Appeal 6005018

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect that the proposal to vary condition 6, and permit extended hours within which tipping activities could take place, would have on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the levels of noise and dust which would arise from it.

The waste reprocessing facility the subject of the appeal is located within an industrial estate where other businesses operate. Access to the industrial estate is gained via a junction with the road running to its north. Residential properties line one side of this road including some which are opposite and close to the access junction.

Condition 6 of the existing planning permission1 limits operations to Monday to Friday and as late as 1pm on Saturdays. This means that outside of these hours, 1 Planning permission reference WD/2007/2079 occupiers of the residential properties near to the access junction will benefit from a reprieve from vehicular comings and goings associated with the operation of the site’s waste reprocessing facility.

The proposal to vary condition 6 would permit vehicles to tip waste for an extended 3-hour period on Saturdays (until 4pm), for much of the day on Sundays, and on most [name]. Taken together, this would represent a considerable increase in the periods during which large vehicles/HGVs would be accessing and leaving the site. Even if the overall number of vehicle movements were redistributed rather than increased, the proposal would significantly reduce the periods of respite currently experienced by residents near the access junction, including during weekends and public holidays when residents would most expect relief from commercial activity and associated noise.

Although it is asserted that vehicles visiting the site during the extended hours would be modern and compliant with higher noise‐reduction standards, I have seen no compelling evidence to demonstrate that this would in fact be the case. Large vehicles would be required to stop and set off at the access junction during these extended hours, and the noise arising from such manoeuvres would be distinguishable and pronounced. This would be intrusive for the residential occupants close to the junction.

Furthermore, no noise impact assessment or similar submission has been provided. As a result, there is no substantive technical noise evidence before me to demonstrate the predicted noise levels arising from vehicle movements during the extended hours, how these would be assimilated within the existing noise climate and affect residential occupiers, or otherwise address or counter my findings and concerns.

Vehicles entering the site could be monitored and, furthermore, the appellant could maintain a register of vehicle trips. The likes of CCTV and weighbridge recording systems could assist with the accuracy of this. Therefore, had I been minded to allow the appeal, an enforceable condition could have been imposed limiting vehicle movements and ensuring the maintenance of a register of movements. Other conditions could have been imposed to exert further control over the development, for instance, to ensure no waste processing activities occur during the extended hours.

I have reservations regarding the enforceability of a condition restricting the development to Council waste only. In particular, should contractors or sub-contractors be engaged, it may be difficult to establish a sufficiently robust and reliable audit trail to demonstrate whether individual vehicle movements were attributable to the Council.

Regardless, even HGV movements as low as the 7 suggested on a Sunday would be frequent enough to create levels of noise which would disturb the residents near the access junction and erode the reprieve from such movements they presently benefit from.

The appellant has proposed that the extended hours be permitted on a temporary basis, aligned with the duration of the relevant waste contract with the Council. However, there is limited information available regarding the length of this period. Consequently, I am unable to conclude that the proposed temporary arrangement would be sufficiently short to be afforded significant weight as a mitigating factor.

Therefore, even with the imposition of a suite of conditions, even one restricting arrivals to Council-attributable waste only, the resulting mitigation would remain insufficient to prevent unacceptable noise impacts.

In reaching this conclusion, I note that the Environment Agency has confirmed that the proposal would not require a variation of existing permits, and it has not objected. I have no reason to dispute the site’s strong environmental compliance record either. Nevertheless, planning and environmental permitting are distinct regimes. In determining this appeal, I must come to my own views on the effects of the proposal on living conditions with regard to all the evidence before me and having due regard to the policies of the development plan.

The vehicles which would visit the site during the extended hours would offload the material a considerable distance from the industrial estate access junction itself. In turn, any dust emissions generated by this activity would also be very well-separated from residential property. When the material is essentially static and contained within the vehicles transporting it, I have no firm basis on which to conclude that dust emissions would be significant. Therefore, in respect of dust, extending the hours as proposed would not result in any unacceptable effects on residents.

However, because of my findings in relation to noise, the proposal to vary condition 6, and permit extended hours within which tipping activities could take place, would result in unacceptably harmful effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies RD2, W1, DS1 and DS11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (LP) and CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework [name] (the CS). In summary, and amongst other matters, LP Policy RD2 restricts development in the open countryside, permitting only specified forms and requiring no detrimental effects on residential amenity whilst LP waste Policies W1 and W9 require waste proposals to avoid unacceptable impacts on amenity or local communities. LP Policy DS1 sets out general design principles, including the need to prevent unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity and DS11 addresses pollution, requiring developments to demonstrate that they would not create adverse environmental conditions likely to affect nearby developments and areas. CS Policy CS5 requires development to respond appropriately to its context, having regard to its relationship with surrounding buildings and spaces and their interaction.

Finally, I also find that the proposal conflicts with policy within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that planning decisions promote health and well-being and ensure a high standard of amenity.

The proposal would contribute toward the waste reprocessing facility’s efficient management and processing of waste and recycling, assisting both the business and those parties utilising the service. This would be a benefit of the proposal, however, not one which is sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found in my main issue.

The proposal would not result in amendments to the site’s layout, heritage assets would not be harmed, and no objections have been raised by the local fire and rescue service. However, an absence of harm in these and other regards is a matter of neutral consequence and does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in my main issue.

The proposal to vary condition 6 of the existing planning permission conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.