There was no Amendment Sheet.
The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-
1. This application was brought before the Committee due to the level of public interest after the initial consultation;
2. It was for the variation of hours for the bailer and sorting line and glass tipping operations;
3. The site consisted of primarily industrial and commercial operators and faced two industrial estates. Beyond the sites were a mix of residential terraces and commercial units;
4. No community consultation was formally required but the applicant chose to undertake involvement with local stakeholders and Councillors and a meeting was held along with a tour of the site.
An Environmental Health Officer gave advice regarding noise and methodology as follows:-
5. Objections received concerned noise, air quality and detriment to amenity. Environmental Health Officers were concerned that that the applicant had not demonstrated that these concerns would not be made worse. Following a meeting with Environmental Health Officers and in light of the concerns from objectors, a revised proposal was submitted to address the issues. These included no Sunday operation and reduction in the hours for activities for the rest of the week. On re-consultation, this received 7 objections concerning noise, the level and nature of glass tipping, the blanket extension of Saturdays and Bank Holidays and the start time;
6. No objections were received from air quality or contaminated land officers. Transport Development management were satisfied that the proposals would have minimum impact on the highway network;
7. The Environmental Health Officer stated that his main concern had been the external glass tipping although not exceptionally loud it was distinct and happened once every 3/4 minutes. Sometimes vehicles queued, other times there were no vehicles. The deep bays provided a noise barrier to an extent;
8. The existing noise environment and the noise of particular activities was considered individually in accordance with BS4142 and the lowest observed adverse impact and the Committee’s attention was drawn to the table of findings as set out in the report;
9. The EHO Officer was satisfied that the removal of activities on Sunday and the reduction in hours during the week provided respite for residents and a noisy situation was not made worse and subject to conditions the revised proposals were considered acceptable.
The representative of the Head of Development Management summed up:-
10. The application was assessed in line with National Planning Policy Framework and its Noise Policy Statement and with regard to Bristol Local Plan Policy BCS23 and DM 10 and DM35 of the Site Allocations document;
11. Regard was also had to the West of England Joint Waste Core Strategy which stated that such applications should not be granted unless they could demonstrate no adverse impact on residential amenity and noise pollution;
12. All objections were taken into account and officers recommended approval subject to conditions set out in the report.
The following points arose from debate:-
1. The proposed South Bristol Recycling Plant would make no difference to these proposals. This was an allocated site for waste activities and would bring about a certain level of noise and therefore it was important that there was a sound scheme to protect residents;
2. The prevailing wind was South West so would not take noise to nearby homes. The background noise was assessed over a number of days and an average was arrived at;
3. Technically it was possible to limit the conditions for a number of days of use but this would not provide the operator with the flexibility it sought. It would also be difficult to monitor as the enforcement service was now purely reactive;
4. Councillor Shah observed that this was a significant development and questioned whether targets for recycling would continue to be achieved and was the development creating a precedent. He was informed there was no precedent in planning as all applications were considered on their merits. This application had been individually assessed with regard to its impacts;
5. Councillor Bradley had visited the site and observed that the bailer did not produce much noise but the glass tipping did. She commended the work done by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and was satisfied with his recommendations and moved them as set out in the report;
6. Councillor Breckels also welcomed the thorough work carried out by the EHO and asked whether there were any measures that could soundproof the bays where the glass was tipped. He was informed that Bristol Waste was asked for other mitigating measures but was unable to offer any. There was potential for a roof on the bays but this would need a detailed assessment and it was possible that this could make noise worse at other locations by funnelling noise;
7. Councillor Eddy seconded the motion to grant. On being put to the vote, it was:-
Resolved (9 for, 1 against) – That the application be granted planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the report.
At this point, Councillor Shah left the meeting.