Meeting documents

Ms C Kelham, Senior Planning Officer, advised that application CM/00/17/19 had been submitted by the operator of CM/17/17.  The application sought to reduce the area of the site.  There would be no increase in the number of HGV movements i.e. 20 in and 20 out.

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 HGVs from the site and the general impact of the site on the residents’ health and amenity.
• Comments from the Heritage Consultant at AVDC regarding this application and the other application on the airfield site (CM/0018/19).  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:

• Photographs of the site and entrance to the airfield. 
• Photographs of the hill fort and footpath. 
• Photographs looking into the yard and the inside the site. 
• There was one skip lorry; the other vehicles were caged. 
• The routing agreement was the same as for application CM/0018/19.

Public Speaking

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 stated that she appreciated Ms Piers’ statement had been written before the clarification of the B1 use had been provided in the previous item and felt that from her perspective she was unable to take any part of the presentation as valid.  The member asked Ms Piers if she concurred that the B1 use had changed over the years.  Ms Piers commented that her understanding was that AVDC had given the B1 classification and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) changed the use.  The member explained that consent could change much the same way as an extension to a house could change the housing classification.  Ms M Rajaratnam, Assistant Team Leader, Planning and Regeneration, HB Public Law clarified that the district council considered certain types of applications and the County Council considered waste related applications; it was not a case of BCC overruling AVDC.  BCC had granted planning permission for waste storage and sorting having considered the information provided at the time of that application.
• Ms Thomas queried why the planning officer had relied heavily on the B1 use.  Ms Kelham explained it was to do with fallback position.  Ms Rajaratnam confirmed if CM/17/17 had not been implemented the fallback position would be have been the Certificate of Lawful Use. 
• Ms Thomas stated that the routing had not been addressed and asked why the whole focus had been on the site.  Cllr Clare explained that as part of this application, there was no increase in HGVs proposed and the routing would be as existing.

The Chairman invited Mr A Cattigan, Director and owner of Waste King Limited to read his statement, on behalf of the agent.

• Waste King Limited employed 18 people. 
• The application did not include a change to the use of the land, just the area the planning permission covered. 
• The size of the site had reduced by over 50%.
• Waste King Limited was not applying for more vehicle movements.
• The site use was not changing. 
• During planning application CM17/17 it was stated that Waste King Limited was not looking to grow the business physically in terms of more skip lorries but to streamline the business.  Waste King Limited knew that with the limit of 20 HGV movements in and 20 vehicle movements out it would not be profitable nor viable to run a successful skip hire company so they concentrated their efforts on the other business, Skip Hire Limited which was a waste broker.  The business did not physically collect and process the waste.  If a customer in Glasgow ordered a skip, Waste King Limited would source a skip from a local company in Glasgow and process the order.
• The waste and skip hire business accounted for 30% of their income.
• Waste King Limited was surrendering over 50% of the site back to the land owners after being prompted to regularise planning.
• The vehicles were tracked; the limit of 40 vehicle movements per day and the routing agreement was adhered to.
• Waste King Limited were the sponsors of the Ivinghoe under 15s football team.

Members of the committee raised and discussed the following points:

• A member of the committee stated that the local parish councils had objected to the application and asked Mr Cattigan if they had invited him to provide more clarification.  Mr Cattigan confirmed he had not been invited to speak to the parish councils.
• Ms Gibbs stated she had visited the site and wanted to clarify her understanding.  Ms Gibbs advised there was a screen in the office and had been told its purpose was to track the vehicles.  The vehicles whereabouts could be seen and Ms Gibbs asked if the company kept records.  Mr Cattigan explained that the records were kept and that he submitted reports to Mr Pugh.  The system sent an email alert if a vehicle travelled into an area that they were not allowed to enter (i.e. away from the agreed routing).
• Ms Gibbs stated she had also noticed that there were four secretaries taking calls.  Mr Cattigan advised that the business was a ‘hub’ for skip hire.  Members of the public contacted Waste King Limited who acted as a brokerage and contacted people on their books to supply the skip; this was 70% of their business. Mr Cattigan also mentioned that he had amicably let three drivers go as they were no longer needed with the change in focus of their business.
• A member of the committee asked how many skip lorries remained on the site.  Mr Cattigan stated that there was only one skip lorry; the other vehicles were small lorries with caged sides that were 3.5 tonne and did not require a specialist licence; there were no plans to increase the number of lorries. 
• The member summarised that there would be no change in the number of lorries and there were fewer drivers which was better news for the residents.   Mr Cattigan stated that a large number of vehicles were required to make that side of the business profitable and this was the reason that this area of the business had been downsized. 
• A member of the committee stated he had sympathy with the applicant and felt he had no choice but to support the application.

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:

• Mr Clare stated the committee understood the issues the community had and were trying to address them within the framework of the application.  Mr Clare highlighted the following:

§  There would not be an increase in the number of lorries.

§  Waste King Limited did have planning permission.

§  There was a road through the AONB but lorries were allowed on roads in an AONB.

§  There was one canal bridge in the routing which was an issue and had been repaired.

§  The bridge had a weight limit but the HGVs would be well under the limit.  Mr Clare could not think of anything else which would require clarification and asked the other members if they had any further points.

• A member of the committee commented that Councillor Wight had mentioned waste slipping into a stream but stated she had not seen a stream.  Mr Pugh stated this was in relation to unit 32; the deposit was not within the application site.  Ms Kelham reminded the committee that the units were adjacent to each other but were two separate applications.
• A member of the committee stated that everyone appreciated the number of HGVs on the country lanes but emphasised that the committee were looking at a specific application which would not put an additional HGVs on the road. Ms Kelham confirmed this was correct. Ms Winkels added that any assessment of the highway impact would look at the cumulative impact of the development on the highway network (i.e. the impact of all traffic from the site on the highway network).  Due to the fallback position, in respect of the remainder of the airfield site, being that the Certificate of Lawful Use did not limit the number of HGVs then any application on the site that sought to restrict HGVs would provide a benefit.  Ms Gibbs clarified that Waste King were permitted a certain amount of HGVs but they were not taking up their whole allocation of 20 vehicles in, 20 vehicles out.

Mr Clare stated that he proposed the committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the planning application, this was seconded by Ms Glover.  All the members were in agreement.

RESOLVED:  The Development Control Committee APPROVED application number CM/0017/19 for the use of land at unit 25B, 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.