Meeting documents

Ms C Kelham, Senior Planning Officer, advised that application CM/0018/19 was seeking to use an additional unit on the airfield site for waste processing to diversify operations currently taking place on units 32, 32A and 33. 

Camiers Waste Management Limited were a recycling and skip hire operator and Ms Kelham clarified that the site would be operating in conjunction with those three units, although the vehicle movements were proposed to be in combination with those units.

• Since the publication of the report the following had been received: Eight objections from members of the public.
• An objection from Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Council primarily due to the impact of traffic on the surrounding road network. 
• A petition from local residents entitled "No more waste recycling on the airfield".  
• A letter from the Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire  regarding concerns from a resident in Gubblecote regarding the impact of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from the site and the general impact of the site on the residents’ health and amenity.
• Comments from the Heritage Consultant at Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) regarding this application and the other application on the airfield site (CM/0017/19).  These comments concluded that there had been no change in policy or circumstances since the previous applications on the airfield site and as such the Heritage Consultant considered that it would be difficult to sustain a Heritage objection given that the route proposed for HGVs was the most direct route and was the same as used for previous applications. Overall, having sought advice from the Archaeology and Heritage Consultants, the Planning Authority was satisfied that the development would not lead to harm to a designated heritage asset.

Ms Kelham provided a presentation and highlighted the following points:

• The location of the site area and the footpaths. 
• The Airfield Industrial Estate was granted a Certificate of Lawful Use in 1985 to be used for light industrial and storage purposes.
• Unit 25 was towards the back of the airfield site. 
• In 2017 an application from Waste King Limited was granted planning permission on a site overlapping the current application site. 
• In June 2018, AVDC granted planning permission for the demolition of a building and its replacement by an open fronted steel structure on Unit 25. 
• A site monitoring visit in autumn 2018 discovered that the yard area had been separated by a fence.  This application sought to use new buildings and a unit for waste transfer and waste processing in conjunction with Camiers at Unit 32, 32A and 33.  No additional HGVs were proposed in addition to those that already existed for those three units.
• Comments had been received regarding the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but Ms Kelham confirmed the site was not within the AONB.
• There was a routing agreement for units 32, 32A and 33 and it was proposed to keep a similar routing agreement for Unit 25.
• Members of the public had expressed concern that if the throughput of the site increased and there was no increase in the number of vehicles that the size of the vehicles would increase.  Currently, there were no restrictions on the size of HGVs to be used. 
• The proposed changes to add an additional processing element were unlikely to change the nature of the business which was a skip hire business - waste would still be coming into the site in skips and it would be taken off in other containers depending on the nature of the material.
• There was already a sign requiring HGVs to turn right out of the Airfield Site.
• Photos showed that there was room for cars and HGVs to pass. 
• Brownlow Bridge had been raised as a problem; it had been repaired and had a weight limit of 18 tonnes.  Most skip vehicles weighed considerably less than 18 tonnes even when loaded. 

Public Speakers

Ms P Thomas had been delayed so the Chairman invited Mr S Upson to read out a statement, appended to the minutes, on behalf of the applicant, Camiers Group Limited.

Members of the committee raised and discussed the following points:

• A member of the committee stated that she understood there would be no increase in the number of vehicle movements but asked for confirmation that the existing routing agreement had been adhered to.  Mr Lupson stated that he was new to the company and had not received any complaints.  Occasionally people within the villages required a skip and therefore a skip lorry would have to drive the route to where the skip was required.  Mr Lupson acknowledged that occasionally there had been confusion between Camiers’ vehicles and other vehicles on the site but as far as he was aware their drivers were strictly instructed to keep to the routing agreement.
• A member of the committee stated that Camiers wished to use 32 tonne vehicles.  Mr Lupson advised that Camiers wanted to keep within the existing limitations already in place i.e. 82 movements a day; 41 in and 41 out.  Mr Lupson agreed that the use of the bridge was not possible due to the 18 tonne limitation on the bridge.
• Clarification was requested on the location of Brownlow Bridge.  Ms Kelham confirmed the bridge was over the canal and showed the location on the map and confirmed that a 32 tonne lorry would have to drive to the main road and turn left and go through Horton to avoid the bridge. 
• A member of the committee asked what percentage of traffic would turn left.  Mr Lupson explained that Camiers aimed to recycle as much of the material as possible and recycled material was called the ‘light fraction’ which was extremely light and therefore required a volumetric vehicle to be able to move it economically; it could be 50/50 or less depending on the day.   A full arctic lorry of plastic and cardboard would weigh 10-12 tonnes; if laden with coca cola cans the weight could be 22-24 tonnes.  All the arctic lorries were weighed before leaving the site and all were covered in environmental sheeting.
• A member of the committee referred to the comment that a 44 tonne full laden lorry would do less damage to the roads due to the way the lorry was sprung and asked if this meant the lorries would be less noisy.  Mr Lupson confirmed that the 44 tonne lorries were quieter.  32 tonne lorries had metal spring suspensions and fewer axles and took on more weight per axle so were more abrasive and had more impact on the roads.  The actual weight of an arctic per axle was lighter and they also had air suspension which was quieter.  There was no difference in the width of the 44 and 32 tonne lorries. 
• Mr Lupson confirmed that Camiers had a tracking system in the office and all the lorries were monitored to ensure they kept to the routing agreement.  Sub-contractors also had tracking systems.
• A member of the committee summarised his understanding of the application. In response, Mr Lupson confirmed that the misting system was compliant with the Environment Agency and that Camiers were happy to work within the current vehicle movement and routing limitations.

The Chairman invited Ms P Thomas to read out her statement, appended to the minutes, in objection to the application.

Members of the committee raised and discussed the following points:

• A member of the committee commented that Ms Thomas had mentioned frequent bridge closures.  Ms Thomas confirmed there were a number of bridges in the area, many of which had been closed recently; in particular Brownlow Bridge had been closed for a second time this year.  There were chicanes in the road in Horton preventing two cars travelling along the road at the same time.  It was pointed out to the speaker that several of the bridges mentioned were not on the routing agreement.  Ms Thomas agreed but stated that she saw lorries every day driving along routes that were not in the routing agreement.
• A member of the committee commented that Ms Thomas’ statement had clearly stated that HGVs were causing problems to the residents, however, the planning application was not intending to increase the number of vehicle movements.
• Ms Thomas stated it was confusing and difficult to understand what was being proposed without the planning officers’ insight.
• A member of the committee provided a summary of her understanding in that the amount of waste being imported would not increase but the waste would be processed to enable more recycling.  There would not be any increase in the tonnage coming in to the site or vehicle movements but the process would be carried out in a more suitable area of the site with dust mitigation measures in place.  Ms Kelham confirmed that this was her understanding.  More waste would be processed on site but it did not equate to more waste being brought into the site.  Ms Gibbs stated that was her understanding when she visited the site. 
• Ms Thomas asked if the company had permission for 82 vehicle movements and to process 87,500 tonnes of material; Ms Kelham confirmed that that was what was permitted at units 32, 32A and 33.

The Chairman invited the local member, Councillor A Wight to read out her statement, appended to the minutes.

Members of the committee raised and discussed the following points:

• A member of the committee commented that Councillor Wight had asked the committee to defer a decision until more detail was known on traffic movement; however it had been made clear that there would be no increase in vehicle movement.   Councillor Wight added that one of the problems was that the current routing agreements were not adhered to.  According to a Section 106 agreement, GPS tracking information was to be available on request, but it appeared this had not happened.  Councillor Wight stated she was not clear how the additional waste would be processed without additional vehicle movements.
• A member of the committee stated he was confused on the amount of tonnage of waste to be processed and the number of vehicle movements.  When he first read the report he assumed the 87,500 tonnes and number of vehicle movements were part of the allowance of the partner organisation (unit 32).  He had now heard of an additional 87,500 tonnes for the application site and requested clarification.  Ms Kelham confirmed the site would manage waste in conjunction with unit 32 and commented that the tonnage which could be stored and processed at the site was limited by the Environmental permit.  The amount referred to in the planning application was the amount of material that would be throughput on the site.  There was the throughput of the site and the amount of material which was coming off the main highway network that came in through the entrance of the industrial estate.  In terms of vehicle movements, if the material was moved from one unit to another it would not be generating additional vehicle movements on the public highway; there were two separate issues.  Ms S Winkels, Planning and Enforcement Manager reiterated that there would be no increase in the amount of tonnage that the site processed.   There would be an increase in the processing capacity on the site to increase the amount recycled. 
• Ms Gibbs stated she had visited the site and seen the original waste site where the waste processing used to be carried out; there would be increased movement of the material but it would be within the airfield site.  A large number of lorries used the airfield, but Ms Gibbs emphasised that the committee was only considering the vehicles for this application which all had tracking devices.
• A member of the committee stated that the limit of 82 vehicle movements, 41 in and 41 out, across units 32, 32A and 33 was an improvement.  Councillor Wight did not feel putting a limit on the vehicle movements was helpful; she stated she was confused as to how the entire estate had a B1 Light Industry Permit from AVDC, yet was running a heavy industry estate which was not supposed to run anything except offices and little white vans.
• A member of the committee asked if there had been any enforcement on the site.  Ms Kelham stated that the reason for the application was due to a visit by the Enforcement Officer who had identified that the site had been split into two.  Mr Pugh, Planning Enforcement Officer, added that application number CM17/17 (Waste King) was for unit 25 in its entirety.  There were two very similar delivery vehicles which were generating complaints against one operator but it was another operator that did not have planning restrictions that was causing the issue.  The breach was regularised and Mr Pugh had not received any complaints since then on the application approved in 2017.   

• A member of the committee asked Councillor Wight if she had met with the enforcement team.  Councillor Wight confirmed she had met with Mr Pugh and Ms Winkels to discuss the site.  Councillor Wight stated she was very familiar with the issue and had received reports of people using Brownlow Bridge despite the weight limit. 
• Ms Gibbs stated that, legally, the committee was not retrospectively looking at whether the site was right for the work being carried out at the moment.  Approval of the application would mean an improvement from the way the processing was being carried out before.  There would be no extra lorries in and out of the site, the waste would be processed inside a unit resulting in less dust.  Ms Gibbs’ understanding was that the committee were regularising something that was being carried out.  Ms Kelham stated that the said building was granted planning permission by AVDC and there had been changes to what had been permitted on the Airfield Site since the Certificate of Lawful Use development which was granted in 1985.  Ms Gibbs added that if there were to be a contravention, it would be dealt with by the enforcement team.  Ms Kelham confirmed Ms Gibbs’ summary was correct and that there should be odour abatement and less litter with the move to internal processing.
• A member of the committee mentioned that Councillor Wight had commented on the site being in an AONB.  Ms Kelham advised that the site was 2.75 km away the edge of the AONB.  Vehicles would travel through the AONB but there was no restriction in Buckinghamshire for vehicles travelling in an AONB when they were travelling on the public highway.
• A member of the committee asked for clarity on the legal framework for B1 Light Industrial and Storage.  Ms Kelham explained that the airfield as a whole had a Certificate of Lawful Use which was granted in 1985 by Aylesbury Vale District Council for the continued use of the airfield for light industry and storage purposes.  Since then, various units has sought planning permissions for change of use e.g. CM17/17.

Ms Gibbs stated that she proposed the committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the planning application, this was seconded by Mr Clare.  All the members were in agreement apart from Mr Khan who abstained.

RESOLVED:  The Development Control Committee APPROVED application number CM/0018/19 for the use of land at unit 25, Marsworth Airfield for waste storage and treatment subject to Conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning and Environment, and the conditions set out in Appendix A of the report and subject to completion of a Planning Obligation, with details, alterations, additions and deletions, to be determined by the Head of Planning and Environment, to secure the following:

I. Routing agreement to ensure that all HGVs involved in the importation and exportation of materials in connection with the Development

a) Do not pass though Long Marston Village;

b) Do not turn into or out of Mentmore Road/Cheddington High Street towards Cheddington and turning into or out of the road to the north west towards Mentmore at the double miniroundabouts between Long Marston Road and Station Road;

c) Access the Land left-in only from Cheddington Lane;

d) Egress the Land right out onto Cheddington Lane; and

e) Proceed to and from the Land along Long Marston Road, Station Road, and the B488.

II. All HGVs within the applicants fleet that travel to and from the site and are involved with the importation and exportation of materials in connection with the Development are installed with GPS equipment in operation at all times for route tracking purposes, which will be available on request provided to the Council.

III. The provision and maintenance of a sign to the reasonable satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Environment at the point of access to the Land to inform drivers of HGVs accessing and egressing the Land of the routes they should observe the routing set out above.