Agenda item

This was an application for variation of Condition 10 (hours of operation), Condition 16 (clarification of type of waste quantity) and Condition 17 (vehicle movements to planning permission TWC/2017/0882 with regard to Recycling House, Rock Road, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire TF1 5HW.  A site visit took place on the afternoon prior to the meeting.

Ketley Parish Council and Lawley and Overdale Parish Council had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.  Financial contributions were sought towards the installation of Vehicle Activated Signage (VAS) and towards road resurfacing within the vicinity of the site access on Waterloo Road.

Councillor S Millward-Thomas spoke against the application on behalf of Ketley Parish Council and raised concerns regarding the increase in hours from 6am, highway safety, pedestrian safety, increase of waste and HGVs and the impact on the amenity of residents.

Councillor M Boylan, Ward Councillor spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the inappropriate business hours from 6am, the impact of noise and disturbance, increased tonnage, safety of the toxins from the incinerator bottom ash and safety in regard to nearby Schools and residents.

J Francis, a member of the public, raised concerns regarding the historical use of the site and the various operators and that Condition 11 (operating hours) and Condition 17 (tonnage of lorries) should remain in place due to highway safety, nearby schools, unacceptable 6am business hours and tonnage.  Although the introduction of a condition limiting HGVs between the hours of 8am-9am and 2.30pm-3.30pm would alleviate issues during School hours.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the application before them was an improvement of the consent currently in place as there was a reduction in HGV movements of 200 per month and this could be evidenced upon request.  With regard to the variation of hours allowing HGVs to exit the site between 6am and 7 am, this would be limited to vehicular movements only and no other operation would take place.   A noise assessment had taken place which had reported there would be no detrimental impact to residents and there would be an enhanced access/egress on the site.  The Local Authority could condition that there be no vehicular movements to or from the site during 8am-9am and 2.30pm-3.30pm during school term time.  Section 106 contributions were requested towards highway warning signage and towards highway maintenance in the vicinity of the site.

During the ensuing debate some Members raised concerns regarding the proposed 6 am start, the impact on residential amenity, narrow roads and the impact on the local schools and the toxins in incinerator bottom ash waste.    Other Members welcomed the highway signage, but raised concerns regarding the lack of visibility, the increase in size of HGVs, increased tonnage and the impact on the local residents with the increased operating hours and what reassurance they could be given that the conditions would be followed.  Some Members felt that they could not agree to the proposed changes to condition 10 or condition 16, although they welcomed condition 17.  It was suggested that this application be deferred.

The Highways Officers informed Members that there were currently no restrictions on the size of the vehicles accessing the site, that this application would reduce vehicular movements from 600 to 400, a warning system would be put in place and a restriction on the operating hours during school start/end times could be put in place.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the processing of the incinerator bottom ash waste had been previously agreed and did not form part of this application.

During a further debate, some Members felt that conditions 10 and 16 were not acceptable and that they were concerned regarding early start time and road safety and it was moved and seconded to refuse the application.

The legal advisor confirmed to Members that, before making a decision to refuse it is necessary to be clear regarding the reasons for refusal.  Members then debated their concerns regarding operating hours and tonnage.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager clarified that the application comprised a package of variations to conditions and Section 106 contributions. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to approve some elements of the package but refuse others. The Development Management Service Delivery Manager added that the application could be deferred for further discussions with the applicant to take place in the light of Members’ concerns should Members wish to defer determination, they would need to defer the application as a package of proposals.

Some Members further suggested a deferral for one cycle in order for the applicant to consider Member concerns.

On being put to the vote it was, unanimously

RESOLVED – that this application be deferred for one cycle for the applicant to consider the concerns raised by Members.