Agenda item

The Committee was reminded that it had deferred a decision on this application as it was minded to refuse it. However, this did not fetter its discretion in any way in making its decision.

Officers presented the report and made the following points:

·       Members' attention was drawn to the amendment sheet which set out the proposed conditions concerning conditions to mitigate highway and environmental impacts

·       Air Quality – Members had expressed concern about this issue at the previous Committee. A Table setting out an Air Quality Assessment was included which was an objective test that could be applied to any air pollution industry. It was noted that the development would result in a very small increase in pollutants which was well within the required standards. Since Air Quality Officers had indicated that there wouldn’t be  a harmful impact in Air Quality, it would be very difficult to support a refusal in the event of any appeal

·       Odour and Vermin – Any assessment in this area was subjective. There was no mechanism for making an objective assessment. However, officers believed that any impact could be mitigated and tightly controlled – not through the Planning Process but through the issuing of an Environment Agency Permit

·       Local Authority Equality Duty – whilst there is a duty to take this into account, it would not be enough on its own to be discriminatory. There would have to be a degree of harm. Officers’ view was that this could be managed and mitigated

·       Area allocated for employment use – Condition 11 had been removed and an additional Condition 5 added

In response to Councillor’s questions, officers made the following points:

·       The data indicated that air quality was much worse where a development was located next to busy roads which is reflected in the assessment of this site.

·       On a local level any management of odour and vermin depends on how the site is managed which were a largely internal matter such as waste management. The site would handle some organic waste, including dried waste from businesses. Sprays would be used to dampen down odours with external containers being sealed

·       An Environmental Impact Assessment had not yet been made. This application falls below the criteria for requiring this. However, most of the information which would form part of an EIA had been provided as part of this application

·       The level of air pollution was well below the level at which there would be any concern in an objective assessment

·       Councillors’ concerns were noted that the air quality assessment needed to take account of all factors including the impact on young people as well as adults and in addition the increased traffic arising from the development. However, officers pointed out that the targets were precautionary and were there to protect everyone of all ages

·       Whilst there may be organic waste handled on site, there would not be large quantities. Waste would always done in the building and would be the only time that the containers were opened

·       The issue of odour was subjective and would be mitigated through the Environment Agency Permit

Councillors made the following comments:

·       It was important to respect the important work that the waste industry carried out. Whilst the officers’ recommendations in respect of Air Pollution Levels should be accepted, there may well be a gap between how the Local Authority and the Environment Agency would provide enforcement. Therefore, issues relating to odour and vermin were a serious cause for concern, particularly since it was close to a school

·       The children of Lawrence Hill deserved the same consideration as the rest of the city. Traffic, noise, odour and vermin will all increase. Therefore, the application should be refused

·       Regardless of the applicant, the proposed development would have an additional impact on the situation that already existed in the area. Any children going to hospital to get their lungs checked would find the situation worsened and could trigger an asthma attack. On balance, this was too big a gamble with children’s health and should be opposed

·       The problems caused by odour and vermin were good reasons to oppose this application

·       Whilst it was understandable that officers have made their recommendations since they were strictly following the guidance, it seemed counter intuitive to suggest that this development would not cause harm

·       Whilst the Committee should show respect for small businesses such as the applicant, this application should be refused

The Chair called for a motion to approve the application in accordance with the Council’s agreed procedures. However, there was no mover for such a motion.

Councillor Don Alexander moved, seconded by Councillor Margaret Hickman and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (9 for, 0 against) – that the application be refused on the grounds of odour and vermin set out below:

Odour - Given the sensitive nature of nearby receptors and the fact that impacts from odour cannot be ruled

out, despite the proposed mitigation measures, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the nearby receptors, and as such is contrary to policy BCS23 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy, 2011.

Vermin: Given the sensitive nature of nearby receptors and despite the proposed mitigation measures, the potential for increases in flies associated with the proposed development cannot be ruled out, and on

these grounds the proposal would have a harmful impact on the nearby receptors, and as such is contrary to policy BCS23 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy, 2011.