Siting of new biomass burner unit within existing enclosure, erect a new chimney together with creating an extension to house a shredder.
Local Member: Councillor W. Tudor Owen
Minutes:
A full application to install new
biomass burner unit within existing enclosure, erection of new chimney together
with creating an extension to house a shredder.
(a)
The Senior Development Control Officer expanded
on the background of the application, noting there were three elements to the
development which were to install a new biomass unit to replace the current
one, install a new chimney above the biomass unit and to create a small
extension to the rear of the property for the shredder. A number of aspects
were considered in assessing the application in the context of existing
enterprises and it was believed that the principle was acceptable. It was not
believed that the development would cause detrimental damage to the area
surrounding the site, despite the receipt of objections that referred to
existing problems that caused concern for local residents based on noise
disturbance and pollution. It was emphasised that the principle of establishing
the site had been approved since 2002 and that the latest proposal was located
within the curtilage of the industrial site.
It was also believed that the scale of the proposal would not
substantially impact the environment given the location of the work directly
opposite the current structure.
Reference was also made that the abovementioned objectives had also been
reflected nationally by the Welsh Government.
In terms of visual amenities,
although the majority of the equipment was located under the ridges of the
unit’s roofs, one chimney/extractor stood approximately 2m above one of the
roof ridges. It was noted that the location of the equipment and associated
structures, the materials and their designs were controlled and shaped by the
statutory requirements of regulatory bodies and it was not possible to cover
them with cladding. It was not very easy
to assimilate such industrial structures within the environment due to the nature
of the buildings themselves. However, it was noted that the applicant had
sought to reduce the visual impact of the additional structures in order for
the proposed extension to match the existing extension.
The objections to this application
involved noise and disturbance and the concern that the existing biomass unit
was in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which was contrary to the
planning conditions of previous applications which limited the operating times
of the equipment and also set a cap on noise levels. It was evident from the
objections that there had been a breach of conditions. It was noted that the
Council’s Public Protection Department together with the Enforcement Unit were
aware of this situation, but as the current application had been submitted, it
would refrain from taking enforcement steps for the time being. Should the
application be approved, it was seen as an opportunity to undertake mitigating
measures to ensure that the new equipment would conform to statutory noise
levels requirements, in the hope that as a result there would be no significant
substantial impact on the residential and general amenities of nearby
residents. It would be possible to include planning conditions for the
equipment’s hours of operation, together with setting maximum noise levels that
would eminate from the biomass unit and the
shredder. In future, should a situation
arise where a breach in planning condition occurred, it would be possible to
undertake adequate enforcement investigations at that time.
Also, objections were received
regarding the release of pollutants into the air and it was confirmed that the
Public Protection Department had undertaken assessments and had concluded that
there was no danger to the local population on the grounds of a decline in air
quality.
In response to the objections, it
was noted that the applicant had submitted amended plans showing that the
shredder would be located within the enclosure.
It was noted that the planning
officers’ recommendation was different to that contained within the report:
·
To change a standard condition of five years to
a year in order for the applicant to implement the permission as soon as
possible and in order to overcome the current problem of breaching
conditions.
·
To ask the
Committee to give the officers the power to hold further discussions with the
Public Protection Department on including conditions (4 and 5 in the report)
relating to operating hours and noise levels (also giving consideration to the
working hours that had already received planning permission through previous
applications).
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:
·
That he represented the residents of Llain y Felin, Rhosbodrual, Caernarfon
·
Whilst accepting that the houses adjoined an
industrial estate and that Welcome Furniture had the right to run their
business and that they employed local people, their objection was not
unreasonable
·
The objector had no problems with the noise
during weekly working hours but he objected to the noise outside working hours
and on weekends, evenings and bank holidays
·
That the problem was historical and the operator
had been breaching the planning condition since 2002
·
Planning permission had been granted in 2011 for
a wood burner and the operating hours had been agreed, however it was now
operated on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis.
·
The noise was likened to a constant swarm of
bees and it was not possible to open the windows during the summer months or
sit outside in the garden in the evenings
·
The operator had noted that the noise would be
no greater than 23dB, however the significance of this was not known and the
current noise levels were a problem and were causing a nuisance
·
He urged the Committee to refuse the application
or restrict working hours especially during the night, on weekends and on bank
holidays
(c) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main
points:-
·
That it was intended to reduce the noise of the
biomass unit to 23dB and that it would be used for waste that would otherwise
have to go to a landfill site, which was costly
·
That the business currently employed 140
individuals
·
The extraction unit was operated on a 24 hour
basis and in order to mitigate the noise problem the unit had been located as
far as possible from the houses
·
That there was already a biomass unit and the
proposed scheme was to include a new biomass unit in order to be much more
effective
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to
appropriate conditions to alleviate noise for nearby residents and it was asked
for the site to be monitored in order to ensure compliance with the operating
conditions.
(d)
In response, the Senior Planning Service Manager
explained that the Public Protection Unit had expertise in terms of noise
levels and referred to the opinion of the Unit within the report that it was
satisfied with the proposed development but there was a need to ensure that
strict conditions were imposed in relation to the units' operation. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the impact of the noise varied and was dependent on
the operation of the different units such as the biomass unit which would be
23dB and the extraction activity which had been problematic in the past. It had
to be remembered that this was an attempt to rationalise activity that had been
problematic over the years and it was difficult to balance the impact for the
residents with employment on the industrial estate which had existed for many
years. However, it had to be ensured
that the activities did not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of
neighbouring residents. It was considered that the application was an
opportunity to rationalise the situation and should the application be approved
it was an opportunity to ensure the Public Protection Unit’s conditions would
control the operating times of the proposed units therefore ensuring the
protection of local residents while also ensuring that the viability of the
business was not affected.
(e) Members
made the following observations:
·
They sympathised with the applicant as
employment was very important to the area and there was also sympathy for the
objectors in terms of amenities and there was a need to find a balance and a
method for monitoring the site
·
Concern that the applicant had not adhered to
conditions in the past and that a year was a long time to put up with noise
·
A Site Visit would be useful in order for
Members to be able to hear the noise for themselves
·
Whilst accepting that the biomass unit would be
operated on a 24 hours a day basis and there were also many ancillary
activities, would it be possible to analyse the exact level of noise emanating
from the site and would it be possible to reduce the noise to 23dB as the
applicant suggested?
(f)
In response to these observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager explained that:
·
The reason for limiting the implementation to a
year was because the applicant was eager to implement arrangements to
rationalise the noise situation as soon as possible and it would be
unreasonable to grant temporary permission
·
The condition would be formulated in consultation
with the Public Protection Unit to ensure that the work that mitigated the
noise impact was implemented as soon as possible.
·
It would be possible to take steps in terms of
planning enforcement or under Public Protection legislation should it not be
possible to comply with the relevant conditions and there would be a need to be
much firmer in relation to any breach of condition.
·
There would be no benefit from visiting the site
apart from to hear the background noise that already existed and this would cause
a delay in taking action to alleviate the noise problem that was the subject of
the application in question.
·
That the Public Protection Unit had undertaken a
thorough noise assessment where the noise levels varied according to the
activity.
·
The proposed new biomass unit was more modern
and it would be possible to ask the applicant to confirm that the figures for
the noise levels were correct
·
That the Local Member had stated verbally that
he supported the application
(ff) One Member noted his objection to the application and was
disappointed that the applicant and the Public Protection Unit had been aware
of the breach of conditions in the past and it was questioned whether there was
any guarantee that this would not happen again.
Resolved: To delegate
powers to the Planning Service Manager to approve the application, subject to
further consultation with the Council’s Public Protection Unit regarding
appropriate conditions relating to noise levels/ the operating hours of the
biomass unit, the dust extraction unit and the shredder and in accordance with
the following conditions:-
1. 1 year.
2. In accordance with the plans.
3. Submit details relating to external
finishes.
4. The biomass unit, the shredder and
the dust extraction unit must not be used on any Sunday or Bank Holiday.
5. Prior to using the biomass unit to
any purpose, a full noise monitoring assessment must be completed by an
independent company which is to be agreed upon in writing with the Local
Planning Authority. This will enable the Authority to ensure that any noise
emanating as a result of operating the biomass unit and any associated
equipment is not higher than the agreed noise levels.
6. Only fuel that is acknowledged as
appropriate by the manufacturers of the biomass unit and deriving from the
Welcome Furniture business can be incinerated in the biomass unit. Fuel must
not be carried in from any external location without first receiving written
permission from the Local Planning Authority.
7. Lorries waiting in the loading area
(in the area highlighted in green in the plan appended to this permission) or lorries unloading must not leave the engine running while on
site.
8. The height of the chimney must not be
less than 5m above the ridges of the roofs of the industrial estate (a combined
height of 15m) in order to ensure adequate dispersion of pollution emissions
from the chimney itself.
9. Any
conditions that derive from further discussions with the Public Protection Unit
relating to the days and hours of operating the units/machinery which are
subject to this application and operate within the relevant noise levels.
Supporting documents: