to safeguard and enhance features of the local

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 23

environment including ‘the quality of the landscape’.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft incorporating Proposed Modifications & Proposed Second Modifications (January 2005) 4.19 The Third Alteration had an Examination in Public in November/December 2003. Two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005 a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration still remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations

4.20 The following policies are material considerations in respect of determining the proposed development:

• Policy SD.23 - Applies to the provision of waste management facilities – gives preference to industrial, redundant and brownfield sites or existing and previous waste management sites, working and worked out quarries, as opposed to greenfield sites, as locations for waste facilities.

• Policy MR.10 - Controls development in respect of pollution impacts, such as noise.

• Policy MR.15 - Encourages proposals that promote the greater use of secondary materials as an alternative to primary aggregates where environmentally acceptable.

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004) 4.21 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Waste Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004. However, following the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s Direction (dated 5 October 2007) the following WLP policies are ‘saved’ until replaced by Development Plan Documents contained in the Waste Development Framework:

• Policy 12 - Indicates that inert recycling facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations. Para 5.54 of the Plan states, “A permanent facility may be suitable if there is a continuous and long-term supply of construction wastes from a particular catchment area alongside a market for recycled materials and aggregates. In assessing proposals, consideration will be given to the proximity of the proposed facility to the source of waste and potential markets in order to minimise transport and environmental impacts. Careful consideration will also be given to the minimisation and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts such as traffic, visual intrusion, noise and dust”.

• Policy 33 - Relates to the impact of waste development on surface watercourses and ground waterbodies.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 24

• Policy 37 - Relates to the effect of the proposal on nearby properties and indicates where appropriate ameliorative measures should be incorporated to control noise and dust.

• Policy 38 - Indicates that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict hours of operation where necessary.

• Policy 40 - Relates to traffic on the highway network and highway safety.

• Policy 41 – Public Rights of Way

4.22 The following policies of the Waste Local Plan are ‘unsaved’ but still have a degree of materiality, as they have been through an inquiry process relevant to the proposed development.

• Policy 1 - Indicates that waste proposals should represent the best practicable environmental option. However PPS10 has no formal requirement for applicants to undertake a BPEO analysis.

• Policy 2 - Restricts the transportation of waste outside the county boundary to circumstances when it is necessary for regional self- sufficiency.

• Policy 3 - Relates to the proximity principle.

• Policy 6 - Relates to development of waste management facilities at sites other than those identified within the Waste Local Plan.

• Policy 34 - Relates to the impact of development on the flow of surface water, or otherwise resulting in flooding.

Tewkesbury Local Plan 2011 (Adopted 2006) 4.23 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the Adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

• Policy TPT1 - Relates to traffic (and cumulative traffic) on the highway network and highway safety.

• Policy GNL1 – Seeks high quality design that is appropriate to the setting and the character of the surrounding area.

• Policy LND4 – Protects the character and appearance of the rural landscape.

• Policy AGR7 – Sets out that rural buildings should be capable of conversion to the proposed alternative use.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The proposal was advertised by two site notices that were posted on 24th April 2008 at the access to Overton Farm and an advertisement in the

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 25

Gloucestershire Citizen on 28th April 2008. 58 letters were sent to the residents and businesses of near neighbours of the site to notify them about the application.

5.2 27 letters, emails and electronic objections through public access, have been received from members of the public in respect of the application. Additionally a response was received from the CPRE commenting on the application while not objecting or supporting it.

5.3 The objections are primarily on the grounds of traffic, congestion, potential for increased accidents, concern about traffic speed through Maisemore village, damage to roadside buildings from vibration, noise, dust, pollution, potential for future growth of the facility and the unsuitability of the location.

5.4 The residents of the two closest properties to the application site, Woodcroft Cottage and Overton Cottage, have not submitted any representations to the County Council.

5.5 Copies of the objections and the CPRE comments have been made available to Members for inspection in the council chamber landing. The contents of the objections have been summarised in the following table:

Highways and Traffic Impact Increased traffic and congestion as a direct result of the development would have harmful impact on highway safety (increased risk of accidents). Increase in noise from HGV movements. Increased HGV traffic will increase the vibrations felt by existing listed buildings. Increased traffic will lead to more damage on verges of A417. Use of unsuitable rural roads during floods. Vehicles visiting the site would drop debris onto road surfaces – street cleaning vehicles would add to highway dangers and noise. Increased difficulty for pedestrians trying to cross the road. Concern regarding accuracy of traffic estimates and potential for future growth in vehicle numbers. Location Inappropriate in an open countryside. Development would set a precedent for other rural sites. This type of development has no benefit for rural communities and would be best suited to an industrial area. Adverse impact on the visual amenity of the rural landscape. Brownfield site should be found. Concern about loss of agricultural land and change of use to an industrial use. Concern about future expansion. Visual impact of the facility, stockpiles and preparatory works. Cumulative effect of this proposal in the context of development at Hartpury College. Intrusion on nearby residents and in the countryside. Not suitable for a countryside location. Pollution Unacceptable noise generation – machinery, traffic and sirens. Noise would be carried by westerly wind.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 26

Significant increase in noise levels as a result of operation of heavy machinery and vehicles using the site which would adversely affect residential amenity. Noise barriers inadequate. Unacceptable dust generation. Fumes, smoke, soil and odour pollution. Contamination into the nearby River Leadon. Risk of pollution during heavy rain and flooding. The proposed lighting would have an adverse impact on nearby residents. Impact of security lighting at night. Site lighting during the winter months. What Waste Acceptance Criteria will be used? How can inert waste be guaranteed? What type of waste will be imported, how will it be policed. Rubbish and litter from site. How will weighbridge be enforced. Enforcement/Monitoring No activity should have taken place until planning permission had been granted. If refused, ground should be reinstated. General Comments Unsustainable. Degradation to the environment. Loss of amenity. Adverse impact on existing wildlife and water sources. Adverse impact on the roadside properties including Listed Buildings from traffic vibration. Flooding for the site and impact on the surrounding area. Detrimental to other rural businesses and the rural community. Health risk, including from contaminated dust. Devaluation of property. Intrusion into the countryside The location is unsuitable for a industrial process The renovation of the Dutch barn to a office block will remove its transparency and will be a blight on the landscape.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

Tewkesbury Borough Council 6.1 Tewkesbury Borough Council has objected to the proposed development. The Borough Council’s objection is included in Appendix 1. A summary of their objections are as follows:

Proposals for waste management facilities must comply with relevant saved policies of the WLP and other parts of the Development Plan including the GSPSR and TBLP. In the Borough Council’s view the current, amended, application for the development of the site at Overton Farm does not comply with the policies of the Development Plan and is not a suitable location for the development of a recycling facility as proposed here. The Borough objects on to the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development as completed, by reason of its location and

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 27

scale would result in a significant intrusion into the open countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. The proposed development as completed would therefore conflict with Policy 12 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002- 2012, Policies S6, S7, E4, NHE1 and WM3 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review and Policies GNL1, EMP4 and LND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 – March 2006.

2. The proposed office building would involve major reconstruction and substantial alteration to the original structure of the existing Dutch barn which would be visually intrusive and detrimental to its rural character and appearance. Furthermore, the detailed design of the proposed resulting building would detract from its traditional form and appearance. The proposed development conflicts with policies S6 and S7 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review and Policies GNL1, AGR6 and AGR7 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 – March 2006.

3. The submitted plans are inaccurate and inadequate in that the proposed floor plans and elevations fail to accord with the existing site survey plans and Schematic Layout Plan.

Maisemore Parish Council 6.2 Maisemore Parish Council has objected to the proposed development for the following reasons:

Use of Farmland - This is a change of use from productive farmland to an industrial facility where it despoils the countryside. Why could it not be located on Brownfield land already affected by previous use and the area already despoiled restored and put back into agricultural use?

A copy of an aerial photograph of the site of Overton Farm, which clearly shows the area that has now been excavated, as farmland has been included. The parish believes this to be a significant intrusion of the open countryside. This photo will be available to view in the council chamber landing.

Noise - The anticipated noise levels are more than would be expected from an agricultural operation on virgin farmland and will affect not just local housing but the adjacent office complex as well.

Dust - Will the control of dust be as strict as it appears in the documents? Why has the occupation of the offices complex, including the cars parked there, apparently been ignored in the documents?

The prevailing south-west wind will potentially carry dust across to Chargy Hill, and properties on Dents Lane and Hiams Lane

Lighting - “Motion Activated Security Lighting” – will there really be no permanently switched lighting?

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 28

The new office building will significantly alter the night time view of the site.

Archaeology - The whole working area of the site has already been excavated by several metres in some parts. Any archaeology in the active site area will have been needlessly destroyed.

Was the creation of this large flat area permissible development in a Planning context?

Traffic - The length of road off which Overton Farm takes its access has seen several serious accidents of late. Although the council is not aware of the causes of these accidents additional traffic is likely to exacerbate the problem. The new accident survey only covers personal injury accidents not all the accidents that occur on this stretch of road.

There are already concerns in the village about traffic levels which are being exacerbated by continuing developments at Hartpury College.

The residents of houses near to the main road in Maisemore itself already suffer not only from noise but also from vibration. Recent insurance claims have been made in this context and more heavy traffic cannot be tolerated.

There is also concern with regard to the use of country lanes during periods of flooding of the A417.

Pollution - How will it be established as to whether the material being processed is chemically inert?

How will water run off be processed to obviate any pollution being introduced into the watercourse?

There is mention of an interceptor but no details of it or the eventual discharge.

The Dutch barn Conversion - The proposed conversion of the Dutch barn into offices will in reality mean a total reconstruction merely retaining the existing silhouette. The existing essential transparency of the agricultural building will be destroyed. The office element of this scheme compared to the previous proposal appears to be much larger and we question why such a significant new building is required for the waste operations.

Sustainability - The necessary deletion of the crusher on environmental grounds whilst welcomed means that the overall sustainability has been diminished.

Due to the impact of this development the council feels that Highnam parish council should have been consulted.

Maisemore Parish Council held an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting on 2nd May in Maisemore to enable local residents and the council to discuss the implications fully. There were 50 local residents and the applicant, Mr. Steve

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 29

Chaplin present at the meeting to respond to questions regarding the proposal. A vote was taken at this meeting and was unanimous – apart from 3 votes from the applicant’s family and employee. Therefore, it is overwhelming clear that local residents are opposed to this development and therefore the Parish Council would like to confirm its objection.

The Parish Council has also requested that a professional environmental consultant Mr. John Henry Lonie, who also lives and works in Maisemore, view the plans and makes technical comments which can be seen in the council chamber landing. A summary of his comments are as follows:

• The proposal is not sustainable best practice. In this industry now across the UK, most material is managed on the work site and a centre for such off-site processing is not required. This work site approach is more sustainable as material is managed on site, so contamination is not moved and there are no transport requirements.

• The site will operate as a transfer station and so needs a licence for such. It will also not recycle 100%, as loads that are not suitable will be sent directly to landfill or a transfer station which could lead to soil type contamination. This operation is a Waste Transfer Station.

• Contaminated materials will be dealt with on site and so clear Waste Acceptance Criteria WAC stating the European Waste Catelog EWC codes need to be carefully managed, as hazardous waste will be brought to site and if not managed with great care processed on site. This will be petroleum, metals or asbestos contaminated soils and materials from urban or brownfield sites. The application makes inadequate provision for this issue.

• The Dutch Barn building will be a new building, to say otherwise is not honest, it will retain the original form and shape perhaps.

• The site quotes up to 18,750 tonnes/ annum and also quotes up to 12,500 m3/ annum. The more stringent limit should be applied, monitored and enforced.

• Soil bulking factors are such that in-situ soils have higher densities than disturbed soils. So from the Crossrail report data they use 2 t/ m3 for insitu and 1.1 t/m3 for excavated material without compression. Therefore 18,750 tonnes of material divided by 1.1 t/m3 would be 17,045m3 and yet they state only 12,500 m3/annum. This lack of clarity regarding a basic operating metric for the firm is concerning.

• It is clear from the process described in the submission that Class O for soils, subsoils and natural excavated materials are a key part of the business. Again is this a basic lack of understanding of the business or a miscommunication. In addition it is also clear that materials can be contaminated with pollutants in the working

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 30

environment they have, and so some contaminated materials will arrive on site, either intentionally or inadvertently.

• Why is no submission made or referred to for sustainability? Therefore it should be assumed that the project is not sustainable. It is not best or sustainable practice for these materials to be taken from their site of arising.

• Noise concerns were raised by many individuals and the overall approach of this application raises questions on the objectivity of the assessments.

• This proposal remains unacceptable incremental usage eroding open countryside and bringing inappropriate waste materials into the community.

• Based on the issues raised above it be would wrong to grant permission without further resolution, of which the basic sustainability argument to bring the materials away from their site of arising cannot be answered. Best practice, as is normal in the UK now, is to treat on site.

• The submission does not contain a sustainability assessment on the basic premise of the business operation to take materials from the work sites, nor the proposed site itself.

• The noise assessment should address low frequency noise and does not appear to.

Hartpury Parish Council 6.3 Hartpury Parish Council has objected to the proposed development for the following reasons:

Totally inappropriate site.

Facilities such as this should be at current recycling centres or at Moreton Valence, or industrial estates and most certainly as near as possible to motorway junctions.

The operation at this site will be environmentally unsound due to noise, dust and light pollution.

Does this centre also need an application for change of use?

Comment:

Because of the necessity for recycling now and the county being the waste management authority surely there should be a policy for the siting of such facilities in the county as there will obviously be many more applications of this nature.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 31

No one would want them scattered all over the rural areas of the county.

They should not be:

1. on green field sites 2. not in open countryside 3. should be as near as possible to motorway junctions in order to keep heavy lorries off unsuitable roads

Suggested condition, if allowed, Requires a wheel wash

There appears to be a discrepancy in the dates for returning observations. Some letters state the 8th of May, others the 16th of May.

Highnam Parish Council 6.4 Highnam Parish Council were not consulted however have objected to the application on the following grounds:

“Site – The site is inappropriate, situated as it is on a rural hilltop. It is 1.6 miles from Highnam and is visible from parts of the estate and surrounding farmland across a river valley.

Noise – Highnam would suffer noise pollution which already occurs when a nearby scramble bike track is used.

Light – Similarly light pollution across the valley would affect homes.

Dust – Would be a problem if not properly controlled.

Traffic – Lorry movements west of the River Severn would be increased overall and impact upon Highnam particularly when the A417 is closed due to flooding.

The overall feeling is that a business of this type is totally inappropriate in a rural community and would significantly affect the residents of surrounding villages such as Highnam”.

Local Member 6.5 The local member has objected to the development and has made the following comments:

The proposal is going to have a similar impact on the area as the original, i.e. inappropriate development and intrusion into a rural landscape.

I still have grave reservations about the appropriateness of the vehicle movements generated by this site together with monitoring of noise and dust levels.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 32

Tewkesbury Borough Council will also reiterate their concerns, particularly as some unauthorised development has already taken place.

I would wish to speak as the local Member if and when this application comes before the Planning Committee.

Environment Agency 6.6 The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal. They advise that The activity in question is subject to Waste Management Licensing and will need to be authorised by us, either through an Exemption or a Waste Management License. The site should not be undertaking any of the activities in question until it is authorised to operate.

A Waste Management Licence will control the following :-

• waste types and activities • annual quantities (not daily or weekly quantities) • infrastructure • amenity monitoring (dust, mud, litter, pests etc) • record keeping

The applicant will need to make a formal application to us, and is advised to contact our local Environment Management team to discuss the detailed requirements associated with making an application of this type.

Any waste excavation material or building wastes generated in the course of the development must be removed from site and disposed of in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 1990. Wastes should be removed from site by registered waste carrier and deposited at a suitably licensed Waste Management Facility.

The operator previously had an Exemption for recycling activities however it may be that due to the increase in material planned to be dealt with, a full Waste Management License may need to be obtained before any activity commences on site.

Protection of controlled waters

In our previous response, we recommended that a larger concrete pad be installed and that all material dealt with, and all the associated machinery, be stored on the concrete pad within a sealed drainage system in order prevent groundwater and surface water pollution.

We note, in paragraph 6.21 of the supporting statement, that the current application proposes that the area for storing and recycling inert materials will have a concrete surface. It is also stated that the entire site will be surfaced in either concrete or tarmac with drainage into interceptor drains. We have also contacted the agent, Lucy Binni, who advised that no more than 500 tonnes of waste will be stockpiled at any one time and that the drainage from the impermeable surface will go into the existing farm drainage that goes to a

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 33

pond/soakaway.

In view of the above comments, we no longer consider our previous recommended condition relating to the design of the concrete pad is necessary. We do still consider that it will be necessary to agree the detail of the surface water drainage and interceptors and we therefore again recommend the following conditions to be attached to any permission granted:

CONDITION Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timescales.

REASON To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

CONDITION Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. All oil storage containers should comply with the Control of Pollution(Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001.

REASON To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

We are aware that the planning application is retrospective, and therefore you may wish to alter the wording of these suggested conditions to reflect this.

Finally we would comment on your previous suggestion that a weighbridge would be appropriate at this site. We agree that a weighbridge would assist in record keeping which would benefit the site operator in terms of adhering to the Waste Management Licence. As such we would be supportive of a weighbridge being installed if it is deemed necessary by you.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Archaeology 7.1 The Senior Archaeological Officer has not objected to the proposal and has

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 34

provided the following comments:

I advise that I have checked the County Sites and Monuments Record. The application site has some archaeological sensitivity, since the Overton Farm locality appears to contain evidence for medieval settlement.

In connection with a previous application for a similar development on this site(07/00911/FUL) an archaeological field evaluation was undertaken. This indicated that while some medieval remains were present in one area, the remains were deeply buried and were unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed development.

I note that the current application site is similar in location to the site where development was previously applied for.

Therefore, it is my view that this development is unlikely to have any significant archaeological impact, and I recommend that no archaeological investigation or recording should be required in connection with this planning application

Landscape 7.2 The County’s Landscape Consultant has no objections to the proposed development. The Consultant’s main observations regarding landscape and visual impact are provided below:

Having read through the report and studied the drawings, it is clear that the new application addresses most of the comments and recommendations I made on the previous proposal. From a landscape and visual point of view, I do not believe that the final scheme as now proposed will have a significant adverse impact. I would recommend that the standard conditions in respect of undertaking the planting in the first planting season after completion of the works and replacement of planting for a period of 5 years after planting are applied. On the basis that the bulk of the ground work is done, I do not think that a tree protection condition is necessary.

The conversion of the barn to offices is the biggest change between this application and that previously submitted. Given the state of the existing barn and the rather bright yellow panelling on one side, refurbishment and a new use would seem to be a visually preferable solution to new build and allowing the barn to fall into disrepair. I do note that no colour scheme has been submitted, other than reference under 6.8 of the supporting statement to a ‘dark non-reflective colour’. I would suggest that this is conditioned and do also wonder if identical levels of fenestration no the two sides is appropriate?

“Development Proposal: The scheme provides for, to the SE corner of the site, a new maintenance and office building in brick with upper levels timber boarded and with a profiled steel sheet clad roof. The remainder of the area provides for storage of materials, processing and car parking. As part of the scheme a new access road will be created and the existing footpath (EMA/6/2) diverted. Noise

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 35

barriers are proposed to the north eastern and south eastern boundaries with new hedge planting on the other two sides. The process area is cut into the hillside at the existing datum on the south east edge. The site is currently operating under a temporary set up with 4 no portacabin buildings and temporary parking with site access using the existing farm roads. It was recommended in June 2007 that a formal EIA was not required. Landscape and Visual Impact: Although the site sits near the crest of a small hill, approx. 70m AOD, it is naturally well screened from view from the surrounding area. Views into the site from the north and east are screened by the landform, existing agricultural buildings and field hedgerows. In addition to the applicants’ own house and business units on the site, there are two close neighbouring houses, one to the south and one to the east. Views from the former are effectively screened by landform, buildings and vegetation. Views from the latter, from the east are generally screened by hedgerows but the site may be visible from first floor windows.

Views from the public footpath will be altered however it should be recognised that the existing route already runs through the centre of the farm building complex.

There are limited mid to long distance views from the edge of Highnam, some 2km to the south west, but again the landform in part screens these.

The site has been fully excavated to the extents shown on Drawing 2007/3 Temp but it appears from available aerial photography that previously it formed the corner of an agricultural field.

The proposed building is of a design appropriate to the area and would, in views from the surrounding area, fit well with the other agricultural buildings and properties on the site. The building itself would assist in screening views of the operational area. The levelling of the operational area will mean that a significant part of the operational area will be screened from view. Diversion of the footpath will assist in screening views from this though there will be some adverse impact on views for walkers. New hedge and tree planting will, over time, provide additional and appropriate screening.

The noise barriers are not detailed however the applicant has indicated that these would be brick with a timber fence on top. These will form an incongruous element in the landscape and it is not clear if they are technically required. It is likely that the most significant noise source will remain the A417.

The proposed new access road cuts across a small field, currently down to grass, from the A417 to the corner of the existing farm buildings. The same access as existing is used onto the A417.

In summary: Whilst the proposals extend the existing farm buildings and farm yard

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 36

complex, they are in keeping with it and do not in my opinion represent an unacceptable extension and the general operations will not be out of keeping with those you would expect around a working farmyard. The visual impact will be slight and mitigated by both built features and planting. The requirement for and design of the noise barriers requires further consideration. I remain concerned that the poor visibility at the egress onto the A417 may require loss of existing hedgerows”.

7.3 The County’s Landscape Consultant has recommended that planning conditions be imposed if planning permission is granted, requiring:

Conditions:

• Details of the noise barriers should be provided, if they are required. The proposed brick and timber form is not considered appropriate for the barrier on the north eastern side. Consideration should be given to the use of a ‘green wall’ construction or to the omission of this feature. On the south east side, rotation of the proposed maintenance and office building would allow the building to act as the noise barrier for the greater length of the boundary and for the remaining length to be designed with the building.

• Existing field hedgerows and hedgerow trees should be maintained and protected from encroachment of the works.

• Details of the proposed planting scheme should be submitted for approval prior to commencement of works for the final scheme. New tree and hedgerow planting should be with species native to the area. Consideration should be given to additional copse/specimen tree planting to the area north of the temporary accommodation and to the SW of the site. This to enhance the screening of the operations in views into the site.

• Dimensioned details of the proposed new building should be provided. I would suggest that this should be no higher than the existing barns.

• Any planting that dies or fails to thrive for a period of 5 years after completion of the works should be replaced with plants of a size equivalent to those still growing.

• Details of the footpath diversion should be provided prior to commencement of the construction of the new access road and final site set-up. Consideration should be given to a) diverting the footpath to the north of the new access road. This to provide better segregation of pedestrians from site traffic (and traffic to the existing farm and ancillary operations). And, b) to bringing the footpath back on line further north to the proposed position, closer to the hilltop tree. This to mitigate the visual impact of the new works on those using the footpath. This will also mitigate the visual intrusion of the existing farm set-up.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 37

• The hedgerows along the A417 boundary should be protected and should not be cut back or removed for visibility reasons without prior written approval.

Ecology 7.4 The County Ecologist has no objection to the proposal and comments that:

“Compared to a previous application for a similar but more extensive development the applicant states that this proposal provides more extensive landscaping. This appears to be the case when viewing plan 403/10.

The new native tree and shrub planting proposed around the development will be a biodiversity enhancement. The new planting would be well linked into the surrounding network of existing landscape features of hedgerows, trees and small woods. The landscaping proposals include gapping up of the hedgerow next to the track on the western side of the farm. This is particularly welcomed and strengthens the local hedgerow network. Plan 403/10 also proposes copse planting and a number of new hedgerow trees. The choice of species, specification and management proposals for the hedgerow and tree planting schemes are good. It is recommended that plan 403/10 should be made part of the consent.

Paragraph 5.21 of the Supporting Statement states that there will be no loss of hedgerows or trees and this should be ensured by condition”.

County Highways Representative 7.5 The County Highways Representative has raised no highway objection to the development and makes the following comments:

“The proposal is to re-locate the existing recycling facility from existing operation in Gloucester Docks to Overton Farm, Maisemore. The facility will use a mixture of existing agricultural land and buildings, and use the existing access point from the A417, albeit modified to provide increased visibility. The internal access arrangement will be modified to separate the proposed use with the existing farm and office use. The proposal will require the diversion of the existing PROW, which should have regard for the new access arrangement.

I have reviewed the accident data during the last 7 years, and whilst there have been 7 accidents nothing has been recorded during the last 12 months. The speed limit has been reduced to 50 mph approximately 18 months along with edge lines, and marker posts. The proposal is to recycle and sort up to 18750 tonnes per annum (a reduction from the proposed 25,000tpa proposed as part of the previous application) of waste excavated when undertaking, ground and digging and repairing trenches. The operation is primarily for use by company vehicles, but there will be a small element of other utility operators. Complete Utilities operates 15 gangs with vehicles for 7.5 tonne loads, it is this fleet that will form the majority of the recycling movements. There will be some private car movements, associated with ancillary office

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 38

based staff, but this should be set against the existing office development of 700m2 which received district planning approval in 2002. A new Transport Assessment has been submitted which has robustly assessed the proposal in transport terms”.

7.6. The County Highways Representative recommends that if planning permission is granted that the following planning conditions be imposed:

No recycling works shall commence on site until the access facilities necessary to serve the site shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the submitted details and the area within 20.0 metres of the carriageway edge surfaced in bituminous macadam or other approved material and thereafter similarly maintained.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained in the interests of highway safety.

No recycling works shall commence on site until the internal road layout shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter similarly maintained.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained in the interests of highway safety.

No recycling works shall commence on site until the existing Public Right of Way, EMA/6 has been diverted with details to submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The diversion shall then be completed in all respects in accordance with those details before the development is brought into use.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

No more than 18 vehicles per day shall deliver material to be recycled at the proposed plant, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the authority can restrict the number of lorry movements, to enable monitoring and regulation, in the interests of highway safety.

No public retail operation shall be carried out from the site in association with the development hereby authorised.

REASON: To prevent public retail use in the interests of highway safety.

NOTE:

The Public Right of Way affecting the site must be dealt with under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 39

Waste Planning Policy 7.7 The County Waste Policy representative has raised no highway objection to the development and makes the following comments:

“National policy such as PPS10 should be considered when determining this application, particularly in the absence of appropriate saved policies.

There are issues related to the nature of the application for which comments from specialist consultees should be sought.

The applicant is currently landfilling approximately 50% of the firm’s wastes. The application would provide a local site to enable the applicant to provide a facility for 100% recycling over 18,000 tonnes per annum of inert waste. If the above expert consultees view this application favourably then it is likely that it will accord with national policy and the ‘saved’ policies of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan”.

Planning 7.8 The proposal is for the establishment of a permanent inert recycling facility with associated storage and ancillary development at Overton Farm. The scheme includes the conversion of an existing Dutch barn for offices and an adjacent barn for maintenance accommodation. The remainder of the site will be used for storage of materials, processing and car parking. As part of the scheme a new access road will be created and the existing footpath (CMA/6/2) diverted. A noise barrier is proposed to the southern boundary with hedgerows and feathered trees being planted along the southern, western and northern boundaries of the proposed processing and storage area. Additionally the applicant proposes to plant a copse on the eastern boundary to reinforce the existing hedgerow.

7.9 The main issues to be considered when determining this application relate to the following potential impacts:

• location and visual impact of the proposed office building, plant and stored material and vehicles; • design of the proposed office building; • noise from processing machinery; • dust from the handling, storage, processing and transport of materials; • transport impacts and impacts on highway safety and pedestrians; • pollution and the type of material being imported; • groundwater and surface water protection; and

Location and Visual Impact 7.10 Tewkesbury Borough Council, Maisemore, Hartpury and Highnam Parish Councils and members of the community have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the proposal location and its impact on the surrounding area.

7.11 Tewkesbury Borough Council has objected to the proposal. They have objected to the development due to its location and scale and as a result its

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 40

“significant intrusion into the open countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape”.

7.12 In particular they have objected to the proposed renovation of the Dutch barn to an office building, the site’s location and its visual impact. They have stated that the building “would be visually intrusion and detrimental to its rural character and appearance. Furthermore, the detailed design of the proposed resulting building would detract from its traditional form and appearance”. Objections on locational grounds have also been received from Maisemore, Hartpury and Highnam Parish Councils and members of the public.

7.13 In considering location and siting issues, Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan Policy 12 indicates that the proposal must be in an appropriate location. The supporting text to Policy 12 indicates that the appropriateness of a location is considered under Policy 6 and that, “A permanent facility may be suitable if there is a continuous and long-term supply of construction wastes from a particular catchment area alongside a market for recycled materials and aggregates. In assessing proposals, consideration will be given to the proximity of the proposed facility to the source of waste and potential markets in order to minimise transport and environmental impacts. Careful consideration will also be given to the minimisation and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts such as traffic, visual intrusion, noise and dust”.

7.14 Information submitted with the application indicates that the applicant’s company operates across Gloucestershire and was previously located in Hempsted but had to vacate as part of the ‘redevelopment’ of the Gloucester Quays Scheme. The applicant has been looking for a centrally located site in Gloucester for several years with out success. In recent years there has been a real problem of finding suitable sites for this type of development within Gloucester and on a suitable brownfield site that is available.

7.15 Although not within Gloucester, the site is reasonably close at 5 km (3 miles) away. The site also benefits from being relatively remote from residential properties, thus reducing the potential for complaints about noise and dust, which may arise from this type of waste process. In this context and guidance in PPS10, which does not restrict the location of waste facilities to brownfield and industrial sites in urban areas, and the individual merits of this application, in that an extremely high (100%) recycling rate is expected, it is considered that the location achieves a good balance in terms of proximity to Gloucester and remoteness from sensitive receptors.

7.16 Whilst the development here would represent diversification away from the farm’s agricultural use, it is noted that some diversification, in the form of the office premises, has already taken place.

7.17 The County’s Landscape Consultant has not objected to the proposal and considers that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and is in keeping with the general nature of the farm and would not represent an unacceptable extension. He is of the opinion that the general operations of the proposal will not be out of keeping with those you would expect around a working farmyard.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 41

7.18 In terms of visual impact the proposal, including building, plant, stored material and vehicles, will largely not be visible from outside the site, primarily due to topography, existing buildings, vegetation and proposed planting.

7.19. The County’s Landscape Consultant is of the opinion that the visual impact will be slight and mitigated by both built features and increased planting proposed by the applicant.

7.20. In terms of the proposed building itself, it is of a design appropriate to the area and would, in views from the surrounding area, fit well with the other agricultural buildings and properties on the site. The materials and design of the building will have a prior commencement condition for approval of the Waste Planning Authority which will enable Tewkesbury Borough Council’s concerns to be taken into account. The building will additionally assist in screening views of the operational area from outside.

7.21 It is proposed that all material stored will be below the height of 4 metres and the height of machinery on site will also be below 4 metres. A condition can be imposed with a restriction limiting all stockpiled material to within a limit of 4 metres in height.

7.22 To conclude, it is considered that there are no locational grounds to refuse the proposal and that the proposal will have a slight visual impact on the local area. It is therefore considered that the proposal satisfies the provisions of the Waste Local Plan policy 12 and policies GNL1, AGR7 and LND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan.

Noise and Dust 7.23 Noise and dust has been raised as a concern by Maisemore, Hartpury and Highnam Parish Councils and many local residents.

7.24 The applicant has sought to address noise generated by equipment, with the provision of an acoustic screen and vegetation planting. Additionally the applicant will only be permitted to operate one piece of equipment at any one time. The operation of the screener and trommel will be limited to only a few hours each working day. Other measures suggested by the applicant to reduce noise impacts is to restrict the possible operating hours of the equipment to between the hours of 9.00am to 4pm Monday to Friday with no processing taking place on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. A noise survey has also been submitted which is available on the web at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk.

7.25 The site is relatively remote and is not in close proximity to many residential properties. The noise assessment concludes that there will be no adverse noise impact on the closest residents, indicating only a slight impact. Additionally there will be a slight-moderate impact on the existing office premises.

7.26 Tewkesbury Borough Council, who are responsible for noise in respect of their Environment Health duties, have not objected to the application on noise grounds. The control of noise is also a matter for the Environment Agency in

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 42

their authorisation processes. If necessary, the Agency set conditions within the waste management licence providing day-to-day operational controls. The Environment Agency primarily control noise at source through site layout, operational practices, and correct use and maintenance of plant and operator training. The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of noise. Therefore, it is considered therefore that there is no valid reason to refuse the application on noise grounds.

7.27 Notwithstanding this, since the proposal is for a brand new facility and in the interests of enabling the ongoing monitoring of noise from the site, it is considered that a condition be imposed, requiring that a scheme of measures to control noise at the site be produced and approved by the Waste Planning Authority and that this scheme be kept under review. In this way the WPA will have a mechanism to require further noise mitigation measures to be imposed should they be necessary.

7.28 Maisemore Parish Council and members of the public have also raised concerns about the effect of south-westerly wind. It is considered that the noise survey has been prepared in a manner consistent with advice in PPG24 regarding meteorological conditions whereby noise measurements were taken under reasonably stable conditions.

7.29 In respect of dust many of the comments above similarly apply, for example the hours of operation of equipment etc. As with noise, the control of dust is also a matter for the Environment Agency in their authorisation processes. The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of dust.

7.30 The applicant proposes a combination of concrete, consolidated hardcore surface and tarmac for the ground surface of the site. The applicant proposes ongoing monitoring by staff at the yard and the use of a water hose when necessary to dampen stockpiles and ground surfaces to control dust. The applicant also indicates that site and access will be swept as necessary to ensure that no material is carried onto the highway and to prevent dust. The crusher has integral water jets to douse material, which will also control dust.

7.31 In respect of the proposed surfacing and the dust suppression measures proposed it is general practice on other similar sites for the surface to be hard surfaced, and for a surface water drainage system to be installed. Hard surface areas permit easy cleaning and drainage, however they do dry out more quickly than other surfaces e.g. granular, or hardcore surfaces, and therefore need sweeping and wetting down to prevent dust.

7.32 In accordance with these practices the applicant has stated in their support statement that the whole site will either be surfaced in concrete or tarmac with drainage into interceptor drains installed. The site will be constructed and operated in accordance with the Environment Agency licensing requirements in respect of site drainage.

7.33 In view of the above, the permanence of the facility and the fact that heavy machinery will be operational on the site and thus will gradually erode the

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 43

hardcore surfacing, it is considered that the applicant should be required by condition, to surface the area with concrete and tarmac and install appropriate drainage prior to commencing operations at the site.

7.34 With hard surfacing in place and the measures proposed by the applicant, it is considered that the amenity of residents and businesses nearby will be protected. However it is considered that a scheme of dust suppression measures, along the lines outlined within the supporting statement, should be submitted for approval by the WPA prior to the development taking place.

7.35 With conditions and mitigation in place it is considered that the proposal will not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance and that the proposal satisfies the provisions of the Waste Local Plan policies 37 and 38.

Transport Impact and Highway Safety 7.36 Maisemore, Hartpury and Highnam Parish Councils and members of the community have expressed major concern about traffic and highway safety and increased vibration to existing properties arising from the proposal.

7.37 The County Highways representative has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions to secure highway safety including a restriction preventing any recycling operations on site until the highway matters of the access, car parking and manoeuvring and footpath diversion have been implemented. It is considered that the conditions suggested by the County Highways representative should be employed, along with conditions restricting the throughput of the site, requiring the installation of a weighbridge, appropriate record keeping and prohibiting mud on the road. Due to the length of the tarmac access road the applicant has not proposed a wheel wash. With conditions in place to prevent mud on the road it is considered that a wheel wash would not be necessary.

7.38 The agent has confirmed that should permission be granted Complete Utilities would be prepared to accept the restriction preventing any recycling operations on site until the highway matters have been dealt with.

7.39 The applicant has indicated in their Transport Assessment that it is aiming to reduce its hgv movements as they move towards using transit type vans (light goods vehicles) reducing any increase in vibrations felt by the local residents’ properties.

7.40 Members of the public and local parish councils have expressed concerns about the possibility of increase in permitted lorry movements at the site and the enforceability of these limits. The proposal if approved will be limited to 18 vehicle deliveries per day and records must be kept of all these deliveries as per conditions. These conditions will enable the WPA to regulate and enforce these limits if necessary. If the applicant chooses to increase lorry movements they will have to apply to the WPA for planning permission which will be dealt with via the planning process.

7.41 In view of the above it is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with Policy 40 of the Waste Local Plan.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 44

Ground Water and Surface Water Protection 7.42 The Environment Agency are responsible for the protection of controlled waters. They have not objected to the proposal.

7.43 The applicant indicates that because only inert waste will be handled, there will not be a significant risk to ground water and surface water. The applicant also indicates that waste will be checked before unloading to ensure that no waste gives rise to pollution. Material not suitable for recycling will not be deposited at the site and will be taken to a licensed tip.

7.44 It has been recommended that prior to commencing operations at the site the applicant should be required to surface the area with concrete and tarmac and install appropriate drainage. It is considered that with this in place, water resources will be protected.

7.45 Notwithstanding the regulatory controls provided by the Environment Agency in terms of licensing the site and controlling waste types, in view of the local community’s concern regarding ensuring that material accepted at the site is not contaminated, it is considered that a condition requiring a scheme for the reception of waste materials should be submitted to WPA for approval. This will further help to ensure that waste handled on site will not give rise to polluting impacts.

7.46 In view of the above it is considered that the proposal satisfies the provisions of Policy 33 of the Waste Local Plan.

Other matters 7.47 With regard to lighting, the applicant proposes motion-activated lighting which could conceivably have already been erected at the farm, in connection with the property’s domestic and agricultural usage, without the need for planning permission. However with controls in place to properly assess and limit the impact of the proposed lighting and the prevention of further flood lighting, it is not considered that this will be a problem.

7.48 The archaeological effects of the development have been fully assessed and there is no objection from the County Senior Archaeological Officer to the proposal.

7.49 With regards to the footpath diversion it is considered that the proposed diversion represents a minimal diversion to the present route and may have improved amenity value in that it will bound farmland as opposed to bisecting the farmyard as presently occurs.

7.50 Matters of precedent and property devaluation are not valid planning considerations.

Human Rights

7.51 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.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 45

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However this proposal has been widely consulted upon and all of the representations received have been considered. I am of the opinion that the proposal does not represent undue interference with such rights and in any case since these rights are qualified, and have to be set against other considerations, any interference that there may be is considered to be justified.

Conclusions and summary reasons for grant of planning permission and relevant development plan policies

7.52 The proposal is in line with the key planning objectives of PPS10. The proposal represents a sustainable option in that waste collected as part of the company’s activities will be recycled at a proposed rate of 100%. Regarding location, the site achieves a good balance in terms of proximity to major waste arisings in Gloucester and the applicant’s market area and remoteness from sensitive receptors. The facility will not be out of keeping with the existing farmyard and farm buildings. It is considered that with various controls in place to protect amenity, highway safety and the water environment the proposal gives rise to no material harm, is in accordance with the development plan and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the application should be refused.

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

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb 2005)

Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1): Planning and Minerals (Nov 2006).

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise

Regional Planning Guidance 10, 2001 – Policy RE.5.

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 – 2026 – Policies W2 and RE12

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review, Adopted 1999 – Policies WM.2, WM.3, WM.4 and S.6.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration incorporating Proposed Modifications & Proposed Second Modifications, 2005 – Policies SD.23, MR.10 and MR.15.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 46

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, Adopted 2004 – Policies 12, 33, 37, 38, 40 and unsaved policies 1,2, 3, 6, 34 and 41

Tewkesbury Local Plan to 2011, Adopted 2006 – Policies TPT1, GNL1, LND4 and AGR7

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Therefore I recommend that planning permission is granted for the reasons set out within this report and subject to the conditions outlined below:

Commencement

1. The development hereby authorised shall begin not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the commencement of development shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 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.

Approved Plans

2. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, or varied by other condition(s) attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out within the site edged red on the ‘Schematic Layout Plan’ Drawing No 2007/3 dated March 2008 (‘the Site’) and the details in the submitted planning application. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the aforementioned plans.

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.

Approval of Details

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until detailed architectural drawings for the building showing fenestration and door openings and details of external materials, finishes and colours, along with details of the acoustic screening on the Site and proposed building heights (which are to be no higher than the existing Dutch barn) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and materials.

Reason: To ensure that the works will be in harmony with the environment in accordance with and Policies GNL1 and AGR6 of the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011.

4. Prior to the commencement of development details of the Site surfacing

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 47

comprising concrete and tarmac shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Waste Planning Authority. The surfacing shall be constructed in accordance with approved details and timescales.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and to enable compliance with Waste Management Licensing Regulations in accordance with Policy 33 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

5. No recycling operations shall commence on site until details of the vehicular access have been submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The access shall then be completed in all respects in accordance with those details before the development is brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

6. No recycling operations shall commence on Site until details of a weighbridge, to be installed at the Site, have been submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The weighbridge shall then be installed in accordance with those details before the development is brought into operation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Scope of Permanent Development

7. The total quantity of inert material handled at the Site shall not exceed 18,750 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 highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

8. The total quantity of inert material to be stored at the site at any one time shall not exceed 500 tonnes.

Reason: To define the scope of the application in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

9. The site shall be used solely for the recycling of inert material.

Reason: Waste materials outside this category raise environmental and amenity considerations that would require consideration afresh and also in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 48

10. 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.

11. The office development of the existing Dutch barn as per the Schematic Layout Plan Drawing No 2007/3 shall solely be used for the operations specified in the submitted application and supporting information and for no other purpose.

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.

12. No materials shall be burnt on site unless the appropriate authorisations have been obtained and the details agreed in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Storage Height

13. The height of any stockpiles of inert material shall not exceed the height of 4- metres to limit the visual impact of stored material.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and visitors to the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

14. Within one month of the date of commencement (as notified pursuant to condition 1) a series of marker posts shall be erected on the Site to define the permitted height of any stockpiles of inert material. Details of the locations of the marker posts shall be provided to the Waste Planning Authority together with photographs showing their location within the development. These marker posts shall be retained on the site for the duration of the development.

Reason: In order to define the scope of this consent and to enable the Waste Planning Authority to monitor the ongoing operations and to protect the visual amenity in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Permitted Development

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no fixed plant, machinery, buildings, structures or erections shall be erected on any part of the site without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 49

Reason: There is a need to secure control over additional plant and machinery in the interests of the amenity of the area and in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Highways and PROW

16. No recycling works shall commence on site until the access facilities necessary to serve the site shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the submitted details and the area within 20.0 metres of the carriageway edge surfaced in bituminous macadam or other approved material and thereafter similarly maintained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

17. No recycling works shall commence on site until the internal road layout shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter similarly maintained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

18. No mud, debris and materials shall be deposited on the highway from commercial vehicles entering or leaving the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud, debris and materials getting on the highway, in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

19. No loaded lorries carrying waste or recycled material shall enter or leave the site unsheeted except those only carrying materials in excess of 500mm in any dimension.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

20. No vehicles shall be stored or maintained on the site other than those involved in the recycling business hereby approved.

Reason: To maintain control over the site in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

21. Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use the car parking and manoeuvring facilities shall be completed in all respects in accordance with the submitted details and shall be similarly maintained thereafter for that purpose.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 50

adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

22. A car parking scheme shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority prior to the proposed use commencing. The car parking facilities shown on the submitted plan shall be laid out, constructed and allocated before [occupation of the buildings hereby approved/operations commence]. Such parking facilities shall thereafter be used solely in connection with the approved recycling operations unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To maintain control over the site in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

23. No recycling works shall commence on site until the existing Public Right of Way, EMA/6 has been diverted with details to be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The diversion shall then be completed in all respects in accordance with those details before the development is brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

24. No more than 18 vehicles per day shall deliver material to be recycled at the proposed plant, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the authority can restrict the number of lorry movements, to enable monitoring and regulation, in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

25. No public retail operation shall be carried out from the Site in association with the development hereby authorised.

Reason: To prevent public retail use in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Record Keeping

26. From the commencement of the development (as notified pursuant to condition 1) to the cessation of the use hereby permitted a copy of the terms of this planning permission including all documents hereby approved and any documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission (or amendments approved pursuant to this permission) shall be displayed at the office on the site and shall be made known to any person(s) given responsibility for the management or control of the waste operations on site.

Reason: To enable an easy reference and to encourage compliance with the requirements of this permission so as to ensure the orderly operation of the

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 51

site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

27. From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of the number of vehicles bringing materials to the site, and the quantity and type of material accepted onto the site and shall make them available to the Waste Planning Authority at any time upon request, within seven days of such a request. All records shall be kept for at least 24 months.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

28. From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of the number of vehicles leaving the site and the quantity and type of material exported and shall make them available to the Waste Planning Authority at any time upon request and in any event not later than seven days of such a request. All records shall be kept for at least 24 months.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the site in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Hours of operation

29. The hours of operation of the facility, including vehicles entering or leaving the site, will be between the following hours: 7am - 6pm; Mondays to Fridays inclusive; 7am - 1pm on Saturdays with no operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The operation of plant and machinery (including the screen and trommel) may in addition take place between the following hours, 9am - 4pm, Mondays to Fridays inclusive, with no operations on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and visitors to the area in accordance with Policy 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Noise

30. Unless approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the only processing plant and machinery to be operated on the Site are those detailed in the submitted planning application Only one machine shall be operational at any time.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

31. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 52

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

32. Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be agreed by the Waste Planning Authority which specifies the provision to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. Such scheme shall provide for noise barriers of a type and specification to be approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and complied with at all times.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

33. There shall be no outdoor public address system within the Site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Litter

34. Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority which specifies the provision to be made for the control of litter emanating from the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented and complied with at all times

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Dust

35. No development shall take place until a scheme and programme of measures for the suppression of dust has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(a) The suppression of dust caused by the moving, processing and storage of soil, subsoils and inert materials within the site; and

(b) Provision for monitoring and review of the scheme.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality from the effects of any dust arising from the development in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

The approved scheme shall be implemented and complied with at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality from the effects of any dust arising from the development in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Lighting

36. No development shall be commenced until details of all motion activated

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 53

security lighting proposed at the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. These details shall include: height of floodlighting posts, intensity of lights (specified in Lux levels), spread of light including approximate light spillage to the rear of floodlight posts (in metres), any measures proposed to minimise the impact of floodlighting or disturbance through glare (such as shrouding). The scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to the commencement of waste operations.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent occupiers in accordance with Policy GNL1 of the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011.

37. No floodlighting of any description (other than motion activated security lighting approved pursuant to condition 28) shall be erected for the purposes of illuminating the site without the prior formal approval of the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the adjacent occupiers in accordance with Policy GNL1 of the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011.

Water Quality Protection

38. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timescales.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters in accordance with Policy 33 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

39. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. All oil storage containers should comply with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 or any act replacing or amending it.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters in accordance with Policy 33 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 54

Landscaping

40. Notwithstanding the submitted details, within six months of the date of this permission a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Should any trees, shrubs or seeding die or become diseased with 5 years of being planted, they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

The landscape scheme shall include details of:

(i) the planting and maintenance of trees, scrubs and hedgerows including location, species, size, number and spacing;

(ii) additional copse/specimen tree planting to the area to the north of the temporary accommodation and to the south west of the Site;

(iii) retained trees, shrubs or hedges, including protection of trees along the A417 boundary;

(iv) detailed level survey together with cross sections thorough the affected areas showing all land level alterations;

(v) details of the footpath diversion; and

(vi) timescales for implementing and completing the above works.

Reason: The provision and maintenance of a satisfactory degree of landscaping is considered essential in the interest of visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

41. No trees or shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the approved plans submitted in accordance with condition 34 shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the local planning authority; any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within 5 years from the completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Waste Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In order to protect the existing natural landscape features in accordance with Policy 37 of the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:

The Public Right of Way diversion must be dealt with under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 55

The proposed development will require the modification of a vehicular access to the site and the applicant is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire Highways before commencing works on the highway, including entering into the appropriate agreement to enable the works to be undertaken on the highway.

The hedgerows along the A417 boundary should be protected and should not be cut back or removed for visibility reasons without prior written approval of the waste planning authority in order to protect the existing natural landscape features.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS:

Application 08/0020/TWMAJW and accompanying plans and supporting information.

Consultation responses and representations.

10. CONTACT OFFICER:

Jason Betty Senior Planning Officer.

Gloucester 426400

Consultee Time taken (weeks) Tewkesbury Borough Council 10 weeks 6 days Maisemore Parish Council 3 weeks Hartpury Parish Council 3 weeks 1 day Environment Agency 11 weeks 4 days Development Co-ordination 10 weeks 5 days Landscape 6 days Archaeology 1 week 5 days Ecology 1 week Waste Policy 4 days Councillor Awford (the local member) 2 weeks 4 days Time taken 13 weeks 5 days

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 56

Appendix 1 – Tewkesbury Borough Council’s response dated 19th January 2007

Our Contact: Mr P Skelton Direct Dial: 01684 272101 Email: [email protected]

2.7.2008

Gloucestershire County Council Environment Directorate Shire Hall Gloucester GL1 2TH

FAO: Jason Betty

Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION NO. 08/00597/CM APPLICANTS NAME. Complete Utilities Ltd PROPOSAL Recycling facility for inert waste with associated storage and ancillary development LOCATION Overton Farm Main Road Maisemore

Thank you for your consultation on the above application received in this Directorate on 18th April 2008.

This is a revised application following refusal of planning application ref: 07/00911/CM on 25th September 2007. That application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The development, by reason of its location, scale and design of the proposed maintenance and office building, would result in a significant intrusion into the open countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. The proposed development therefore conflicts with policies 6 and 12 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 (Adopted October 2004), policies S6, S7 E4, NHE1 and WM3 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (Adopted November 1999) and policies GNL1, EMP4 and LND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (Adopted March 2006).

2. The development represents an unacceptable incremental usage at the farm which would result in the erosion of open countryside. The proposed development therefore conflicts with policies 6 and 12 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004) and policy LND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 (Adopted March 2006)

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 57

Having considered the current, amended, application and carried out the relevant consultations Tewkesbury Borough Council has the following comments to make:

Policy Context

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012

Chapter 4 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 (WLP) refers to site requirements for Inert Recovery and Recycling facilities. It states that suitable locations may be found in appropriate industrial areas, brownfield land or associated with operational quarries or landfill sites. Whilst this does not rule out any specific sites, this provides a clear indication of the types of site which will be considered.

Policy 6 of the WLP (which although not ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State direction remains a material consideration) sets out that waste management facilities will be permitted where it is demonstrated that development is essential subject to demonstration of BPEO and where proposals meet the relevant policies of this and other parts of the development plan. It is understood however that this Policy has not been ‘saved’ by the Secretary of States direction.

The reasoned justification to Policy 12 of the WLP states that “careful consideration will also be given to the minimisation and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts such as traffic, visual intrusion, noise and dust.”

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review

Policy S6 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (GSPSR) seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance, inter alia, the quality of the landscape.

Policy NHE1 of the GSPSR provides that the character and appearance and non-renewable and natural resources of the County will be protected from harmful development unless other materials considerations outweigh such harm.

Policy E4 of the GSPSR sets out that Commercial and Industrial development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and restricted to small-scale sensitive enterprises which are essential to agriculture or other rural industries.

Policy T1 of the GSPSR provides that new development should be located so as to minimise the length and number of motorised journeys and should be genuinely accessible by all modes of transport.

Policy WM3 of the GSPSR provides that waste development will be encouraged in appropriate locations. Policy WM4 sets out that provision for recycling facilities should use industrial, redundant or ‘brownfield’ sites or existing waste management sites in preference to virgin land where appropriate.

Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 – March 2006

Policy GNL1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 – March 2006 (TBLP) requires that all new development must be of high quality design.

Policy EMP4 of the TBLP provides that new small scale employment uses may be appropriate where they are directly related to the essential needs of agriculture or other rural industries where it can be demonstrated that there are specific reasons why a rural location is necessary. In all cases proposals must be well related to residential areas to allow access by walking, cycling or public transport, be satisfactorily assimilated into the countryside and

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 58 not lead to any significant effect on nearby residential or other uses by way of noise, vibration, pollution, traffic generation or other disturbance.

Policy TPT1 of the TBLP sets out that provision should be made for safe and convenient access by pedestrians and cyclists, an appropriate level of public transport should be available, traffic generated by development should not impair the safety or satisfactory operation of the highway network.

Policy LND4 of the TBLP provides that regard will be given to the need to protect the character and appearance of the rural landscape.

Policy AGR6 of the TBLP sets out that the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings for employment uses will be acceptable provided that, inter alia, the buildings are of a permanent and substantial construction and in the open countryside are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. Proposed uses which would adversely affect the quality of the rural environment or residential amenity by reason of their nature, scale and impact will not be acceptable.

Policy AGR7 of the TBLP set outs that rural buildings should be capable of conversion to the proposed alternative use without substantial alteration or extension to their original structure. The essential scale, form and character of the original building and as much of the original structure and essential features (internal and external) as possible, should be retained.

Analysis

The main differences between the previously refused application and the current application are as follows:

• An increase in the size of the application site, primarily to allow for increased tree planting;

• Reduction in proposed throughput of materials from 100 to 75 tonnes per day;

• Reduction in projected rate of use by 25%;

• Use of the facility for the company’s own waste only;

• Omission of crushing activities from the proposals;

• Removal of proposed new office maintenance and replacement with proposed ‘conversion’ of Dutch barn for use as offices;

• Reduction in proposed traffic movements;

• Increased landscaping.

Landscape Impact:

The application site constitutes agricultural land in a prominent location in what is an open landscape. The site is clearly visible from a number of public vantage points and the development that has already taken place forms a clear visual intrusion extending beyond the extent of the existing farmyard which harms the character and appearance of the landscape. It is clear from the surrounding landforms, and having regard to aerial photographs of the site prior to its development, that significant excavations have taken place in what was previously part of the adjacent agricultural field.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 59

The proposed use, including hard standings, the storage of materials and the presence of large vehicles and equipment on the site represents a clear identifiable harm to the landscape. The fact that the area for the proposed operational development has been reduced, and that further additional landscaping is proposed is noted and would to a degree soften the impact of the development on the landscape. However the proposals, including the unauthorised development which has already been carried out, represent a significant intrusion into the open countryside which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape.

A public footpath passes through the site. It is noted that if permission were granted the footpath would be diverted around the site however it is clear that the development would be highly visible from the footpath to the detriment of the landscape and users of the public footpath. Furthermore, notwithstanding the removal of crushing operations from the proposals, the nature of the operations carried out would have a significant impact on the peace and tranquillity of the open countryside. The development as completed would therefore conflict with national and local planning policies that seek to protect the countryside from harmful development.

Locational Issues:

The Policy framework set out above requires recycling facilities to be located in suitable locations. The site at Overton Farm is a greenfield, ‘virgin’ site in the open countryside, remote from facilities. No substantial evidence has been produced to show that the applicant has actively attempted to secure an alternative, more appropriate site. Paragraphs 7.30 – 7.32 of the Supporting Statement provide anecdotal evidence to that effect that this is the case, however it is not considered that, in this case, the lack of alternative sites outweighs the landscape harm caused by the development. No mention of sites outside Gloucester have been referred to.

Furthermore, whilst the applicant states that an advantage of the site is its central location which is well located to the market area served by the use, it is not considered that this ‘advantage’ outweighs the clear landscape harm resulting from the development.

In light of the above comments the development is contrary to landscape protection policies designed to control inappropriate, harmful development in the open countryside (GSPSR Policy NHE1 and TBLP Policy LND4).

In terms of employment policy as set out above, (GSPSR Policy E4 and TBLP Policy EMP4) the development is clearly in conflict with the requirements of those policies. The use proposed for the site is not related to agriculture or any other rural industry and it has not been demonstrated that a rural location is necessary. Indeed it is clear that this is not the case as the use has previously operated from a City Centre location and the only reason alternative premises are required is due to the regeneration of Gloucester Docks.

The site is not easily accessible by alternative modes of transport and the application recognises that the all employees are expected to travel by car. The floor plans of the proposed office building indicate office accommodation over two floors which could accommodate a significant number of employees. There is also a concern that this accommodation is too large for the applicants business and could lead to the establishment of other business uses in this non-conforming location in the future.

It is not clear from the application whether the ‘gangs’ would arrive and park at the site before going out to work. Notwithstanding this, given the location of the site and the number

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 60 of staff proposed to work at the site, it is considered that the proposed use conflicts with GSPSR Policy T1 and TBLP Policies TPT1 and EMP4 in that the site is not well served by alternative modes of transport car which would increase reliance on the private car, contrary to the aims of sustainable development. It is noted that the County Highways Officer has been consulted and will be responding with regard to the highways issues.

Office Accommodation:

As set out above Policies AGR6 and 7 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan which require that buildings proposed for re-use must be of permanent and substantial construction and be capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction (in line with advice contained in PPS7. Furthermore buildings should be capable of construction without substantial alteration or extension to their original structure.

The office accommodation proposed cannot be considered to represent a ‘conversion’ and is tantamount to the erection of a new building. In fact it is noted that the site survey plan indicates that the floor area of the existing building is approximately 23m x 7.5m, whereas the proposed floor plans indicate a floor area of 31m x 9.75m. Furthermore the 1:500 ‘Schematic layout plan’ submitted with the application indicated the floorspace to be 18.5m x 6m.It is noted that no existing floor plans and elevations have been submitted.

The existing building is a very simple, functional Dutch barn which is clad on one end elevation, with cladding up to about 2.5 metres on one side and the other end elevation. The other side elevation is completely open between the thin steel columns. A full structural survey has not been carried out, although a very brief Inspection Report has been submitted. No method statement setting out how construction is proposed has been submitted. Whilst the Inspection Report concludes that the barn is capable of conversion it is clear from the elevation drawings and floor plans that the proposed works go well beyond what could be a considered a conversion under Policies AGR6 and AGR7,and as such the proposed development amounts to the construction of a new building which would be harmful to the character of the rural landscape and the proposal thus conflicts with Policies LND4, AGR6 and AGR7 of the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the above ‘in principle’ objection to the proposed office building, and notwithstanding the above comments regarding the inaccuracy of the plans, the proposed design does not reflect the character of the existing open fronted, agricultural Dutch barn. The glazing patterns do not reflect the open nature of the barn, nor the rhythm of the steel columns which support the roof. In design terms it would be expected to recess the proposed new external walling to allow the columns and the latticework trusses between the columns to be retained, thus retaining the agricultural nature of the building. The design as submitted is more typical of an industrial building on an industrial estate as opposed to a sympathetic conversion of an existing agricultural building, and no justification has been made for the design in the very brief Design and Access Statement (Appendix H). In design terms therefore the proposed development would conflict with Policies S6 and S7 of the GSPSR and Policies GNL1 and AGR7 of the TBLP.

Proposals for waste management facilities must comply with relevant saved policies of the WLP and other parts of the Development Plan including the GSPSR and TBLP. In the Borough Councils view the current, amended, application for the development of the site at Overton Farm does not comply with the policies of the Development Plan and is not a suitable location for the development of a recycling facility as proposed here. The Borough Council OBJECTS to the application on the following grounds:

1 The proposed development as completed, by reason of its location and scale would result in a significant intrusion into the open countryside which would

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 61

be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. The proposed development as completed would therefore conflict with Policy 12 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012, Policies S6, S7, E4, NHE1 and WM3 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review and Policies GNL1, EMP4 and LND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 – March 2006.

2 The proposed office building would involve major reconstruction and substantial alteration to the original structure of the existing Dutch barn which would be visually intrusive and detrimental to its rural character and appearance. Furthermore, the detailed design of the proposed resulting building would detract from it traditional form and appearance. The proposed development conflicts with Policies S6 and S7 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review and Policies GNL1, AGR6 and AGR7 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 - March 2006

3 The submitted plans are inaccurate and inadequate in that the proposed floor plans and elevations fail to accord with the existing site survey plans and Schematic Layout Plan.

As set out above it is also considered the development constitutes an unsustainable form of development contrary to national and local planning guidance and policies however it is noted that the County Highways Officer will respond specifically on this issue.

The Borough Council would wish to be consulted on any further information submitted as part of the application. Should the County Council determine to permit the application, the Borough Council would also wish to be reconsulted with respect to the proposed conditions.

Additional Comments

It is noted that significant excavation works have been carried out which has resulted in a significant encroachment into the open countryside which this application proposes to regularise. The applicant suggests that the application site has been used as a yard since he purchased the site. The only planning history for the site is for the above-mentioned Agricultural Determination however. Aerial photographs taken in 2000 clearly indicate that the site was then part of an arable agricultural field, however it is noted that by 2004/2005 unauthorised storage appeared to be taking place in parts of the field.

Consultation and Representations

Notwithstanding the above objections, 2 letters of objection have been received from local residents along with representations from the CPRE. I attach copies of the representations received to date however the objections are summarised as follows:

- The proposed development is out of keeping with this rural village and represents both a detrimental visual impact on the area and an unacceptable intrusion into the surrounding countryside;

- The disbenefits in terms of quality of life for local residents outweigh the commercial benefit;

- The activities could be carried out at a more suitable location;

- The recycling process will produce dust and noise;

- The development represents building an industrial business on a greenfield site.

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 62

There is plenty of brownfield in the local area;

- Additional heavy vehicular movements along the A417.

I trust that the above is self-explanatory however please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Yours faithfully,

Director of Operations

DC JULY 08 4 JB comreps 63 APPLICATION NO: 08/0019/CWMAJW VALIDATION 31st March 2008 DISTRICT REF NO: CT/2584/L DATE: 08/01109/CPO

AGENT: GPP Planning Westman House Chapel Lane Westmancote Nr Tewkesbury Glos GL20 7ER

APPLICANT: Agricultural Supply Co (Fairford) Ltd Welsh Way Sunhill Cirencester Glos GL7 5SY

SITE: Welsh Way Sunhill Cirencester Glos GL7 5SY

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 1: planning permission CT.2584/J. Continuation of green waste processing to form compost without complying with time limit for operations.

PARISH OF Meysey SITE AREA: 4.4Ha Hampton

GRID REF: SP 117 030

That planning permission be GRANTED for the RECOMMENDED: reasons set out in this report and summarised at paragraphs 7.44 and 7.45 and subject to the conditions in section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION

1.1 The application site is situated within an existing mushroom compost producing facility in open countryside in the south Cotswolds. The site lies approximately 8 kilometres to the east of Cirencester, 2.5 kilometres to the north west of Fairford and 2 kilometres to the north of the village of Meysey Hampton. The site lies on the eastern side of a local road, known as Welsh Way. The existing composting site covers approximately 6.5 hectares and was formerly a limestone quarry before the site was developed for its current use, mushroom compost and green waste compost production.

1.2 The existing composting site is screened by a belt of semi-mature tree planting, on a bund around the site boundaries. A similar belt of tree planting also runs across the centre of the site, north to south, splitting the site into two: Site 1 (the western half) and Site 2 (the eastern half). The application site occupies Site 1 which is comprised of a concrete pad, with sump drainage, totalling 16,000 square metres, together with an open sided building of 2,775 square metres, offices, weighbridge, workshop, a drainage sump and a large water tank (with a capacity of 450,000 gallons). Site 2 comprises a concrete pad, with sump drainage, totalling 6,800 square metres, offices, a surfaced storage area for vehicles and plant; a building of 2,650 square metres for deliveries and packing which also houses eight 25 metre tunnels

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 1 (the ‘in vessel’ composting system); and an area of open ground used for storage in the eastern-most corner of the site. The two halves of the site are linked by a conveyor belt which passes under the central tree belt and there is an access road running along the northern boundary of the site.

1.3 The current composting activities on the application site involve the reception of the raw materials, straw and chicken and horse manures. The straw is wetted and mixed with the manures in the open air on the concrete pad. The mixture is then put into windrows under the cover of the open sided building. The windrows are turned and irrigated with water as part of the composting process. The composted material is either sold directly as loose mushroom compost or transported to site 2 by the conveyor for further treatment.

1.4 The site entrance is located on the north western corner of the site, onto a local road which joins the A417 to the south at Meysey Hampton, after crossing a junction of local roads known as Sunhill. There are six properties near to the application site which are located in the small hamlet known as Sunhill, the nearest of which is 250 metres from the site boundary to the south. Piggery buildings are located to the west of the site, approximately 230 metres from the site boundary. The site lies outside the Cotswold AONB; the AONB boundary runs along a local road, Akeman Street, situated 1.5 kilometres to the north of the application site. The site is not constrained by other designations such as SSSI and Key Wildlife Sites. The site is identified as an existing waste management facility in the adopted Waste Local Plan.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the continued use of the green waste composting facility that was granted a two year temporary consent on 10th November 2005. Condition 1 states:

1. The development hereby approved shall cease on the earlier of the two following dates: a) The date 2 years following the implementation of this planning permission, or b) Before the expiry of the 2 year duration period referred to at (a), on the date of the implementation of any other planning permission for processing of green waste and /or mixed organic waste at the site. The written notification of the commencement of development shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

Reason: In order to comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The applicant is seeking to continue the production of compost from green waste through a permanent planning permission for the composting of 10,000 tonnes of green waste per annum. All other conditions of the permission will remain unchanged. The following is a summary of the information provided by the Applicant’s agent in support of the application.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 2

Introduction

2.2 This is an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the variation of Condition 1, which imposed a two year period for production of Green Waste compost. The proposal involved a maximum throughput of 10,000 tonnes of green waste per annum. An extension to the period of time for this activity is sought, by varying Condition 1 to remove the time limit for operations.

2.3 Since green waste composting has only been taking place since August 2006, only 18 months have been occupied with this activity at the site, of which some months represented "start-up".

Success of green waste composting at the application site

2.4 Once the relevant Council contract deliveries had been brought into operation, the throughput increased. Timing of deliveries and routing was agreed according to conditions imposed by planning permission CT.2584/J. As throughput increased, and the processing methodology was refined, the quality of the compost quickly became suitable for applying for PAS1001 certification, which was awarded by, late Summer 2007. PAS means Publicly Available Specification, and is sponsored by WRAP2 (see below). This is a standard granted by the Composting Association, and provides an independent assurance of good process control, input materials, sanitisation, and lack of weeds and contaminants, as well as guaranteeing labelling, storage conditions etc.

2.5 The photograph submitted [Available to view through public access and to be displayed at the back of the Council Chamber on the day of the Planning Committee] shows that when the compost was spread at a rate of 20 tonnes per acre in Meysey Hampton Parish, the resultant crop on the treated land is demonstrably better than that on the untreated land. This is because of the effect that the organic matter has on water retention, and provision of nutrients. ADAS and WRAP have published an advice note entitled "Making the Most of Compost in Agriculture and Field Horticulture" which sets out a wide range of reasons for the use of compost by farmers.

2.6 Repeated annual application of such compost brings many more subtle benefits to the quality of the land, including its texture and workability, and reduction in susceptibility to disease. It leads to less artificial fertilizer being required, especially over the longer term, and the advice states "the typical fertilizer replacement value from 30t/ha of compost in the first year is at least £90/ha".

1 BSI PAS 100: This specification covers the entire process by which compost is produced: from raw materials and production methods, through to quality control and lab testing. It means that the composts certified by The Composting Association are quality assured, traceable, safe and reliable. The Composting Association Certification Scheme is the only UK scheme providing third party assessment and conformity with BSI PAS 100. The process is reassuringly rigorous and compost producers are inspected annually. 2 WRAP: Waste & Resources Action Programme

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 3

2.7 The demand for the compost has grown as more product became available. Compost is currently taken by farms north and south of Meysey Hampton, and north-east of Baunton. Some of this is moved in back loads, following deliveries of materials for mushroom composting. The land required for compost spreading in connection with the proposal (rate of 20 tonnes per acre/annum) is in the order of 250-300 acres.

Volumes

2.8 The import of green waste to the site started in August 2006, with few deliveries, and by the year 2007, from January to December, totalled 8742 tonnes. Approximately 3,500 tonnes of finished compost were removed from the site during this period. A somewhat higher quantity would be produced by the input quantities, and this figure would reflect the time delay between input and finished product.

Notes on planning policy and national guidance

2.9 Since the original grant of consent, Waste Strategy 2007 has been published, with its attention to targets for diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill, which it addresses with a sense of urgency. Waste Strategy 2007 (WS2007) also draws attention to the importance of good technical skills and an educated workforce in waste management and technologies used. It can be noted that in this context the applicant operates an existing composting site to a high standard, producing food grade specialist compost. The production of any compost to a high standard is a complex biological process, with variable elements such as moisture, plant material, and temperature requiring constant monitoring and adjustment.

2.10 One of the government's objectives is that composting should make a significant contribution to increasing the recycling/compost of wastes. A key action is to support the domestic market for high quality uses of materials, and WRAP is continuing to work on increasing the viability of the recycling industry. The adherence to the objective of moving waste up the Waste Hierarchy is maintained. Good quality compost has a high value in this respect. Much less emphasis is given, however, to the proximity principle, and demonstration of BPEO for applications is no longer required.

2.11 Regard for sustainability means that movement of bulky biodegradable waste should be minimised, but it can be noted that one of the themes of WS2007 is the need to invest in waste management facilities to achieve an increasingly difficult range of targets. This need is a material consideration: the benefits arising from the provision of a facility should therefore enter into the balance during consideration of proposals.

2.12 The Gloucestershire Waste Partnership Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy also seeks to encourage composting. Two specific aims relevant to the application are the support of "development of local re-processors, waste based businesses, throughout Gloucestershire", and the aim of "selling

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 4 compost" back to Gloucestershire's householders. Local recycling has a high priority, as high quality products. Objective 4 "Compost Hierarchy" is: "to promote home and community composting where possible, and also to provide facilities to compost bio waste that is collected at the kerbsides and received at HRCs. We aim to produce high quality composts that can be used locally” including being "used to improve Gloucestershire's soils".

2.13. The above two documents are material considerations.

2.14 PPS 10 (and Companion Guide) states with reference to existing adopted Plans that “the key test is their consistency with PPS10 and the WPA’s Core Strategy. Where they are consistent they should be considered favourably”.

2.15 The following key Planning Objectives are also stated:

• Provide a network in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities. • Help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations • Reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of the waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and encourage competitiveness.

2.16 Competitiveness is a key element of sustainability, in that choice over price and facility is available for local authorities, business and the community, and costs of disposal are contained.

The Development Plan

2.17 The Development Plan comprises: The Regional Planning Guidance 10 for the South-West, and the Regional Spatial Strategy and Regional Waste Strategy Gloucestershire County Structure Plan - (Second Review adopted Plan 1999 and Third Review Deposit Draft) Gloucestershire County Adopted Waste Local Plan 2004 Cotswold District Council Local Plan

2.18 The Regional Spatial Strategy is still in draft form, following the Examination in Public, and being considered by the Government Office for the South West. Composting and the need to divert biodegradable waste from landfill are supported.

2.19. Since the original planning permission, the advance of the LDF process has involved the "saving" of a number of policies of the principal relevant plan, which is the Waste Local Plan.

2.20 In the Waste Local Plan, the application site is listed as a Composting Facility, under Appendix 5. Further to this is the fact that the site is extensive,

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 5 comprising in this application of 4.4 hectares with a large concrete bunded pad suitable for open windrow composting of wastes. These points amount to a material consideration, particularly in view of the advice in PPS10 that the use of "previously developed" sites is recommended.

2.21 The "saved" policies do not include Policies referring to BPEO. Policy 6, therefore, (Waste Management Facilities - Other Sites) which was the subject of consideration in CT.2584/J, is not saved. However, the reasons given for justification of the application site as opposed to those in Schedule 2, are still supportive as a material consideration. This is particularly in view of the fact that there are few other green waste composting sites to serve the county or the local demand. There is a strong need for facilities which can compost green waste to a high standard.

2.22 Policy 9 - Composting - is supportive of composting provided that the operation does not materially conflict with surrounding land uses. The application site is surrounded by agricultural land and is set in a former quarry, below ground level. It is also surrounded by an earth bund planted with trees. The nearest dwellings are over 300 metres distant from the Green Waste composting operations. '

2.23 The site is already used for the production of mushroom compost. Green waste composting at the site makes no material or significant additional impact, and has been satisfactorily carried out over the past 18 months.

Environmental Impacts

2.24 Conditions on the original planning permission controlled potential impacts. There is no evidence that impacts arising from the implementation of the permission the subject of this application are unacceptable in planning terms.

Conclusions

2.25 The site is ideal for the proposed use. It possesses all the infrastructure needed for the treatment of Green Waste. The use has been serving an important function in the treatment for recycling of a type of waste arising in the area from local households, and green wastes will continue to need to be moved up the waste hierarchy.

2.26 Arable farming is important in the surrounding area, and the soils are of a type to benefit enormously from the addition of high quality compost. The advantages of having a source readily available to local farmers are considerable, especially since compost cannot be transported very far for economic reasons. It can also be noted that the addition of compost to land is recognised as an effective means of control of surface water run-off, reducing flooding.

2.27 It is considered that any environmental impacts are insignificant and that they are more than outweighed by the definable benefits of the proposal. If it is

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 6 considered that a temporary consent would be more appropriate, the applicant is willing to consider a 3 year limitation.

Additional supporting information submitted on behalf of the applicant in June 2008.

Need for the capacity

Green waste arisings

2.28 At the time the application was made, green waste deliveries were being made to the site at the rate of nearly 9,000 tonnes per annum. While the green waste arisings within Cotswold District are now partly collected as source-segregated waste together with kitchen waste, it is considered that the charge made for this service will have the effect of increasing the green waste that is delivered to the HRCs, even if a proportion is absorbed by in-garden composting. It is too early in the new system to know how customer’s reactions will influence their green waste disposal. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the green waste with which kitchen waste is mixed, is being sent to Dymock in West Gloucestershire, with other kitchen waste etc. being sent to Bioganix (Leominster in Herefordshire).

2.29 Meanwhile there are other Gloucestershire green waste arisings, such as both HRC green waste and source separated green waste (green bags) from Stroud. As far as can be identified, these and other Councils’ green waste is now collected and seems to be sent to Hempsted for landfill cover – however, are some of Stroud’s arisings also being sent to Leominster?

2.30 The problem is that currently, the applicant effectively has no planning permission that would allow bidding for contracts of any length of time, and so it has not been possible to enter into any realistic negotiations. It is clear that there are considerable potential quantities of green waste available within the County. In terms of Municipal waste, over 320,000 tonnes per annum of MSW arise in Gloucestershire, of which approximately 107,000 tonnes are green waste or kitchen waste. A proportion of cardboard, commonly added to improve the composting mix, adds to this tonnage (eg. to say 120,000 tonnes approximately). Even if consented composting capacity was available in the County, - implemented, operational, or devoted only to Gloucestershire’s MSW- it would not nearly provide for this quantity, and makes no allowance for dealing with non-MSW, of which there are large quantities. The continuation of an existing green waste composting facility would therefore assist in dealing with the County’s waste, raise composting rates and over the years assist in providing flexibility and capacity to achieve existing and coming targets. In addition, the availability of consented capacity would be an advantage in allowing competition and driving down costs for the residents. This is consistent with advice in PPS10: that provision should reflect the needs of all stakeholders including business, and encourage competitiveness.

2.31 It is therefore reasonable to leave the proposed throughput at 10,000 tonnes per annum, which is a relatively small throughput. This then offers a process

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 7 site which will provide high quality compost for active improvement of the environment, and an alternative destination for green waste which currently seems to be actually deposited at Hempsted Landfill site.

Planning Policy and Government Guidance

2.32 PPS10 and Waste Strategy 2007 constitute government guidance, which is a material consideration. The guidance states that composting should make a significant contribution: not only this, but it should be of good quality, and achieving the composting protocol is one aspect of this drive. Another objective of WS2007 is the bringing in of new targets for commercial and industrial waste, to be kept out of landfill. It states that Local Authorities should take a wider role, and the LATS should not prevent them from helping facilitate recycling other biodegradable wastes( e.g. green wastes) by permitting waste management facilities to do this job. Several references are also made to the need to reduce the planning risk, which is slowing down the investment in, and development of, waste management facilities to address climate change.

2.33 Communities should take more responsibility for their own waste, and make sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities. With regard to planning proposals, the guidance is a material consideration against earlier adopted planning policies at a local and county level, and brings in the key test: “their consistency with PPS10 and the WPA’s core strategy…. where they (the proposals) are consistent, they should be viewed favourably”. The proposal is consistent with PPS10 – it is an existing site of considerable scale, which is included in the Waste Local Plan as a composting site, and in the JMWMS as a waste processing site. Further more, the site has already been operating for nearly two years in undertaking open windrow composting of green waste, to provide a very successful product. No harm has been identified from this activity.

2.34 Proving the need for a specific facility is no longer a requirement of PPS10, nor of Waste Strategy 2007. Furthermore, much less emphasis is given to the Proximity Principle – neither this nor self-sufficiency are given much attention in the most recent publication, WS2007. It is clear from that document that the need for investment in facilities is paramount, to achieve targets, current and future.

2.35 In addition, the objectives of the Gloucestershire Waste Partnership, and Waste Strategy 2007, include reducing landfill disposal not only of municipal waste but also of other non-municipal waste, as yet untargeted by LATS penalties. It is therefore reasonable to consider whether the availability of a green waste composting facility may also absorb locally produced green waste such as landscape contracting arisings, and vegetable processing wastes, which might even come in through council contracts. First, however, the facility has to be available, and the pricing clear. This type of green waste is not the subject of accurate survey of quantities, but clearly does exist. As stated above, neither PPS10 or Waste Strategy 2007 require that need as such must be demonstrated: rather they now encourage a range of facilities to

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 8 be available to serve arisings which may otherwise go to landfill or to more distant facilities.

Importance of the product, compost

2.36 There is another aspect of the proposal, which the applicant believes is not sufficiently emphasised, and that is the importance of the end product. The availability of compost /soil conditioner for agriculture, within easy access of farmers is of benefit to the environment and the agricultural economy. The Cotswolds soils are on the whole limestone-based, relatively thin, and in need of organic matter. Not only does government advice support the addition of compost to land for a variety of good reasons, but it has been demonstrated by the applicant that addition of compost to land at Meysey Hampton results in better growth of the crop. The use of artificial fertiliser is reduced. The soil absorbs more water. It must be an advantage to farmers in this predominantly agricultural area to have high quality compost available, which because it is of PAS 100 status (Composting Protocol), achieved within the past 2 years, means that an Exemption from the Environment Agency is not required for spreading to land.

2.37 It should also be recalled that to the applicant’s knowledge there are no other sites within Gloucestershire which are composting to this high standard.

Conclusion

2.38 While it is appreciated that members may wish to know where raw materials come from – although in this case wastes for re-cycling, on an existing industrial site - this is not a preoccupation of government guidance on wastes, which simply states that proximity is desirable. This is a renewal of an existing planning permission for a relatively low throughput, which has local benefits and has been shown to have no unacceptable impacts. The site is identified as a composting site on a significant scale, and fit for purpose. Conditions already apply to the existing permission, and this is a case where the imposition of conditions has already been acknowledged to make the proposal acceptable.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Table A: Planning decisions relating to Agricultural Supplies (Fairford) Ltd, Sunhill

Planning Development Decision & Date Ref CT.2584 Outline application for stone quarry Approved 1 February 1962 CT.2584/A Temporary use of land for clay pigeon Approved* shooting 17 May 1984 CT.2584/B Outline application for building for the Withdrawn production of compost Oct 1985

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 9 CT.2584/C Change of use of land from stone quarry to Approved storage and making of mushroom compost 18 March 1987 CT.2584/C/ Reserved matters: composting yard with Approved* APP compost building, warehouse buildings, 27 May 1987 stores and offices CT.2584/D Extension of composting yard Approved* 18 Oct 1989 CT.2584/E Construction of pasteurising tunnels Approved* 23 June 1995 CT.2584/F Construction of spawn chambers with Approved* associated buildings, extension of phased 25 June 1996 1 covered area CT.2584/G Use of existing plant for composting of Refused on Green Waste and Mixed Organic, and appeal. continuation of reduced production of specialised compost for mushroom 15th Feb 2006 growing CT.2584/H Use of existing plant for composting of Under Green Waste and Mixed Organic, and consideration continuation of reduced production of specialised compost for mushroom growing CT.2584/J Temporary 2 year proposal to process Approved Green Waste to form compost 10th Nov 2005 CT.2584/K Use of existing plant for composting of Under Green Waste and Mixed Organic and consideration Green Waste (variation of condition d of CT.2584/C), and continuation of reduced production of specialised compost for mushroom growing. Erection of extension to building, fencing and biofilter.

* Granted by Cotswold District Council

3.2 The planning permission for the change of use of the site to composting, CT.2584/C, was granted on 24th March 1987 by the County Council as the development affected the restoration of a minerals site. The approval permitted mushroom composting at the site subject to the approval of reserve matters relating to the buildings and drainage, which were subsequently approved. The conditions included the restriction of the site use to the production of mushroom compost, removal of permitted development rights, a landscaping scheme, highway matters and site lighting. Cotswold District Council has granted subsequent permissions for further composting buildings and plant as the use of the land has been considered to be agricultural in nature.

3.3 Planning application CT.2584/G was considered by members at the Planning Committee meeting on 10th February. The application was recommended for approval but members resolved to defer the application in order that more information on composting operations could be gathered and an independent environmental and traffic assessment could be undertaken. The applicant

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 10 decided to appeal for non-determination of this application and at the same time submit a parallel similar planning application (CT.2584/H). The application CT.2584/G was refused on appeal. Application CT.2584/H is now in abeyance pending the outcome of application no. CT.2584/K.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance

Central Government Advice PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geology) PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) PPG13 (Transport) PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) Circular 11/95 (Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions)

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9- Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

PPS9 sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. The site is not in an environmentally constrained area, however, there is a Key Wildlife Site approximately 1km away.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

PPS10 sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. The statement promotes sustainable waste management whereby waste is moved up the waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting and waste to energy, with waste disposal to landfill as a last resort.

In finding suitable sites for new waste management facilities, the statement indicates that a broad range of locations including brownfield and industrial sites should be considered.

When determining planning applications the PPS is a material consideration which may supersede policies in development plans and Waste Planning Authorities should therefore not place requirements on applicants which are inconsistent with the PPS.

The PPS states that the planning authorities should concern themselves with the implementation of planning strategy not the control of processes which are for the consideration of pollution control authorities. The PPS

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 11 also states that well run and well regulated facilities should not pose a risk to human health and that the detailed consideration of health is the responsibility of the pollution control regimes. Where health is raised waste planning authorities should not carry out their own assessment but have regard to governmental advice and research and consultation with the relevant health authorities. PPS also states that the use of planning conditions covering pollution matters should not be necessary where a facility requires a permit from the pollution control authority.

Annex E identifies the locational criteria for testing the suitability of sites and that they should take into account the type and scale of the waste management facility. The criteria listed include: protection of water resources; land instability; visual intrusion; nature conservation; historic environment and built heritage; traffic and access; air emissions, including dust; odours; vermin and birds; noise and vibration; litter; and, potential land use conflict.

The requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), that was a former requirement of previous guidance (PPG10), has been removed.

4.2 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 23 – Planning and Pollution Control

PPG23 sets out the material considerations that should be taken into account determining planning applications for developments that may give rise to pollution. PPG23 notes that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary, both designed to protect the environment. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest. It plays an important role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generated, and in ensuring that other developments are, as far as possible, not affected by major existing, or potential, sources of pollution.

The planning system should focus on the whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of the processes or emissions themselves. Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. Planning control should not seek to duplicate the controls which are the responsibility of other statutory organisations. Consideration of the development’s potential for pollution is restricted to the effect on the current and future use of land.

The areas where pollution considerations may affect land use considerations include: land availability and proximity to other development; sensitivity of an area; amenity; environmental benefits; site design and visual impact; hours of operation; nuisance from birds, vermin or litter; transport requirements. PPG23 notes that planning authorities should rely on the advice of the Environment Agency as regards the risk of pollution incidents.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 12 4.3 Regional Planning Guidance 10: Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (2001) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006)

RPG 10 interprets the national planning policy framework at the South West regional level and is part of the statutory development plan and therefore must be considered. Policy RE5 sets down regional targets for reducing landfill of industrial waste and gives priority to recovery facilities in or near the Principal Urban Areas in order to achieve sustainable waste management.

The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 - 2026 has been issued for consultation and a panel report of the Examination in Public has now been produced. The RSS is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, although the policies do not have full weight at present. Policy W2 is relevant and advocates the following hierarchy when making provision for waste facilities:

1. On the site waste management, where possible; 2. Proximity principle i.e. waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. (However the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, however the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste); and 3. Preference for established and proposed industrial sites and previously developed land, In rural areas there should be provision of a network of local waste management facilities. Major sources of waste arising in rural areas will be treated locally, unless specialised facilities are required.

4.4 Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review: Adopted Plan (November 1999)

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the adopted Structure Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies are saved under the transitional arrangements and are relevant to the proposed development.

The following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy S.4 – strict control of development within the open countryside Policy S.6 – safeguarding local character and distinctiveness Policy WM.1 – new waste management facilities in Gloucestershire Policy WM.2 – Integrated waste management facilities. Policy WM.3 – to regional self-sufficiency for treatment and disposal of waste Policy WM.4 – recycling and composting provision will be made for facilities associated with the recovery of material through composting but that they should be in close proximity to major concentrations of waste arisings and that industrial, redundant/brownfield or existing waste sites should be used in preference to greenfield land where appropriate

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 13 Policy W.1 – the potential impact of development on water resources Policy P.1 – to the potential polluting impacts of development

4.5 Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft (November 2002) & Proposed Modifications (July 2004 and January 2005)

The Third Alteration has had an Examination in Public in November/December 2003. Two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005 a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration still remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations. The following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy SD.6 – development within the open countryside Policy SD.22 – the operation of waste management facilities Policy SD.23 – the need for waste management facilities to comply with locational criteria comprising: previously developed sites in preference to greenfield; adequate transport; appropriate reclamation: and, afteruse Policy SD.24 – the potential environmental impact of waste management facilities and the requirement to establish a need that outweighs the material adverse environmental impact Policy MR.1 – the need to maintain, and where possible enhance, local character and distinctiveness Policy MR.10 – the potential polluting impacts of development

4.6 Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 (Adopted October 2004)

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the adopted Structure Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004. However, following the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s Direction (dated 5 October 2007) the following WLP policies are ‘saved’ until replaced by Development Plan Documents contained in the Minerals and waste Development Frameworks.

Policy 9 – Composting Policy 11 – Waste Collection Facilities Policy 33 – Water Resources Pollution Control Policy 37 – Proximity to other land uses Policy 38 – Hours of Operation Policy 40 – Traffic

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 14

Policies not ‘saved’ from the adopted Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, but may be appropriate to this application Following the direction from Secretary of State the policies listed below no longer form part of the waste development framework. However, they may still be a material consideration. The materiality is judged on a case-by-case basis and the appropriateness of the policies to the application will be for the case officer to decide. Policy 1 – BPEO Policy 2 – Regional Self-Sufficiency Policy 3 – Proximity Principle Policy 6 – Waste Management Facilities for Other Sites Policy 7 – Waste management facilities for other sites. Policy 44 – Airport Safeguarding

4.7 Cotswold District Council Local Plan 2001 -2011 (Adopted April 2006)

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that the adopted Cotswold District Councils Local Plan’s Development plan status must be considered. Cotswold District Council adopted the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011 on 25 April 2006. The Local Plan is automatically 'saved' for a minimum of three years (to April 2009) as part of the Local development Scheme. The following policies are saved under the transitional arrangements and are relevant to the proposed development.

Policy 1 (Natural Resources) seeks to ensure the sustainable use of resources and that inter alia resources are conserved and waste is minimised by promoting more sustainable methods of waste management,. Policy 4 (Environmental Impact) Policy 5 – pollution and safety hazards where permission would not be granted where an unacceptable risk to public health, safety, the environment or general amenity Policy 6 (The Water Environment), which seeks to protect the water environment and essential habitats. Policy 9 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect sites of national and local nature designation. Policy 16 – to minimise the impact of lorries and permission will not be granted that would generate an adverse impact on the interests of highway, residential amenity or the local environment Policy 19 Development Outside Development Boundaries) Policy 24 (Employment Uses)

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The proposal was advertised by a site notice erected on the 1st May 2008 and which expired on the 22nd May 2008 and an advertisement in a locally circulating newspaper dated 1st May 2008, which expired on the 22nd May 2008. In accordance with the protocol contained within the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (Adopted December 2005) 89 letters were sent to the

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 15 nearest residents and to those who had made representations in respect of the previous planning application for Green Waste composting.

5.2 25 letters of representation have been received, comprising 19 objections, 1 letter of support, 4 making general observations and 1 neither objecting to or supporting the application. Full copies of the objections have been made available outside the Members Room for inspection. The primary grounds for objection relate to traffic and the highway network. The contents of these objections have been summarised in the table below.

A Highway network. The surrounding roads make this an unsuitable site for such a large scale operation. Roads are far too narrow, only just wide enough for two cars to pass each other slowly. Surrounding roads are poorly maintained and in a terrible condition with potholes galore. The local roads have poor visibility and a poor safety record. Unacceptable increase in traffic. Lorries already travel to the site in convoy. Lorries are a danger to the community. Vehicle sizes cannot be monitored or enforced. Vehicle access is compromised because few if any passing places exist. Lorries going to the site regularly go through the village, taking the shortest route. The increase in lorries over the past year or so has been very noticeable. There are no footpaths leading from the village to Sunhill. The village has a busy primary school and the majority of parents have to park on the high street to do the pick ups and drop offs. Additional vehicles will make the road deteriorate faster. The increase in heavy traffic was the primary reason for refusing a previous application from ASC. The views of the Planning Inspector should not be casually dismissed or overlooked. Vehicle routing is constantly being ignored. The proposal was rejected by the High Court of traffic movements.*

*I believe this refers to a different application that was refused on appeal. B Odour. Smell generated affects local residents and villages. Odour from the plant regularly reaches the village of Meysey Hampton requiring that windows are shut and washing taken in from the line. At present moment the smell of processing is no worse that it has been for some years. Green Waste does smell.

C Carbon footprint/ sustainability. Sunhill is in the middle of nowhere, the site should be nearer the main road and town where the bulk of the waste will be generated, thus using more fuel and creating more emissions.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 16 There is no requirement solely for Green Waste collection within the Cotswolds as now all waste is now contaminated with MOW. Green waste is simply unsustainable. GCC should be encouraging each and every householder to compost in their back yard and not carry this waste on lorries from one end of the country to the other. The transport of a single blade of grass or hedge cutting is outrageous and the only winners are the waste companies who court these lucrative contracts with our councils and taxpayers end up paying for service, quite simply, created by the Waste Corporate Giants.

D Time limit. Object to the site operating without a time limit. The Council should monitor the plant at regular intervals and refuse to dispense with a time limit.

E Pollution. There is a possibility of an increase in pollution and of a decline in air quality. The Cotswold District Council “Bureau Veritas3” report stated that the applicant had not complied with all the 2006 restrictions. F Operating practices. The company regularly flouts its existing planning regulations. The applicant has not complied with conditions on which the current two year permit was given, should a further permit4 be given? No single agency has fully addressed the issues of on the site – despite promises made at County Hall by the planning committee chairman when planning permission was granted that the site could be properly controlled No enforcement action has been taken despite proven breaches relating to vehicle routing. It is impossible to know which vehicle relates to which activity on the site. G General Impact. The proposal will add to the urbanisation of the countryside. No change therefore no comments. The site should not be made larger or have more waste to process. Proof from the Bureau Veritas Survey show that air pollution and traffic problems exist at the site. Since April 21st when GCC started producing MOW rather than green waste it has been much quieter and safer using the road between Meysey Hampton and Sunhill. There has been a heavy reduction in heavy lorry traffic. There have been fewer refuse type vehicles through the village suggesting that there has been a number of illegal vehicles (over 18 tonnes) using this route. H Location. The plant should be located closer to existing roads or added to an existing recycling plant. The map of the Sunhill sites does not show villages to the east which are affected.

3 The “Bureau Veritas” report was commissioned by Cotswold District Council in its regulatory role under the Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control (LA-PPC) regime and is an odour impact assessment around Agricultural Supply Company (Fairford) Ltd. The report is dated February 2008. 4 This permit is believed to be the PPC permit reference no. B3/02 dated 26th June 2006 issued by Cotswold District Council, rather than the planning permission for the Green Waste Composting granted by The Waste Planning Authority.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 17 There are more suitable locations to carry out such practices. I Noise. There are unresolved noise issues. There is constant noise from reversing sounds of lorries (i.e. the “bleeping” means that it is impossible to enjoy ones outdoor environment. J Source of the material. It is evident that the application will involve in processing waste which will largely originate from outside the area. This will result in an unacceptable increase in lorry traffic on local roads and country lanes. K Flood waters. What contingencies are in place when the site inside the bunded area becomes flooded? Will it be pumped onto adjacent farm land? L Operating hours. The operating hours restriction on the Green waste composting is causing the mushroom composting hours to be extended, increasing rather than limiting the impact upon the local community.

5.3 The Local County Councillor for the area wishes to object to this proposal on road traffic grounds. The movement of heavy traffic along narrow winding rural roads represents unreasonable danger to local residents.

It has proved impossible to enforce lorry movements along prescribed routes. As you are aware this proposal precedes another and additional proposed use of the site and this piecemeal approach to the business conducted on the site means that the residents are faced with a continuous growth in traffic movements in and around the site. This represents a growing road safety hazard.

5.4 One letter of support has been received and is summarised below.

M Compost product. The product from this green waste would be highly beneficial to plant and soil husbandry. Having seen the results of applications at various rates of incorporation, the results at all levels exceed expectations. First observations show in comparison to adjoining untreated areas, a marked improvement in soil structure, the soil is more friable, drainage is much better, it has improved establishment, rooting, and tillering of the plants. N Other comments. Anybody who prevents this material being processed at Sunhill, which will be used for growing food or fuel, will be guilty of squandering a wonderful, locally produced and locally utilised resource.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 18 6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Cotswold District Council. The District Council were intending to consider this application on the 16th July 2008, however this committee has been cancelled because of Local Government strike action. It will be presented to their subsequent planning committee.

The Cotswold District Council Environmental Health Officer states “ The Council regularly receives complaints of odour emanating from the site. Very occasionally the complaints refers to green waste however none of these have been substantiated. I regularly visit the area and the site but on no occasion have I detected any odour from the green waste, my last visit was on the 1st July and standing next to the existing accumulation of the composted green waste there was no odour. I have no grounds therefore, to recommend refusal of this application.”

6.2 Meysey Hampton Parish Council: Object to the proposal for the following reasons:

The Meysey Hampton Parish Council objects to this planning application for the following reasons.

1. There are unresolved problems with the existing planning permissions affecting the ASC site. Namely: a. Documented problems with lorries not keeping to the existing conditions – times, routings. b. Continued bad odours. c. Noise from fans.

2. Lack of complete information in the application. a. How many more lorries will operate from the site – “Additional Lorries” is not an acceptable response. b. Why have ASC failed to consult with local Councils? c. Under section (14) AMENITY, considering the ongoing problems with odour and noise, “as existing” is not a satisfactory answer. We wish to be informed what actions are going to be taken to alleviate these problems.

3. Where is the Green Waste going to come from? As GCC will be producing Mixed Organic Waste (MOW) instead of Green Waste very soon, the existing permission is adequate. Or is ASC planning to import from neighbouring Councils?

4. Difficulty in policing site. There are 2 different sets of conditions covering similar operations at this site. There could be 3 if MOW treatment is allowed. How will we be able to tell which operation a lorry is supporting or which condition is being broken?

5. Local roads are unsuitable for supporting this operation. In the previous appeal statement the Inspector concluded that “substandard junctions”,

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 19 “poor forward visibility” and “large vehicles passing on this narrow road would endanger users”. In fact last autumn a local farmer had to remove a SITA refuse lorry that was going to the site, from the ditch. It had been trying to pass another lorry at the time.

6. Issues with the accuracy of benefits to farmers. The ongoing trial of the Green Waste product is not complete and won’t be until after harvesting. The fact that one area of young wheat is slightly longer than another is irrelevant. It is only the difference in yield (how much more grain) that is relevant to the farmer.

7. Lack of trust in the management. The management recently informed me that lorries capable of a maximum operating weight in excess of 18 tonnes could legally operate through the village (18 tonne restriction) when empty. Trading Standards were informed and advised ASC that this was not the case.

In conclusion, this application would lead to an uncontrolled increase in lorry movements along unsuitable roads and ASC continues to demonstrate an inability to control its operations.

Additional representation received from Roger Case - Chairman Meysey Hampton PC on 7th July 2008.

The Parish Council recommends an extension only of the temporary license and demands that all operations at the site operate under common conditions. The Parish Council would support a further temporary licence. All operations at the site - mushroom composting, green waste and MOW (If ever granted!) – should be subject to common conditions.

Last Thursday afternoon at about 4 pm I was cycling from Meysey Hampton towards the Sunhill crossroads (something many local people do, often with their children) when a large, 6 axle, 40 tonne lorry approached me from the opposite direction. There was little more than a foot clearance either side and it was travelling at about 40 mph.

It made no effort to slow or give way - in fact it passed a passing bay. When it was no more than 50 yards away I was forced to jump from my cycle onto the verge. The lorry continued past without slowing or acknowledging me.

I did not get it's registration or know whether it came from ASC (I can only tell you it was red and big!) but this highlights the danger of lorries on this road. There is no way it could have passed another vehicle as the passing bays are most inadequate.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 20

6.3 Quennington Parish Council: Object to the proposal for the following reasons:

1. Background: The existing consent is for green waste only. The consent was granted for a two year at a time when Cotswold District Council (CDC) commenced their kerbside collection of green waste.

Around the same time as this time conditioned consent was granted the applicant lost, on appeal, another application to compost mixed organic waste. The Inspector found against the appellant essentially on highway matters.

2. Current CDC kerbside collections. With effect from 21st April CDC’s kerbside collection of green waste can be mixed with food waste. Under the appellant’s existing consents and licences this matter cannot be composted at Sunhill.

Therefore the only material that the applicant can receive from CDC is green waste from the recycling site at Fosse Cross, a substantially lower volume than the tonnage the existing consent permits.

3. Green waste input. Quennington Parish Council is concerned that the applicant will make up the shortfall in green waste from outside the area of CDC. There can be no other reason for lodging this application.

4. Highways: The change in material source will undoubtedly result in an increase in large articulated vehicles on the roads, to be more accurate lanes, leading to the site. We already experience residents being forced off the roads to allow such large vehicles to pass.

6.4 Poulton Parish Council: Objects to the application for the following reasons.

Section 1. Background

The Sunhill site has long been a source of irritation to parishioners – smells/odours combined with lorry movements being the two points that caused most anger.

Two years ago the Parish Council was instructed by HMG’s Auditors to carry out and produce a Risk Analysis on the village. The greatest hazard identified was traffic and of these HGV’S were seen as the greatest danger to parishioners. This applied not only to lorries on the A417 but also on the country lane between the Red Lion and Sunhill Cross Roads.

The County Highway’s Division are fully aware of and accept the problems relating to Poulton and lorries and have asked the Ministry of Transport to downgrade the A417. The response was that that weight restrictions are used to control lorry movements.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 21 Statistics show that an individual is 3 times more likely to be killed on a road such as the A417, than a motorway or major trunk route. Indications are that this number would be higher when heavy lorries use the same route.

Section 2. Introduction

This report gives the background and details to Poulton Parish Council’s reasons and justifications for asking the Gloucestershire County Council’s Planning Committee to reject this application.

However, before considering this Application in detail there are a number of fundamental points that need resolving: The Application: -

• Does not relate to the Gloucestershire Waste Management Plan and also Cotswold District Council’s arrangements for waste. • States that waste will be received from Gloucestershire County Council and Cotswold District Council (F1), but the Sunhill plant is not include in either authority’s current plans. • Is also not up to date with Cotswold District Council’s arrangements for collection of green waste as the Application proposes to continue composting green waste received from Cotswold District Council. (also see Section 10) • Does not explain how this Application addresses the points made in the Planning Inspectors’ Rejection Report • States there is “growth potential at the site but not where this waste will be from – it is believed that the Applicant is processing waste from Wiltshire which has considerable impact on traffic to and from the site? • Also relating to growth potential this infers that salami tactics are being used or will the growth form part of a future Planning Application? [Case Officer Note: The source of the material was addressed in the additional information submitted by the Applicant’s Agent in paragraphs 2.28 to 2.38 above]

Section 3. Concerns of Farmers

As in the 2004 Planning Application, the possibility of a Foot and Mouth outbreak is still a major concern to the Farming community.

This fear has been exacerbated with the spread of Foot and Mouth by the leak of contaminated water from the Pirbright Research Centre.

The detailed Application gives very little information on the processing of waste/contaminated water. It states that all water is recycled but surely, with mixed organic waste there must be an increase in water. The following points need answers: - • What happens to this surplus water? • What guarantees are there that the washing of vehicles will not result in waste water entering the water table?

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 22 • What water is to be used to wash down the vehicles and what filtration systems are being installed to remove the micro-organisms? • What happens to the solids removed from the recycled water • A comparison with this system should be made with that installed in Pirbright.

[Case Officer Note: This proposal does not include mixed organic waste. These issues would be a matter fro the Environment Agency].

The lessons learnt in Pirbright must be incorporated in this system and form part of this Application.

An assurance is required that the waster tanks are sealed and all relevant equipment cannot be accessed by birds or any other wild life.

Section 4. The A417

The County considers this road as the 288 most dangerous in the county. Over the past year there have been three fatalities and 7 other accidents in the 3-mile stretch between the Meysey Hampton/Poulton Boundary and Kingshill.

In 2005 Tim Randle of the GCC Highway’s Department made the statement that “Until a fatality had taken place, the A417 was considered a “safe” road and there could be no justification for not allowing the extra lorry movement”

That the GCC’s Highway’s Division now consider the road “dangerous” can be seen by the high profile “Safety Campaign” which was mounted last year.

Quoting from a letter produced in August 2005 by GCC requesting the re- classification of the A417:

“The narrow nature of this route makes it particularly unsuitable for HGV’s, specifically through the villages of Fairford and Poulton. In addition there are environmental and safety concerns due to the considerable number of older houses and narrow footways alongside this route and the residential areas of Cirencester and Lechlade”

In 2006 a serious incident took place by Ampney Park. A sixteen-year-old boy was walking on the pavement pushing his bike when a lorry heading east passed him. The speed of the lorry was such that his bike was “sucked” into the road and the boy with it!! He was very fortunate that there was no traffic following the lorry.

The Post Office has registered the A417 as a hazard under their Health and Safety Rules for Postmen.

Section 5. Traffic through Poulton

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 23 The Parish Council has produced a Risk Analysis covering all the roads and the hazards to parishioners and others. This was sent to the GCC Highways Division over a year ago and no items have been refuted.

Two examples of “high” risk are given: -

• Most years a vehicle crosses a pavement and knocks down a wall – to date the village has been very fortunate in so much that no one has been hurt or killed. • Narrow pavements do not allow pedestrians to escape being injured by lorry mirrors as they sweep over the footway.

Section 6. Traffic passing Betty’s Grave.

With the installation of the 50 MPH speed limit from Poulton to Meysey Hampton crossroads more traffic now uses the road from the Red Lion to the Sunhill Cross Roads. It has been observed that many of the lorry’s travelling to and from Sunhill uses this road.

The Betty’s Grave cross roads with its “blind views” combined with the narrowness of the lanes makes it even more of a hazard.

There have been a number of accidents, some involving lorries in the last twelve months.

Section 7. Cotswold District Council Local plan 2001-2011 (Proposed Modifications October 2005)

[Case Officers comments This versions of the plan has been superseded by the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan April 2006]

The following points should be considered since they impact on the above plan: -

Proposed Modification 5.

Ref Target 1g “To assess significant new developments in respect of their likely impact on local communities through an increase in traffic, particularly large goods vehicles.

Note after Policy 4 “Harm – This includes adverse impact on the amenities of residential properties or businesses as well as the appearance, character or tranquillity of the area”

Proposed Modification 12.

Policy 5 “Unacceptable Risk of Pollution: This is especially critical – When considering potential pollution of air, regard will be had to the Country-wide Air Quality Strategy for Gloucestershire”

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 24 Proposed Modification 14

Sunhill is adjacent to an AONB boundary; it is the Council’s considered opinion that this area of countryside should receive similar treatment to that under AONB status.

Section 8. Waste Collection

Under Cotswold District Council’s current proposals (Page 8 Cotswold News winter 2007 edition, published by CDC) when collection of MOW begins, Green Waste and Kitchen Waste can be put in the Green Waste bin. Uncontaminated Green Waste will not be available for composting, as it will already be mixed with kitchen waste.

Unless Green Waste in sourced from another supplier, Green Waste composting will have to cease early in 2008 when the new collection system is implemented

It must be assumed that the Applicant is aware of the local arrangements and the impact the waste collection will have, and bearing in mind the location of the plant it is thought he is considering taking waste from Oxfordshire and/or Swindon?

This would have a serious impact on traffic in this part of Gloucestershire.

Section 9 Conclusions

For the reasons given in this report Poulton Parish Council request that this application is refused.

Appendix A: The attached photographs show the unsuitability of the access from the A417 to Sunhill cross roads

[These photographs will be displayed at the rear of the Council chamber on the day of the planning committee].

Appendix B is a copy of a letter from one of Poulton’s Parishioners, which demonstrates a breach of the existing Planning Permission. It also shows that another county is processing waste in Gloucestershire and causing problems on our roads. What action is GCC going to take?

Appendix C is a copy of an email from the Chairman of Poulton Parish Council to Ray Brassington of the CDC. This demonstrates the impact the Sunhill site is having on the community. The Chairman asks when action will be taken?

[Copies of Appendix B and C have been made available for member to view prior to the planning committee.]

Additional representation received from the Chairman of Poulton Parish Council on 7th July 2008.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 25

I thought we had responded to the Sunhill application. In case we have not the following summarises our objection: -

The main objections to the Sunhill development is the increase in lorry traffic on the A417 through Poulton and also the rat run from the Sunhill Cross Roads to the Red Lion – passing Betty’s Grave.

The narrow pavements in Poulton with lorry mirrors sweeping over them and also vehicles mounting the pavements are a major concern. A Parishioner, who is over six feet tall, was walking on a narrow pavement, not thinking about lorries, when one passed. He felt the wind from the mirror in his hair. He thought that if he had been an inch taller – he would have been “scalped”.

As far as this council can ascertain Highways have done mothering to implement the weight restriction suggested by HMG.

Most years vehicles of some sort mount the pavements in Poulton and knock down a wall. These walls can be identified with the new cement capping on them – in a number of places the pavements are scarred with gouges.

To date we have been very lucky that no parishioner has been killed or maimed.

Surely, these roads (this section of the A417 and the feeder roads) must be recognised as some of the most dangerous in the county.

Parishioners accept that delivery lorries have to drive through the village – but think that the Sunhill Planning Application is a step too far.

For reasons of traffic the Parish Council requests that the CDC object to this application.

6.5 County Highways Representative :

This application is for the variation of condition 1 on the permitted application CT.02584/J. Condition 1 of the permission was for a temporary period of 2 years. The proposed varied condition is for another temporary permission for 3 years. The permitted application was presumably given a temporary permission so the authority could assess any potential detrimental effect. These permissions are described in Circular 11/95 as "Trial runs". The period of the trial run should be set to establish sufficient evidence to enable the authority to be sure of its character or effect.

A second temporary permission should not normally be granted. A trial period should be set that is sufficiently long for it to be clear by the end of the first permission whether permanent permission or a refusal is the right answer. Usually a second temporary permission will only be justified where highway or redevelopment proposals have been postponed, or in cases of hardship

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 26 where temporary instead of personal permission has been granted for a change of use.

Therefore I must assess whether a permanent permission is acceptable or if a refusal is warranted. I have therefore reviewed the accident history from January 2006, to the present date to assess if any accidents can be related to the existing temporary use of the site.

Sunhill Reported Accident Record January 2006 - June 2008

Welsh Way fronting site - No accidents

Junction of Welsh Way with south of site - 2 Accidents

Poulton Village surrounding A417 - No accidents

Meysey Hampton village from A417 junction - 2 Accidents

A417 From Poulton Village to Magpies Farm - 7 Accidents

From the database of accidents reported to the police in the period Jan 2006 and Jul 2008 none of the accidents have involved HGVs. Objectors have suggested that there is a real issue of accidents to pedestrians caused by the wing mirrors of HGVs. I can find no legislation regarding the height and width of wing mirrors on HGVs, but also I can find no evidence of accidents that have occurred during the period of temporary permission to suggest that this is a problem. Furthermore given the relatively low daily trip rate, and the potential infrequency of pedestrian and HGV, conflict I do not consider this would warrant a reason for refusal.

On the previous recommendation from the Highway Authority a weight limit was proposed to protect certain villages in the area from related HGV movements, and thereby direct movements along the A417, and other suitable routes. The Traffic Regulation Orders came into operation on 30th November 2007. A plan showing the weight limits will be available at the planning committee.

The existing conditions relating to annual and monthly throughput, and restrictions on sourcing will still apply, and therefore I recommend that no highway objection be raised subject to the following additional condition being attached to any permission granted:-

1. The development hereby authorised shall not commence until details of a routing scheme for traffic transporting material to and from the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Waste and Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall then be implemented and reviewed in writing and approved annually by the Local Waste and Mineral Planning Authority and remain in force for the duration of the consent.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 27 Reason: To maximise the use of the most appropriate roads by delivery traffic, in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

6.6 Environment Agency: The Environment Agency has no objections to the variation of condition 1 of the permission CT2584/J. They have no concerns regarding the extended time period for the planning permission.

6.7 Natural England: No response.

6.8 Animal Health: The composting of green waste only does not fall within the scope of the Animal By-Products Regulations 2005. Consequently we do not have any comments.

6.9 Health Protection Agency: Did not make comments on the application.

6.10 Defence Estates: The Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.

6.11 Ampney Crucis Parish Council

Members of Ampney Crucis Parish Council have considered this application. There is some confusion over the precise nature of the request being made. The application asks for a lifting of Condition 1 which would allow a continuation of green waste composting without time limit. However, the supporting letter sent in by the applicants’ agent says that the applicants are seeking a three year extension to the temporary permission.

For the avoidance of doubt, Ampney Crucis Parish Council objects to the continuation of green waste composting without time limit for the following reasons:

1. Although the applicants feel that the environmental impact is insignificant, the composting of green waste has, by their own admission, only been operational since August 2006 and is not operating at full capacity. In the Parish Council’s view, it is too early to make any reliable assessment of environmental impact.

Additionally, it would be helpful if the extent of the current operation could be clarified. The supporting statement (para 3.1) refers to inputs of 8,742 tonnes but it is not clear from the wording of the paragraph whether this is for the period from August 2006 to the end of 2007 or for the calendar year 2007.

2. Similarly, although the applicants claim that the benefits of using the compost are clear to see, it is too early to say whether this is the view of their customers.

As with the input volumes, it would be helpful to clarify over what period the 3,500 tonnes of output have been produced (para 3.2). It would also

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 28 help if it could be made clear, when it says that 3,500 tonnes of finished compost have been ‘removed from the site’, whether or not these words mean the same as ‘sold to customers’

3. The Parish Council feels it would not be appropriate to grant permanent planning permission for the composting of green waste on this site while an application for the composting of Mixed Organic Waste on the same site is being considered by the County Council.

For the above reasons, the Parish Council objects to the removal of Condition 1 but would have no objection to an extension of the temporary permission to process green waste for a further period of two years in line with the original grant of planning permission.

Fairford Town Council: No objections to this application.

6.12 Ampney St Peter: No Response.

6.13 Bibury Parish Council: No Response

6.14 Coln St Aldwin Parish Council: No Response

6.15 Eastleach Parish Council: No Response

6.16 Lechlade Parish Council: No Response

6.17 Southrop Parish Council: No Response

6.18 Winson Parish Meeting: No Response

6.19 Ampney St Mary Parish Council: No Response

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

Landscape

7.1 The County Council’s Landscape advisor makes the following comments: “I have read through the attached application documents and write now to confirm that I have no comment on the application in respect of landscape or visual matters.”

Ecology

7.2 The County Council’s Ecologist has no observations to make regarding this application.

Planning

7.3 This application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the variation of condition 1. Circular 11/95 states

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 29 “Section 73 of the Act provides for applications for planning permission to develop land without complying with conditions previously imposed on a planning permission. The local planning authority can grant such permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or they can refuse the application if they decide the original condition(s) should continue.” The applicant is seeking to vary only condition 1 that restricts it to a two year temporary consent, all other conditions of the permission would remain unaltered, except where details have already been submitted in order to discharge those conditions.

7.4 In addition to this proposal there are two other applications CT.2584/H and CT.2584/K which are still under consideration and these are for the use of the existing plant for the composting of mixed organic waste and green waste and the continued production of mushroom compost. The first is being held in abeyance and the second will be determined when the applicant has gathered and submitted additional information. Whilst these applications are awaiting determination, the consideration of this proposal has to be made on its own merits.

7.5 The applicant originally sought a two year temporary planning permission for the production of green waste (CT.2584/J). The Waste Planning Authority took the view that in accordance with national planning guidance (Circular 11/95), a temporary permission can be beneficial in enabling an assessment of the effect of a development on the local area. Paragraph 111 of Circular 11/95 states that where an application is made for permanent permission for a use which may be "potentially detrimental" to existing uses nearby, but there is insufficient evidence to enable the authority to be sure of its character or effect, it might be appropriate to grant a temporary permission in order to give the development a trial run, provided that such a permission would be reasonable having regard to the capital expenditure necessary to carry out the development.

7.6 Circular 11/95 also suggests that a second temporary permission should not normally be granted. A trial period should be set that is sufficiently long for it to be clear by the end of the first permission whether permanent permission or a refusal is the right answer. Usually a second temporary permission will only be justified where highway or redevelopment proposals have been postponed, or in cases of hardship where temporary instead of personal permission has been granted for a change of use.

7.7 The impacts of this proposal have to be seen in the planning context of the existing site and its operations together with relevant current planning policy and guidance. In considering this application the effect of the temporary consent has to be considered, and whether the impact of the composting of green waste is sufficient to justify granting or refusing planning permission

7.8 The original application CT.2584/J was screened under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and whilst the proposal falls within the scope of Schedule 2, it would not in the opinion of this Authority be likely that the scheme would

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 30 have a significant effect on the environment in terms of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Impact Assessment was not requested. As there was no change to the proposal, the same conclusion was reached for this application.

Consultations

7.9 Consultations have taken place with the same consultees as for the main application CT.2584/J in 2005. There is no objection raised to this proposal by the County Highway representative, the County Council’s Landscape advisor, the County Council’s Ecologist, Fairford Town Council, the Environment Agency or the Defence Estates. Animal Health and the Health Protection Agency offered no comments on the application. Meysey Hampton Parish Council have objected to the proposal, but would consider a 3 year temporary consent. Poulton, Quennington and Ampney Crucis Parish Councils have objected to the proposal.

7.10 There appears to be some confusion regarding the purpose of this application. Poulton Parish Council appear to have confused this application with the outstanding applications for the composting of mixed organic waste and makes reference to food waste, foot and mouth disease and lessons to be learned from Pirbright. It should be remembered that this proposal is for green waste composting and not mixed organic waste, to continue what has already been given a two year temporary permission.

7.11 As stated in section 6.1 above the comments from Cotswold District Council have not been received. However the District Environmental Health Officer offers no objection to this proposal.

Policy update

7.12 Policy comments were made on the original planning application CT.2584/J of which this application seeks to vary condition 1. There appears to be no significant alteration proposed to the original application other than varying the time. However, the policy context against which these comments were written has changed. Following the Direction from the Secretary of State, not all of the policies that the application was previously considered against have been saved and those unsaved policies no longer form part of the Waste Development Plan. However, they may still be considered as a material consideration. The materiality is judged on a case-by-case basis and the appropriateness of the policies to the application will be for the case officer to assess.

7.13 The report considered by the Planning Committee in November 2005 (attached at Appendix A) described the development proposal and proposed operations including through put of 10,000 tonnes per annum, vehicle movements, noise etc and discussed the potential impact. There are no proposed changes to the operation of the site and visual impact has not been raised as an issue. Accordingly I do not propose to discuss visual impact. As there has been no change I consider that the conclusion reached that the

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 31 proposal does not conflict with criteria c of Annex E of PPS10, nor with policies S.4, S.6, SD.6 and MR.1 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan and Cotswold Local Plan policy 9 regarding biodiversity is reasonable.

7.14 The original application was considered in the light of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan including policies 1, 2, 3, 6,7 and 44. These policies have not been saved, however they are still material in considering this application. Policy 1 related to Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). The Companion guide to PPS 10 states “The policy review which informed the preparation of PPS10 addressed the role of BPEO. As a result, in future the objectives of BPEO will be delivered in spatial planning through plan-led strategies that drive waste management up the waste hierarchy and subject to sustainability appraisal. There is therefore no policy expectation for the application of BPEO, and indeed placing requirements on applicants that are inconsistent with PPS10 should be avoided.”

7.15 PPS 10 no longer carries forward the concepts of BPEO or the proximity principle. Whilst BPEO may not be a consideration in terms of policy 1, there is still a need for the development proposal to make a positive contribution to an integrated and sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire. The location of the site in the east of Gloucestershire does address a gap in the provision of a county network of green waste sites. National policy seeks to move waste up the waste hierarchy, encourages reuse, recycling and composting and to prevent waste from being sent to landfill. PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate locations. The continued processing of green waste at this site will move waste up the hierarchy by utilising an existing composting site. This is in line with the aims of the WLP, Structure Plan Policies WM1, WM3 and SD22, the Waste Strategy 2007, PPS10 and the Council’s own JMWMS5 Objective 4 – Compost Hierarchy and Cotswold District Council Local Plan policy 1. The JMWMS promotes composting and the introduction of kerbside collections of green waste. At present there are insufficient facilities to compost green waste (either collected at kerb side or at HRC sites) within the county and there is a clear need to provide this type of facility.

7.16 Proving the need for a facility is no longer a requirement. Policies 2 and 3 looked at Regional self sufficiency and the proximity principle. Whilst these policies have not been saved, PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Communities are not necessarily confined or constrained by administrative boundaries. This statement promotes sustainable waste management. At present the green waste collected in the Cotswolds, including that at the HRC’s is processed outside of Cotswold District, travelling to Dymock, Sharpness, Hempsted, or Stoke Orchard. The applicant has demonstrated that the material produced at this

5 JMWMS This Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (2007-2020) has been adopted by all 7 Local Authorities in Gloucestershire. It sets out how we will protect the environment by improving our waste management services at affordable financial cost.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 32 facility could, and has been, used locally and would facilitate the movement of waste up the hierarchy. In this regard I consider that this proposal is in accordance with Policies 2, 3 and 11 of the Waste Local Plan.

7.17 Policies 6 and 7 of the Waste Local Plan although unsaved, are relevant. Policy 6 relates to ‘Waste Management Facilities for other sites’, which relates to sites not specifically identified in the WLP, and policy 7 states that the existing sites in permanent waste management use will be safeguarded by LPA’s. This proposal is located within an existing waste site identified in the Waste Local Plan for composting use and contributes to the sustainable waste management system for Gloucestershire.

7.18 Policy 44, which is also unsaved, relates to airport safeguarding and is relevant due to the proximity of the site to the airbase in Fairford. The Defence Estates were consulted and have not objected to the application. I therefore consider that the proposal complies with policy 44 of the Waste Local Plan.

7.19 Policy 9 of the Waste Local Plan relates to composting. It suggests that development should take place in appropriate locations where no new buildings are required. As this proposal utilises a site at which composting is already undertaken and there are no new buildings proposed, the proposal does not conflict with WLP policy 9, Structure Plan policy WM4, nor criteria I from Annex E of PPS 10.

Representations

7.20 Representations have been received in respect of the highway network, odour, carbon footprint/sustainability, time limit, pollution, operating practices, general impact, location, noise, source of the material, flood waters and. operating hours. These issues were taken into consideration when the application was determined and are addressed below.

7.21 Highway network. Meysey Hampton Parish Council, Quennington Parish Council and local residents have expressed concern about the impact of traffic on the local highway network. The local roads are considered too narrow with few passing places, have poor visibility, are poorly maintained and are unsuitable to accommodate the additional HGV’s. In addition the lorries are not abiding by the routing agreement. The applicant has stated on the application forms that this proposal for the importation of 10,000 tonnes of green waste per annum will result in an average of an additional 4 loaded vehicles per day (maximum of 5-6). The County Highways representative has checked the accident record for the surrounding roads (see section 6.4 above) for the period that the green waste composting has taken place and found no accidents involving HGV’s in that time period. He does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to raise an objection to this proposal on highway safety grounds.

7.22 Quennington Parish Council is concerned that the change in the source of material will mean additional vehicle movements. Additional vehicle

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 33 movements and the inadequacy of the local highway network have been cited as one of the reasons that the Planning Inspector dismissed an earlier application. However, the quantity of the material to be handled at the site has not altered. The condition regarding vehicle routing will remain in place and amended to enable routing to be reviewed annually in the light of new sources of green waste. The source of the material is to some extent also controlled by condition 15, which states, “ the site shall only accept wastes from the approved Local Authority collection contractors and shall not accept waste direct from the public or other sources.” The reason given is “to define the scope of the application, and to control the number of vehicular movements in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.”

7.23 The Planning Inspector’s report which has been referred to relates to the refusal of application no. CT.2584/G which was for the use of the existing plant for composting of green waste and mixed organic waste, and the continued production of specialised compost for mushroom growing. The proposal was to compost 27,000 tonnes of waste per annum, which is more than for this green waste proposal thus generating more vehicle movements. It was this greater number of vehicles that the Inspector considered during the appeal. In paragraph 51 he states that ‘I am satisfied that the additional vehicles would not result in an unacceptable increase in the risk to the safety of those using the A417.’ However, the Inspector did have concerns about the ability of HGV’s to pass each other and the locations of the passing bays. The Inspector felt that on the basis of the information before him he was unable to find that the proposed development would not harm highway safety.

7.24 Odour: There is an historical problem with odour complaints at the site. Concerns have been expressed about odour emanating from the site preventing local residents from using their gardens and hanging out washing etc. These concerns have been echoed by Meysey Hampton Parish Council and Poulton Parish Council. There is no indication in the comments received whether this is a general objection to the odour emanating from the Sunhill mushroom composting plant or whether it is specific to the composting of green waste. However, the odour comments are not substantiated by the District Environmental Health Officer as coming from the green waste composting. There is a specific condition relating to odour on the existing planning permission.

7.25 Carbon footprint/sustainability: One of the objectors has suggested that the site is not in a sustainable location and creates a large carbon footprint through the transportation of waste. The site is geographically well located within an existing composting facility in the east of Gloucestershire to serve the Cotswolds and parts of Stroud. Taking green waste to this site would avoid it being transported long distances across the county to other sites. It has been suggested that composting of green waste at such facilities is unsustainable, however this is contrary to Government advice given through PPS10, contrary to the Waste Strategy 2007 and to the development plan, all of which seek to encourage composting.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 34 7.26 Time Limit: Several objectors felt that the site should not operate without a time limit. Continuing with a temporary permissions would enable the council to closely monitor the site. The reasons for giving a temporary permission are set out above. It should not be used to monitor the success or otherwise of a development. The development, if permitted, should be controlled through appropriate planning conditions, if it cannot be suitably controlled through conditions it should be refused. It is considered that there are exceptional circumstances for allowing a second temporary consent.

7.27 Pollution: There are concerns that this application would lead to a decline in air quality in the area. Reference here is made to the Bureau Veritas report which was an odour impact assessment commissioned by Cotswold District Council. The objector reports that the Bureau Veritas report stated that the applicant has not complied with all the 2006 restrictions. The report was commissioned by CDC in its capacity under the Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control (LA-PPC) regime. There is no evidence that the planning permission granted in November 2005 is not being complied with. The permit referred to is the pollution control permit, a matter for CDC, who are currently acting upon the advice of the report.

7.28 Operating practices: It is suggested that the applicant is not operating within the confines of the current planning permission and that there is difficulty in policing the site because there are several planning permissions with slightly different controls. Meysey Hampton Parish Council would like to see all the operations at the site covered by one planning permission and one set of planning conditions. Unfortunately there is no mechanism to force the applicant to submit a consolidation application.

7.29 I have checked with the Planning Enforcement team for complaints regarding the Sunhill site since planning permission was granted in November 2005. In total there have been 4 complaints. The first complaint in October 2006 related to vehicle routing and was unsubstantiated because no licence plates were given, so it would not have been possible to verify whether the vehicle was travelling to the site or not. The second in June 2007 related to early entry to the site and was substantiated by officers and a formal caution letter issued. This resulted in site notices being erected to inform employees of the opening hours. The third in June 2007 related to vehicle routing, but the vehicles involved were related to the mushroom composting operation. Finally the fourth in March 2008 related to early entry to the site, but was not substantiated by officers. Therefore of the 4 complaints all were investigated and two were substantiated. In addition to complaints made directly to the County Council, the complainants sometimes go direct to the site operator and I have no record of the numbers involved. However on 8th July two overweight lorries passed through Meysey Hampton. The applicant has taken this up with the haulier involved, and confirmed that they did go through the village. There is no report of the disciplinary action that will be taken. Whilst this sets out the background of the recent planning enforcement history, matters of enforcement are not a material consideration in determining the application as past performance should not be taken into consideration.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 35 7.30 Impact on the area: the comments here are varied, some suggesting that there have been no additional impacts since the green waste permission was implemented and others suggesting the opposite. Concern has been expressed that this proposal will add to the urbanisation of the countryside. There will be no visual impact from this proposal outside of the site to alter its existing appearance. Vehicular impact will be minimal with an additional 4- loaded vehicles on average per day entering the site.

7.31 Location: Some objectors felt that there are more suitable locations for this operation and that this site was not in the best location and that it should be located closer to existing main roads or added to an existing facility. As stated in the previous report, PPS 10 outlines considerations for the suitability of sites, with criteria identified in paragraph 21 (i) the proposals should support the policies of the PPS, locational criteria (given in Annex E of PPS10), cumulative effect of waste disposal facilities on the local community and the capacity of the transport infrastructure to support sustainable movement of waste and also disposal of product, where possible using alternative modes of transport other than roads. Paragraph 21 (ii) goes on to say that priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed land, and redundant agricultural or forestry buildings. As the proposal represents development on an existing developed site it is considered that the application complies with this aspect of PPS10 and also accords with Structure Plan policies WM2, WM4, SD 23 and policy W2 of the Draft RSS.

7.32 Noise: Meysey Hampton Parish Council and local residents have expressed concern about noise from the site including that generated by lorry reversing bleepers and from the fans operating at the site. The applicant has stated that the reversing bleeper's situation is still under discussion with CDC’s EHO and neighbours but again is mainly associated with mushroom composting. The fan noise issue is totally related to mushroom composting and not associated with this application. There is a specific condition relating to noise attached to the original consent, which sets a maximum limit for noise at the site boundaries. This proposal does not therefore conflict with policy 37 of the Waste Local Plan.

7.33 Source of the material: Quennington Parish Council and local residents have expressed concern about the source of the waste and that the application will involve waste which will originate largely outside of the area, which will result in an increase in an unacceptable increase in traffic on local roads and country lanes. This point is addressed by the applicant at paragraphs 2.28, 2.29 and 2.30 above. Whilst the green waste kerbside collection can no longer be accepted at the site, there are other sources of waste such as that collected at the HRC’s.

7.34 Flood waters: One of the local residents has expressed concern about the build up of flood waters on the site and how this would be addressed. The control of floodwaters on site is a matter for the Environment Agency through their waste management licence. The site is designed with a concrete pad and its own drainage system to avoid water pollution. The EA who have responsibilities for water pollution in their waste management licence remit,

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 36 have not raised any concerns or objected to this application. On this basis it is not considered that the proposal conflicts policy 33 of the WLP, Structure Plan policies W1., P1, MR10 and policies 5 and 6 of the Cotswold District Local Plan or criteria a of Annex E of PPS10.

7.35 Operating hours: Concern has been expressed that the restriction of operating hours on the green waste composting is causing the mushroom composting hours to be extended, increasing rather than limiting the impact upon the local community. The permission for green waste composting contained a condition to control operating hours. Provided the applicant operates the green waste composting within these permitted hours, no enforcement action could be taken. Complaints have been received regarding operating hours as reported above, and appropriate action taken. It is not possible through this application to impose common operating hours across the whole site to include the mushroom composting operation.

7.36 Having reviewed the consultation responses from the Statutory Consultees and the representations made there are several issues that are raised by this application and these relate to highway impact and vehicle routing, odour and the need for a permanent permission.

7.37 There is no objection to this proposal from the County Highways representative. The applicant is not seeking to increase the throughput of the site. Conditions were imposed on the original consent to restrict the tonnage of green waste accepted to 10,000 tonnes, in the interests of the amenity of the area. Conditions were also imposed in respect of vehicle routing, restricting the types of waste to be accepted and to require the applicant to maintain records of their monthly importation of material. All three conditions would be imposed should planning permission be granted. These conditions have been enforced during the two year period of the consent.

7.38 Odour is primarily associated with the mushroom composting and is an ongoing problem being investigated by the Cotswold District Environmental Health Officer.

7.39 Whilst planning permission was granted in November 2005, the applicant did not commence producing compost until August 2006. This continued until April 2008 when there was a change in the way that Cotswold District waste was collected. It is now collected as source-segregated waste together with kitchen waste and can no longer be taken to the Sunhill site. This change has occurred since the application was made. The applicant has been unable to bid for further contracts because of the short time period left on his planning permission. In addition to this there is the ongoing disposal of the finished compost product. This is proving to be a good for agriculture and horticulture, although has only been tested for a short period of time, equating to approximately one growing season. Meysey Hampton Parish Council point out that the agricultural trial will not be complete until the crop is harvested. It is only really a comparison of yield that will be relevant to the farmer.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 37 7.40 The main issue arising from this application appears to be whether there is sufficient evidence to grant a permanent permission for the composting of green waste, or whether on balance to grant a further trial period. This could be justified in terms of Circular 11/95 because the applicant did not actually manage to operate for the full two year trial period and would allow a further period within which to assess the effect of the development on the surrounding area.

Human Rights.

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

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

7.43 Objections have been received relating to concerns about odour, pollution, general impact, location, highway and vehicle movements, and noise. For the reasons set out in the observations of the Head of Planning and Development it is not thought there would be any breach of the convention rights. Even if there was to be an interference with convention rights then, in this case, it is thought that the interference would be justified in the interests of public safety and for the protection of the health of the wider community. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development.

Conclusions and summary reasons for grant of planning permission and relevant development plan policies and proposals.

7.44 This proposal relates to a green waste composting facility located within an existing mushroom composting site. The former was constrained by planning conditions whilst the latter has no limits on production or hours of operation but is restricted to the type of composting. The granting of a further three year trial period would not see any major change to the nature of the operations existing on site. It would not result in any substantial unacceptable increase in

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 38 the impacts of noise, dust, odour, and traffic over that currently generated by the existing operations. There is a clear need for this development to help provide a sustainable waste management system in Gloucestershire. Taking into account the previous temporary planning permission, the application, and the supporting statement it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and are in accordance with the development plan and the guidance in PPS10.

7.45 The application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan Policies:

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review - policies S4, S6, WM1, WM2, WM3, WM4, W1 & P1 Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Proposed Modifications – policies SD6, SD22, SD23, SD24, MR1 and MR10 Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan (WLP) Adopted October 2004 - ‘Saved’ policies 9, 11, 33, 37, 38 and 40. ‘Unsaved’ policies1, 2, 3, 6, 7, & 44.

Cotswold District Council Local Plan 2001-2011 (Adopted April 2006) Policies 1,4,5,6,9,16,19 & 24.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in this report and summarised at paragraphs 7.44 and 7.45 subject to the following conditions.

Commencement and Duration

1. The development hereby approved shall cease on the earlier of the two following dates:

a. The date three years following the implementation of this permission or b. Before the expiry of the three year duration period referred to at (a), on the date of the implementation of any other planning permission for processing of green waste and /or mixed organic waste at the site.

Reason: In order 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.

Working Programme

2. This planning permission shall only relate to the site edged red on drawing number ASC/03 dated 01-07-05 (in the conditions hereto referred to as ‘the site’), and the development shall only be carried out within the site in accordance with the details set out in the submitted application, supporting statement and plans, and additional information unless otherwise varied by another condition attached to this consent.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 39

Reason: To ensure that the permission is implemented in all respects in accordance with the submitted details to take account of the amenities of the local area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Hours of Working 3. No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched associated with the green waste outside the following hours:

0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday 0800 to 1300 hours Saturday. With no deliveries or despatches associated with the green waste on Sundays and Statutory Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

4. The shredding or screening of any material shall only take place between the hours of:

0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday Materials will not be shredded on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Operating Conditions 5. The total amount of material imported into the site shall not exceed a level of:

10,000 tonnes Green Waste including compostable cardboard wastes.

per calendar year (being 1st January to 31st December) and a maximum of 1,200 tonnes in any calendar month unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the scope of the application in the interests of highway safety and the interests of the amenities of the local area and to accord with Policies 37 and 40 of Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

6. No material other than green waste, as defined as grass cuttings, garden trimmings and leaves, plant and tree prunings, bark, parks and household horticultural wastes and brushwood, or compostable cardboard wastes shall be imported to the site, with the exception of the materials required for mushroom composting as outlined in the application.

Reason: To define the scope of the planning permission in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 40 7. The maximum storage of green waste compost shall not exceed 2,500 tonnes at any time.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

8. The dust suppression scheme submitted in accordance with condition 8 of planning permission CT.2584/J (dated 10/11/2005) approved on the 24th May 2006 shall be implemented for the duration of the approved use and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

9. The odour management measures outlined in the application shall be implemented for the duration of the approved use.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

10. The level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed 60 LAeq (one hour) between 0730 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 and 1300 hours Saturday; and 50 LAeq (5 minutes) at any other time, as measured at the boundary of the application site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local residents in accordance with Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

11. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification and shall be fitted with standard manufacturer’s silencers.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

12. There shall be no burning of any waste or other material on the site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

13. Before the development commences a scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority which specifies any additional lighting provision to be made on site, details to include the location of lighting, spread and the level of illumination. The scheme as approved shall be implemented for the duration of the approved use and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 41 Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local residents in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Traffic, Transport and Highway Safety

14. The development hereby authorised shall not commence until details of a routing scheme for traffic transporting material to and from the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall then be implemented and reviewed in writing and approved annually by the Waste and Planning Authority and remain in force for the duration of the consent.

Reason: To maximise the use of the most appropriate roads by delivery traffic, in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire waste Local Plan.

15. The site shall only accept wastes from the approved Local Authority collection contractors and shall not accept waste direct from the public or other sources.

Reason: To define the scope of the application, and to control the number of vehicular movements in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

16. From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of their monthly importation of materials, both tonnage and the number of vehicular movements and shall make them available to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of a written request. All records shall be kept for at least 24 months.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the use of the site in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Landscaping

17. All the trees in the areas shown on drawing number GPP/ASC/03 as ‘earth bund with trees’ shall be retained and managed as a screen for the duration of the approved use. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan, October 2004.

Notes to Applicant

Sound pressure levels from any plant or machinery operating on site should not cause a disturbance to neighbours. As a guide NR 25 should not be exceeded in any habitable room of residential properties with windows open.

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 42

Conditions 8, 13 and 14 refer to certain requirements regarding the operation of the site. The applicant has already provided the detailed schemes as part of the permission number [CT.2584/J] and in satisfaction of Conditions 8, 13 and 14. These schemes shall continue to have effect in relation to this permission and the Applicant will continue to implement and comply with the schemes as referred to in the relevant conditions.

The application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan Policies:

Cotswold District Council Local Plan 2001-2011 Adopted April 2006) Policies 1,4,5,6,9,16,19,& 24.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application Forms and accompanying plans Consultation Reponses Letters of Representations Planning application no. CT.2584/J and associated documents and planning permission no. CT.2584/L (Nov 2005) Previous committee report and minutes.

CONTACT OFFICER: Case Officer – Sarah Pearse Team Leader Development Control, Enforcement and Monitoring. Gloucester 01452 425617 Gillian Parkinson Legal and Democratic Services.

Application History. Consultee Time taken (weeks) Cotswold District Council 14 weeks 5 days Meysey Hampton Parish Council 2 weeks 5 days Poulton Parish Council 3 weeks Ampney Crucis Parish Council 4 weeks 6 days Fairford Town Council 3 weeks 4 days County Highways 13 weeks 5 days Environment Agency 12 weeks 3 days Animal Health 4 days Health Protection Agency 1 week 3 days

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 43 Defence Estates 1 week 3 days Landscape 1 week Ecology 2 weeks Additional information received on: 01/07/08 Time taken. 16 weeks 3 days

Comreps/DC JULY08 2/SP 44