Agenda item - BH2013/02219 - Veolia Environmental Services South Down Ltd, Hollingdean Lane, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition -Application for variation of conditions 3 and 4 (relate to opening hours), 5 and 6 (relate to HGV movements) and removal of condition 21 of application BH2011/03179 (Original application number BH2006/00900) to allow operational changes to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Waste Transfer Station (WTS), including 0700 - 2200 opening of the MRF and WTS Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays and 0630 - 2200 for HGV movements Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays.

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2013/02219 - Veolia Environmental Services South Down Ltd, Hollingdean Lane, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition -Application for variation of conditions 3 and 4 (relate to opening hours), 5 and 6 (relate to HGV movements) and removal of condition 21 of application BH2011/03179 (Original application number BH2006/00900) to allow operational changes to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Waste Transfer Station (WTS), including 0700 - 2200 opening of the MRF and WTS Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays and 0630 - 2200 for HGV movements Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays.

Application for variation of conditions 3 and 4 (relate to opening hours), 5 and 6 (relate to HGV movements) and removal of condition 21 of application BH2011/03179 (Original application number BH2006/00900) to allow operational changes to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Waste Transfer Station (WTS), including 0700 - 2200 opening of the MRF and WTS Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays and 0630 - 2200 for HGV movements Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Minutes:

(1)       It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

(2)       The Case Officer, Mr Foster introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational and sectional drawings; reference was also made to additional representations received and contained in the Late Representations List. Planning permission was sought for the variation of condition conditions 3, 4, 5 and 6 of permission reference BH2011/03179 and the removal of condition 21. The variation of the conditions would allow for operational changes to the site to enable the City Council as the waste authority to have greater flexibility in terms of collecting waste and in addition, potentially introduce further communal recycling. The site tonnage and overall number of vehicle movements would not change. The site had a number of conditions of which 3, 4, 5 and 6 restrict hours of operation for the MRF, WTS, and the receipt and handling of communal bins and street cleaning loads. Condition 3 of the consent currently set out the permitted times for the receipt and removal of materials at the MRF, including the operating hours of 07:00 and 19:00 hours Monday to Friday, and 07:30 and 16:00 hours on Saturdays following a bank holiday. This application sought revised opening hours for the MRF between 07:00-22:00. Monday to Sunday including bank holidays, with no operations on Christmas Day or Boxing day unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

(3)       The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the impact of the extended hours of operation upon the amenity of the adjoining occupiers and also the impact of the proposals upon the existing highways network. The proposed variation of the conditions would not result in a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent properties or highways safety and congestion. It was considered that the variation would allow the site to continue operating in an efficient and effective manner in accordance with local plan policies in respect of a city wide approach to waste management, approval was therefore recommended.

 

            Public Speakers and Questions

 

(4)       Mr Start spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors. He stated that residents and neighbouring objectors had challenged the assertions  made in relation to the original application and that since the plant had begun operating they had experienced noise and odour as they had feared and the agreed hours were not always adhered to. Removal of conditions 3 and 4 would simply result in greater nuisance for neighbouring residents who would suffer greater and more prolonged nuisance. Changes to the highway arrangements had also given rise to a greater degree of nuisance. The proposals were unacceptable.

 

(5)       Councillor Lepper spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections. When planning consent had been granted the hours of operation had precluded weekend and bank holiday working nor had this been permitted on evenings during week days. These conditions had been added in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents and of the locality in general. These restrictions had acknowledged concerns of residents and notwithstanding these measures she had received complaints from residents. The current application would result in increased noise and disturbances as well as increased vehicle movements at weekends when residents should be able to expect some respite.

 

(6)       Councillor Lepper also commented that the application had been processed very speedily in a period when a number of those who would have wished to make representations were away on holiday and had therefore been unable to do so.

 

Mr Key spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. Mr Key explained that the proposals would improve the service and lead to savings. The amount of waste and the number of vehicle movements would not change, but would result in the material being dealt with more quickly. He indicated that the applicant’s would be happy to accept a condition preventing recycled glass from being removed from the site on Saturday or Sunday, which might address some of the concern expressed by residents in relation to noise emanating from the site.

 

            Questions for Officers

 

(7)       Councillors Jones and Hamilton considered that the application appeared to have been processed very speedily and asked whether/why it had been fast tracked in this instance

 

(8)       The Head of Development Control, Mrs Walsh explained that officers did a lot of pre-application work with applicants and the speed with an application was brought forward was usually based on the quality of the information received and the speed with which it was submitted.

 

(9)       The Principal Transport Planning Officer, Mr Tolson clarified the position in respect of permitted traffic movements in the vicinity of the site and in answer to further questions from Councillors Gilbey and Robins, The case officer explained that it was not anticipated that there would be an increase in noise or the overall number of vehicle movements as a consequence of the proposals.

 

(10)     Councillor Jones sought clarification from the objector as to whether the main source of residents concerns related to noise and odour from the Waste Transfer Station or from the Council’s City Clean Depot which was located adjacent.

 

(11)     In answer to questions regarding complaints received in relation to the existing operation, the Environmental Health Manager, Ms Sparks responded that recent complaints received by Environmental Health had been discussed with the relevant parties but had not been such that they constituted a statutory noise nuisance. The area had a complex background noise climate and the data provided by the applicants was robust and they had indicated that neither the number of vehicles on site, nor the permitted site tonnage would change, safeguards were also proposed in relation to the number of HGV’s permitted to the site in the evenings.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(12)     Councillors Bowden and Philips indicated that they had not heard a lot of noise emanating from the site when they had visited the previous day and wondered whether that was typical.

 

(13)     Councillor Cox sought clarification as to whether the Transfer Station processed waste from outside the city and it was explained that the facility processed waste generated within the city and a very small amount from West Sussex.

 

(14)     Councillor Hyde expressed concern that the noise tests had been taken from Richmond Road rather than Princes Road which was residential and was located closer to the depot. The Environmental Health Manager, Ms Sparks explained that readings had been taken from a number of locations for comparative purposes.

 

(15)     Councillor Wells stated that he did not feel able to support the proposals, if this was allowed he feared that there could then be another application for a 24/7 use.

 

(16)     Councillor Hamilton stated that he had been Chair when planning permission had been given for the facility in 2006. When approval had been given a number of conditions had been attached in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. He considered that nothing had changed in the intervening years and was unable to support any changes which could in his view have a detrimental impact in the vicinity. He considered that the need for these changes had been brought about by recent changes to the Council’s own collection arrangements.

 

(17)     Councillor Robins stated that there appeared to be confusion as on occasion the existing hours had been infringed. He noted that special arrangements appeared to be in place for Christmas Day and Boxing Day and considered that residents were entitled to periods of reduced activity from the site, anything which could result in a greater nuisance than was presently the case should be resisted.

 

(18)     Councillor Gilbey was also of the view that the sufficient conditions needed to be in place to protect residents from any potential additional nuisance.

 

(19)     Councillor C Theobald stated that the proposals would result in a better service for residents and would help to keep the city cleaner. If there were any problems she was confident that these could be resolved by the Environmental Health Department.

 

(20)     Councillor Hyde stated that she was prepared to support the proposal if the condition offered by the applicants that glass would not be taken from the site at weekends was to be included as a condition of grant.

 

(21)     The Legal Adviser to the Committee indicated that any additional should be deemed necessary on planning grounds.

 

(22)     A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 5 to 4 with 3 abstentions.

 

43.1         RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report and to the additional condition set out below:.

 

No processed glass recyclate shall be loaded and removed from the site on a Saturday or Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential properties and the amenity of the locality in general, to comply with policies QD27, SU9 and SU10 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and WMP25 of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan.

 

Minor Applications

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints