APPLICATION NO: 08/0062/FDMAJW VALIDATION 13th … · an additional bay’s width extension of the same height and profile as the existing main building. 2.3 The planning application

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 1

APPLICATION NO: 08/0062/FDMAJW VALIDATION DATE:

13th November 2008

DISTRICT REF: AGENT: Brock Planning Consultancy, Kingston House, 45 Victoria

Road, Coleford, GL16 8DS APPLICANT: Mr P Yarworth, Little Haven, The Green, Newnham-on-

Severn, GL14 1AF SITE: Orchard Court, Ruddle, Newnham-on-Severn, GL14 1DS PROPOSAL: Alterations and extension to an existing building and use in

association with the storage of animal carcasses allied to an established slaughterman’s business (part retrospective) (Resubmission)

PARISH OF Newnham SITE AREA: 0.25 Ha GRID REF: 368810 211247 RECOMMENDED:

That planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in this report and summarised at paragraph 7.21–7.22, and subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

1.0 LOCATION 1.1 The site is located on the south side of the A48, in the small hamlet of Ruddle,

which lies about 1km south west of the village of Newnham-on-Severn and approximately 15 kilometres south west of Gloucester. Access to the site is directly onto the A48 which is subject to a 50mph speed limit at the location, via an established farm track. The same access point also serves a dwelling, Callow Cottage, which lies about 100m east of the application site.

1.2 The Newport to Gloucester railway line runs north-south on embankment

about 80m to the west of the application site, and the River Severn lies about 110m to the south east of the site. The boundary of the application site to the A48 is formed by a well established hedgerow while the other boundaries are formed by fencing. To the west and south of the site lies land also within the control of the applicant which is grazing pasture and to the east areas of pasture and relic orchard.

1.3 The application site is predominantly level and comprises a yard area

accommodating a number of older corrugated iron clad agricultural style buildings, together with a more modern agricultural building dating from 2002. It is this building, orientated north/south in the south western corner of the application site, that is used for the storage of carcasses and to which this application relates.

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 2

1.4 The nearest residential properties to the building within which carcasses

would be stored are located on the north side of the A48 opposite the site and consist of a row of terraced cottages in Wellington Terrace, approximately 80m north of the building and Underhill Farm which is located directly opposite the entrance to the site and is about 95m north east of the building. Collow Cottage lies about 130m to the east of the building. A public right of way runs along the track that forms the site’s eastern boundary in a north to south direction and joins with the A48 at the site entrance.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the alteration and extension of the 2002 building in the

south west corner of the site and its use for the temporary storage of animal carcasses. Specifically, the proposal is retrospective for the continued use of two bays (about 157m2) of the building to store carcasses. Planning consent is also sought for the erection of a one-bay extension on the southern end of the building to provide an 80m2 floorspace loading/unloading bay with lorry ramp and roller door. The intention is that this extension will allow the unloading and loading of carcasses with the door closed which, in association with proposed odour control measures, will control odour problems associated with the transfer and storage of carcasses.

2.2 The building, which is partially incomplete, is of concrete block and profiled

aluminium cladding construction with a mono pitch roof sloping toward the rear (west). The building is 6.1m high on the front elevation facing onto the yard and 5.7m high at the rear, with a 2m high concrete block wall base and c.4m high dark green profiled aluminium cladding above. Part of the rear of the building has full height cladding. The yard frontage has two double door openings, for the bays used for carcasses and a workshop respectively, and the northern end of the building accommodates an office, kitchen and shower. At the southern end of the building is a small lean-to which accommodates a ‘dirty’ wash room and WC. This lean-to would be removed and replaced by an additional bay’s width extension of the same height and profile as the existing main building.

2.3 The planning application is partly retrospective in that storage and use

associated with the slaughterman’s business already takes place at the building. The building was specifically excluded from the Lawful Use Certificate application approved in January 2008 since the period the building has been in that use has not established a lawful use and the inclusion of the building was the basis for refusal of the first Lawful Use application in 2005.

2.4 In support of the proposal, the applicant’s agent has submitted a Design and

Access Statement, an Environmental/Planning Assessment, an Odour Impact Assessment and an Odour Management Plan (OMP), extracts from which are set out below:

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 3

Use 2.5 The Local Planning Authority have acknowledged through the issuing of a

Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use that a substantial proportion of the application site enjoys a lawful use for the operation of the applicants business as a mobile casualty slaughterman. Such a use dealing principally with the agricultural community is clearly appropriate within a rural location. Historically the business developed utilising the range of existing buildings at Orchard Court, although it is acknowledged that since 2004, the modern building at the southwestern corner of the site is now an important resource, bearing in mind changes in legislation. From the enclosed plan details it will be noted that the applicant would wish part of this building to be utilised as an office and this application seeks retrospective planning permission for two bays (extending to approximately 157m²), to be utilised for the storage of animal carcasses. An area between the carcass storage area and office will provide for a workshop for the maintenance of vehicles, machinery and equipment associated with the applicants business. An extension providing an additional 80m² floor space will enable the loading and unloading of carcasses which would also take place under cover. This is being proposed principally in order to address previous concerns regarding odour emissions from the site as will be highlighted below. With these activities being contained within an existing building, the environmental impact of the current uses will be minimised. This use is appropriate to a rural area as confirmed not only by the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7, but also having regard to consideration of policies such as Policy (R) FNE.1, of the District Local Plan Review. The significance of the continued operations of the applicant to the local agricultural community cannot be overestimated.

Transport/Access 2.6 The applicant has utilised the existing access to the A48 for this use of the

premises since 1989 and there is no evidence to suggest that his use creates highway dangers. Visibility for vehicles emerging onto the A48 is good and because of the nature of the highway, traffic speeds are reasonable and no problems have arisen in connection with vehicles turning from the A48 in towards the application site. It will be important to stress that these proposals will not result in any intensification in use of the application site but rather have been prepared to regularise current activities. The vehicles operated by Mr Yarworth from the site are confirmed at paragraph 4.6 (of the application) and apart from his own vehicles, the only other vehicles which enter and leave the site comprise occasional collections by articulated lorries from the incinerator or rendering companies. The applicant estimates that such vehicles would call at the site on average once per week, although it should be noted that the frequency of such vehicle movements does vary seasonally. Although turning movements of larger vehicles from Class 1 highways can create hazards, over the last twenty years the applicant is unaware of any accidents occurring as a result of these manoeuvres and such manoeuvres of various sized commercial vehicles is not unusual for a large number of farm premises along the length of the A48 highway (e.g. milk tankers, feed

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 4

supplies etc). As these proposals will not involve any increase in activities on the application site there is no reason to conclude that these proposals are unacceptable in terms of access/accessibility.

Odour 2.7 The applicant is aware from previous correspondence and discussions that in

the past concern has been raised by local residents to odour arising from the storage of carcasses. The Enforcement Notice issued by Gloucestershire County Council specifically referred to concerns in respect of the local environment and amenity with regard to odour pollution from the movement and storage of dead and decomposing animals, with reference being drawn to the effects specifically to people living in close proximity of the application site. Similarly from discussions with Officers of Gloucestershire County Council it was agreed that one of the main issues to be addressed within this submission were measures to be incorporated in order to reduce problems in terms of odour which have arisen in the past.

2.8 Historically, the details at Section 4 confirm that up to (the year) 2004,

carcasses were stored on the open yard and on trailers parked within the existing yard area. As a result of the 2003 Regulations, carcasses must now be stored undercover and the building in the southwest corner of the application site has been licensed as being appropriate for that purpose. In view of the responses of local residents to the Enforcement Appeal it would, however, appear that those residents consider themselves adversely affected in terms of odour notwithstanding the fact that carcasses are now stored within a building. The County Council Officers appear to conclude that odours derive from both the storage and in particular the movement of dead and decomposing animals. In these circumstances, having taken advice the applicant proposes an extension on the southern end of the building furthest away from residential properties in order to ensure that all loading and unloading of carcasses can take place undercover. Additionally, all existing doors to the carcass storage area and loading/unloading area will be lined with rubber sheeting and doorways can also be individually fitted with rubber seals. Within the building when carcasses are being moved deodourising will take place. No residues from the carcasses will be retained within the building. Regular deliveries either to the incinerator or to the rendering plant will ensure a reduction in odour through good management. The Local Planning Authority can impose conditions in the grant of any planning permission to ensure that these measures are effective, and if any further information is required in connection with these odour mitigation measures, this can be supplied if requested.

2.9 On behalf of the applicant, consultants have undertaken a qualitative

assessment of the impact resulting from potential fugitive odour releases from deliveries and escape from building entry/exit points. A quantitative assessment has been carried out of the odour impact resulting from potential controlled point source emissions from the odour control unit. The consultants have undertaken a Warren Spring Radius of Effect calculation for rural areas to identify the maximum odour release rate without causing odour nuisance at

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 5

the nearest residential receptor (80m away). The consultants have obtained budgetary costs from specialist suppliers for odour control units that can achieve odour concentration in the exhaust gas which would achieve the maximum release rate.

2.10 The loading bay and storage bay will be maintained under negative pressure and flexible plastic curtains will be fitted to the loading bay entrance. The existing sliding doors will no longer be used in normal operations and will be kept shut and fitted with rubber seals. If these doors need to be opened for infrequent maintenance or cleaning operations, the exhaust ventilation will be kept on and augmented by the use of odour neutralisation spray. The trailers leaving the site will be washed down before leaving the loading bay. More frequent collections will reduce potential for odour generation.

2.11 The applicant maintains that carcasses are now removed from the site three

times each week and that this increase in the frequency of movement of carcasses minimises odour impacts.

Landscape Impact 2.12 The application site now includes a number of buildings which have been

established within the landscape for a number of years. Such groups of buildings are certainly not uncommon and in previous discussions with Officers of the County Council there has been no suggestion that the existing premises create any adverse landscape impact. The modest extension at the southern end of the existing building is of a scale which would not alter the landscape impact of the group of buildings as a whole. The modest extension has been designed to match the existing building and external materials will match those of the existing building in the interests of continuity of appearance. From the west, the group of buildings is screened by the existing railway embankment and bearing in mind the course of the River Severn to the east and south, these proposals will have a minimal effect. Should the Local Planning Authority deem any landscaping to be appropriate, no objections would be raised providing the scale of landscaping is proportionate to the works proposed and the scale which is affordable to the applicant.

2.13 To the applicants knowledge there is no significant wildlife interest on the

applications site. Whilst traditional farm buildings can provide roosting sites for bats and barn owls, it will be noted that no works are proposed to any of the existing buildings, which will largely be retained in their current usage for storage of hay/straw, farm implements and for storage of equipment associated with the applicant’s business interests. The building proposed to be extended is of modern construction and is inappropriate to provide for any significant wildlife interest. In these circumstances it is not anticipated that these proposals will have any effect upon wildlife in the locality.

Drainage 2.14 The manner in which the site is drained has been the subject of consultation

historically with the Environment Agency. Within the building there is a drain with a 6mm filter. That drain extends to an existing septic tank. Dirty water

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 6

from that septic tank goes to another tank for settlement and then proceeds to a soakaway system, which has been agreed by the Environment Agency. All areas are steam cleaned rather than specifically disinfected as a more sustainable way of dealing with sanitation. In these circumstances pollution is avoided in terms of groundwater.

Archaeology/Geology 2.15 From investigations it is understood that there are no archaeological or

geological matters of interest in connection with the application site. Residential Amenity 2.16 In the past is understood that some local residents have raised concerns in

connection with the effect of the establishment in terms of residential amenity with specific reference to odour. As far as the applicant is aware no objections have been raised by local residents in connection with any other issues associated with residential amenity. In these circumstances, addressing the issue of odour has been the applicants’ prime consideration, and it will be noted from the above that a number of measures are proposed to be put in place to deal with odour. The view of previous concerns expressed appears to indicate that concerns in respect of odour are seasonal particularly during periods of warm weather. In these circumstances the applicant will ensure appropriate management throughout the year to avoid such occurrences and particularly during summer months. As highlighted above, occasional slaughtering does take place on the application site, but this does not appear to have resorted in any specific concerns being raised from local residents.

Flood Risk 2.17 The application site lies close to the River Severn but is not in the flood plain

being elevated above the flood plain and to the applicants knowledge has never suffered from flooding, notwithstanding the recent frequency and occurrences of flooding in the Severn Valley.

Details of Uses That Have Taken Place at the Premises 2.18 In 1989 following a period of apprenticeship in the trade, the applicant

established the business of a mobile slaughterman from his premises at Orchard Court, Ruddle. It is not alleged on behalf of the applicant that the buildings and yard area have been utilised exclusively for his trade and business associated with the slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities, but he is full-time employed in this business and has been full-time self-employed in the business since 1989 and has only ever operated his business from these premises. It is, however, acknowledged that the land and buildings have also been utilised for agricultural/equestrian purposes, including for grazing together with the storage of hay, straw, machinery etc.

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 7

2.19 The Local Planning Authority will acknowledge that the scale of the agricultural/equestrian use of the land and buildings would clearly not provide a full-time livelihood. The application site is Mr Yarworth’s base for his work as a mobile slaughterman. He kills and disposes of casualty animals (injured and sick animals). The vast majority of the killing is dealt with at client’s premises with carcasses then being taken away by the applicants back to Orchard Court. A small number of animals are brought by their owners directly to Orchard Court where they are slaughtered by Mr Yarworth. It is estimated that this probably occurs on average once per week and this scale of slaughtering on the site has remained largely unchanged since Mr Yarworth occupied the site in 1989. Historically carcasses have been stored both on trailers in the yard area and also on the concrete yard to the south of the original buildings. Regulations introduced in 2003 required carcasses to be kept under cover from 2004 and since that date the new building at the southwest corner of the yard has been utilised for that purpose, although occasionally covered trailers are retained in the yard with carcasses. In terms of vehicles Mr Yarworth owns a 30 tonne four wheel lorry, various trailers and a Range Rover, all of which are utilised for the business and are usually kept at the site, washed down at the site etc.

2.20 Part of one of the buildings in the yard area has been utilised as a small office

and other machinery associated with his trade and business is kept within other buildings around the yard. These buildings are not exclusively utilised for his trade and business as a slaughterman but also contain agricultural machinery, straw, hay etc. Since 1989, the applicant has had no other full time occupation and he has, not unreasonably, considered his trade and business to be closely allied to agriculture bearing in mind the vast majority of his work is for farmers in the locality. He has also been commissioned by various public bodies to deal with animal road casualties. The nature of his trade and business has not altered over the period between 1989 and the current date, except insofar as national regulations requiring changes in best practice. Mr Yarworth is self-employed and does not employ any other parties. The principal area within which he operates comprises Forest of Dean District Council’s administrative area extending to Chepstow to the south, the outskirts of Monmouth and Hereford to the north, and the City of Gloucester to the northeast.

2.21 Since 1989 there have been changes associated with the way in which a

slaughterman operates. When Mr Yarworth commenced his business the slaughter and disposal of casualty animals often also involved the salvage of meat for human consumption. In those instances, many of the animals were taken straight to slaughter houses after being shot. Other animals were disposed of by rendering or taken to hunt kennels. Those carcasses of animals to be disposed of by rendering or taken to hunt kennels were stored at Orchard Court prior to disposal. In 1990 the Ministry of Agriculture required a Schedule 19 “On Farm Slaughter Certificate”, to accompany farm animals that were deemed fit for human consumption. These Certificates were only valid for twenty-four hours and as such animals fit for human consumption were taken directly by Mr Yarworth to slaughter houses at Abergavenny, Minsterworth or Cinderford. All other animals could be shot and disposed of

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 8

without this Certificate and normally carcasses were taken back to Orchard Court until he was able to dispose of them at incinerators, and knacker’s yards. In the early 1990’s the BSE crisis occurred and in March 1996 it was found that there was a potential link between BSE in cattle and the contraction of the human form CJD.

2.22 In April 1996 all bovine animals over the age of 30 months were banned from

the food chain as a result of which most animals falling into that category had to be either incinerated or rendered. The introduction of this scheme led to a major welfare problem with a backlog of 60,000 cattle countrywide that needed to be killed and disposed of. There are also specific problems in terms of incineration capacity. Most over 30 months (OTM) carcasses from this locality were taken to the incinerator at Stoke Orchard whereas Abergavenny Slaughterhouse provided a rendering facility. In 1997 a selective cull of cattle most at risk from BSE was introduced which again resulted in an increase in workload with all cows most at risk from BSE being culled and incinerated. At this time Mr Yarworth continued to store other casualty carcasses at Orchard Court, and continued to have to store carcasses until incineration or rendering facilities were available.

2.23 In 1998 the Rural Payments Agency required clearer recording of all cattle

disposed of and it is as a result of these requirements that such comprehensive records are available to demonstrate the level of the storage of carcasses which occurred at Orchard Court. Periodically local incinerators were unable to deal with demand as a result of which it was not unusual in the late 1990’s for carcasses to be taken from Orchard Court as far as Newton Abbot or Exeter. In 2000, the Stoke Orchard incinerator was closed and since that date most carcasses stored at Orchard Court have been taken to the Wessex incinerator at Frome. Normally Mr Yarworth travels at least twice weekly to Frome, storing carcasses at Orchard Court between deliveries. Also in 2000 Mr Yarworth suffered burglary at Orchard Court with his main work vehicle being stolen, together with guns, extensive work equipment etc. As a result it was decided that a secure building was required and an application was made to Forest of Dean District Council under the determination system. Following approval, work commenced in early 2002.

2.24 In 2004 animal by-products legislation was implemented which required that

all animal by-products i.e. carcasses, had to stored and disposed of in a proper manner and all farm animals unfit for human consumption had to be incinerated and were not allowed to be buried. In August 2003 prior to introduction of these requirements Mr Yarworth enquired of DEFRA what he would need to do to comply with the legislation. Mr Roderick of the State Veterinary Service advised Mr Yarworth of the requirements and in 2004, Orchard Court was licensed for the storage of carcasses unfit for human consumption to be stored at the premises. Whilst up to 2004 the majority of the work had involved cattle there was greater demand for other farm animals. The premises at Orchard Court now provide facilities to the necessary standards and as such represent an essential local facility. At Appendix A to this report is a paper produced by Mr R Blowey confirming the recent history of how fallen stock is dealt with, the importance of storage of carcasses and

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 9

the role played by Mr Yarworth. Substantive details relating to the storage of carcasses throughout the period has been provided to the County Council’s Enforcement Officer, Mr Harris who has also seen the records at Mr Yarworth’s premises. At Appendix B is a copy of the applicant’s last license for the premises from DEFRA under The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003.

2.25 In support of the application the Environmental/Planning Statement includes

as an appendix a report prepared by MR R Blowey BSc, BVSC, FRCVS, ARAgs of the Wood Veterinary Group, a veterinary practice based in Gloucester. The report reviews the legislative changes affecting the management and disposal of fallen stock and the importance of storage of carcasses within this process. The report sets out the author’s expert opinion that the service offered by the applicant is very important to the local farming community in particular.

Changes in Animal Health Legislation

2.26 Subsequent to the submission of the planning application the applicant’s

agent has advised of some temporary changes to activities at the site arising from changes to animal health legislation which took place in January 2009.

“… as a temporary measure, Gilders have been bringing fallen cattle aged over 48 months to Orchard Court so that testing can take place. My client advises that during the average week probably around 40 cattle are brought to this site (including cattle which he has himself personally slaughtered). In terms of scale you will appreciate that this is not a particularly large number and my client estimates that more than a third of the cattle tested on the site derive from his own slaughtering. Of particular significance is the fact that this is a temporary measure arising from the changes in legislation. Gilders already enjoy their own lorry operating centre in Winchcombe and have acquired a further site at which they intend to provide their own facilities in the near future, subject of course to appropriate approvals etc. Because of visits to the site by Gilders, my client is no longer utilising his own vehicle for trips to the incinerator etc, therefore the level of traffic movements to and from the site have not altered significantly as Gilders take all carcasses including my clients for incineration etc. On average there are probably no more than 2 – 3 lorry movements to and from the site by Gilders daily and obviously once they have their own site, matters will revert to their previous levels.”

DCAPR09 8/Comreps 10

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

Application number

Description of development Decision /date

08/0008/FDMAJW

Alterations and extension to an existing building and use in association with the storage of animal carcasses allied to an established slaughterman’s business (part retrospective)

Refused July 2008

DF.13371/A/LDC

Application for a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of land and buildings in connection with a business of a slaughter man, excluding; 1. The storage of animal carcasses and parts thereof; and 2. The slaughtering of animals

Granted 11th January 2008

05/0100/FDCERT/CAPS

Application for a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of land and buildings in connection with the applicants business of slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities.

Refused 2006

PE/AG/277 (Application for a Prior Approval Determination)

Application to Forest of Dean DC for a prior approval determination under Part 6 of the General Permitted Development Order in respect of the proposed erection of an agricultural barn.

Determined 4th January 2002

3.1 The site has a relatively complex planning history that is relevant to the

application. In 2002, a prior approval determination was issued by Forest of Dean DC in respect of the erection of an agricultural barn. This is the building subject of the current application. It may be noted that use of the barn for storing of carcasses requires express consent, hence the part-retrospective nature of the current application.

3.2 Prior to the current application, the same site has been the subject of two

previous applications for Certificates of Lawful Use and an application for full planning permission. The first of these applications was submitted in November 2005 following correspondence with Gloucestershire County Council’s Enforcement Officer. That submission sought a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use of land and buildings in connection with the applicants business of slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses and ancillary activities. The application was refused primarily on the basis that a new building had been constructed within the application site, which altered the planning status of the site.


3.3 A second application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use was submitted in 2007 altering the boundaries of the application site to exclude the new building referred to in the earlier decision notice. The application was approved and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use issued on 11th January 2008.

3.4 The current application is a resubmission, an application for the same

development having been refused in July 2008. Member may recall that the previous application was refused for the following reasons: The proposed development would be likely to give rise to significant disamenity to nearby residential properties and the operation of nearby tourist accommodation as a result of odour and noise. The details submitted with the application fail to demonstrate that issues of odour and noise can be adequately controlled. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies (R)FNE.1 and (R)FBE.1 of the Forest of Dean District Local Plan Review and Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012.

3.5 The current application differs from that application in that it includes an

Odour Impact Assessment and an Odour Management Plan. 3.6 One further aspect of the planning history at the site involves an Enforcement

Notice issued in January 2007 by Gloucestershire County Council. The Notice alleged a Breach of Planning Control at Orchard Court, Ruddle, comprising use of land in connection with a business of the slaughtering and storage of animal carcasses (or parts thereof) and associated residues and ancillary activities. The applicant appealed in February 2007. Following submission of evidence by the appellant that the relevant activities had been taking place for over ten years it was subsequently agreed that the Enforcement Notice would be withdrawn and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use would be issued by the County Council. This would be in respect of that part of the overall site for which the second application had been submitted albeit in limiting terms.

3.7 Effectively as a precursor to the planning application now being considered,

the applicant agreed that if the Enforcement Notice were withdrawn and a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use issued, then the only outstanding matter would relate to use of the modern agricultural building at the southwestern corner of the existing yard and that matter would most appropriately be dealt with by means of a planning application which would be forwarded to the County Council by the end of January 2008, as this has been.

3.8 Related to the planning history has been an extensive history of odour

complaints made by nearby residents, arising from the storage of carcasses at the site. This resulted in the service of a formal Odour Abatement Notice by Forest of Dean District Council and a subsequent successful prosecution of the applicant due to breaches of that Notice. Further regular complaints have been made since that time, and a further Abatement Notice is pending at the site.


4.0 PLANNING POLICY Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) 4.1 PPS10 encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste and

to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

4.2 When determining planning applications the PPS is a material consideration

which may supersede policies in development plans and Waste Planning Authorities should therefore not place requirements on applicants which are inconsistent with the PPS.

4.3 In considering application for waste management facilities the statement

indicates that authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and amenity.

4.4 The requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their proposal represents

the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), that was a former requirement of previous guidance (PPG10) has been removed.

Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) 4.5 PPS23 sets out the material considerations that should be taken into account

determining planning applications for developments that may give rise to pollution. PPS23 notes that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary.

4.6 PPS23 states that any air or water consideration is capable of being a

material consideration in so far as it affects land use. The planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of the processes or emissions themselves. Planning Authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it.

4.7 PPS23 recommends close liaison with pollution control authorities and that

Planning Authorities should ensure that the pollution control authority is satisfied the proposal can be regulated under the pollution control regime. Planning Authorities should also ensure that the cumulative effects of the pollution from a proposal, taking into account the existing sources of pollution, do not make a proposal unacceptable.

Regional Planning Guidance 10 – Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (2001) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (2006) 4.8 RPG 10 interprets the national planning policy framework at the South West

regional level and is part of the statutory development plan and therefore must be considered. Policy RE5 sets down regional targets for reducing landfill of


industrial waste and gives priority to recovery facilities in or near the Principal Urban Areas in order to achieve sustainable waste management.

4.9 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 - 2026 has been

issued for consultation and a panel report of the Examination in Public has now been produced. The Secretary of State published proposed changes on 22nd July 2008 to the RSS with the Secretary of State aiming to adopt the final RSS during the summer of 2009. The RSS is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, although the policies do not have full weight at present. Policy W2 is relevant which advocates the following hierarchy when making provision for waste facilities:

1. On the site management, where possible; 2. Proximity principle i.e. waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable

to the place where it is generated. (However the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, although the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste); and

3. Preference for established and proposed industrial sites and previously

developed land, In rural areas there should be provision of a network of local waste management facilities. Major sources of waste arising in rural areas will be treated locally, unless specialised facilities are required.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review (Adopted 1999) 4.10 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates

that the Adopted Structure Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The following policies are ‘saved’ under the transitional arrangements and are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy S4 Development in rural settlements. Policy S.6 Local Character and Distinctiveness. Policy E4 which relates to rural commercial and industrial development and seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside. Policy WM.2 – relates to the provision of an integrated network of waste management facilities in the county, and their potential environmental impacts including the amenity of local communities and the water-based environment. Policy WM.3 – promotes establishment of facilities in appropriate locations to deal with local waste. Policy P.1 – relates to the potential polluting impacts of development.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration (Unadopted) incorporating Proposed Modifications (July 2004) and Proposed Second Modifications (January 2005). 4.11 The Third Alteration has had an Examination in Public in November/December

2003. Two sets of Proposed Modifications have been produced. In April 2005


a Secretary of State Direction was issued on the Plan. Due to this Direction, the Plan remains held in abeyance and will not be forwarded to adoption. However the policies of the Third Alteration still remain as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The policies not cited in the Direction have substantial weight as material considerations.

4.12 The following policies are material considerations in respect of determining

the proposed development: Policy SD.23 - Applies to the provision of waste management facilities – gives preference to industrial sites or existing facilities as locations for waste facilities. Policy MR.10 - Controls development in respect of pollution impacts.

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002 – 2012 (Adopted October 2004) 4.13 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates

that the Adopted Waste Local Plan’s Development Plan status must be considered. The Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004. However, following the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s Direction (dated 5th October 2007) the following WLP policies are ‘saved’ until replaced by Development Plan Documents contained in the Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks.

Policy 25 – Relates to conserving biodiversity.

Policy 33 - Relates to the impact of waste development on surface

watercourses and ground water bodies.

Policy 37 - Relates to the effect of the proposal on nearby properties and indicates where appropriate ameliorative measures should be incorporated to control noise, dust, litter and odour.

Policy 38 - Indicates that the Waste Planning Authority can restrict hours of operation where necessary.

Policy 40 - Relates to traffic on the highway network and highway safety. The following policies of the Waste Local Plan are ’unsaved’ but still have a degree of materiality as they have been through an inquiry process. Policies that the Waste Planning Authority did not request to be saved carry less weight than those it did request to be saved. The policies relevant to the proposed development are:

Policy 1 - Indicates that waste proposals should represent the best practicable environmental option. (However, the subsequent national PPS10 has no formal requirement for applicants to undertake a BPEO analysis.)

Policy 2 - Restricts the transportation of waste outside the county

boundary to circumstances when it is necessary for regional self-


sufficiency.

Policy 3 - Relates to the proximity principle, which states that waste should be dealt with as near as is practicable to the place where it is generated. (Although the proximity principle is no longer a term advocated in PPS10, the PPS encourages communities to take responsibility for their own waste.)

Policy 6 - Relates to development of waste management facilities at sites other than those identified within the Waste Local Plan. These will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the facility is essential to support sustainable waste management; meets the relevant policies and criteria of the WLP; are likely to be a better option than the methods and sites identified in Schedules 1 and 2. The WLP suggests that waste management facilities will normally only be acceptable within industrial sites, previously development land or on mineral workings.

Policy 7 - Safeguards existing waste management facilities. The supporting text to Policy 7 indicates that current sites are part of the existing infrastructure and help to deliver waste management services to Gloucestershire and such sites may have the potential to increase their capacity, or to diversify to provide additional waste services.

Policy 13 – Relates to Materials Recovery and Waste Transfer Facilities.

Policy 34 - Relates to the impact of development on the flow of surface

water, or otherwise resulting in flooding.

Of the Policies outlined above, the Waste Planning Authority did request that policies 6, 7 and 34 be saved. Forest of Dean Local Plan (Adopted November 2005)

4.14 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates

that the Forest of Dean District Council Local Plan’s Development plan status must be considered. The complete Local Plan remains part of the Development Plan at present and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development.

(R)FE.2 Development on Established Employment Sites (R)FE.5 Employment in the Countryside (R)FBE.22 Environmental Pollution (R)FBE.1 Design of development


5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The proposal was advertised by a site notice erected on the 4th December

2008 and which expired on the 29th December 2008, and an advertisement in a locally circulating newspaper dated 4th December 2008, which expired on the 29th December 2008. In accordance with the protocol contained within the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (Adopted December 2005) 23 letters were sent to residents and premises located within 250 metres of the site boundary to notify them about the application. A further letter was sent out to neighbours in respect of changes to activities at the site as confirmed by the applicant’s agent in his letter dated 3rd March 2009.

5.2 At the time of writing this report correspondence has been received from

eleven local residents raising concerns about the application and operation of the site and objecting to the proposed development. Copies of all representations have been made available to Members for inspection prior to this Committee. The objections raised may be summarised as:

Given the close proximity of residential properties and the public footpath

this is an inappropriate place to store dead animals. Photographs taken from a property on Wellington Terrace in the summer of 2008 show gas from the carcases escaping when the shed doors are closed. There is at least one other site within The Forest of Dean which does not have the same residential amenities close by and which the owner has expressed an interest in converting for use as this type of waste facility

Two neighbours were forced to move house due to the devastating impact that the gradual increase in the smell from Orchard Court was having on their health.

Ongoing odour problems are completely unacceptable and would be increased as a result of the proposed development;

The site has been operated with a disregard for neighbours and there is no guarantee that this will improve in the future;

Increased lorry movements would result in noise and road safety problems, and are not compatible with the Severn Way footpath that uses the same access point from the main road;

The fact the building has been licensed by DEFRA does not mean that all planning issues have been addressed

The construction and extension of a building in order to continue the storage of carcasses with appropriate odour control is not in accordance with the Gloucestershire Waste Management Plan.

What drainage arrangements are in place that will prevent any accidental spillage?

Obnoxious smells from rotting putrid animal carcasses leading to devastating affect on Quality of Life and Human Rights of local residents. nauseating and totally unacceptable smell and even if Mr Yarworth takes action against the smell, it may not be to an acceptable standard and precautions should be put in place;


How could permission be granted for an extension to an existing building that is being used illegally?

Should use a sealed unit, including a refrigeration unit, for storage of carcasses;

Concern for spread of infection to other livestock in the vicinity; The smell has prevented the opening of holiday cottages and a B&B

across the road. 5.3 The following comments have been received in connection with the proposed

Odour Management Plan (OMP):

The calculations used in determining which ventilation system might be appropriate do not relate to this odour and are therefore fairly meaningless and in no way can be presumed to assure success of any system installed.

There is no requirement that the building be made air tight which would seem to negate any advantage that might be gained from installing a ventilation system.

The application requests consent for up to 10 large lorry movements a day. Why, if no expansion is planned, would this amount of traffic movement ever occur?

The complaints procedure is wholly inadequate; Every person who lives on Wellington Terrace and at Underhill Farm has

complained, as have others in the village. The smell has, in part, been the reason for one couple giving up their tourist business at Underhill Farm.

It is recommended that carcasses be removed by large lorry every 2 days to alleviate risks of odour and yet this waste facility is purported to reduce vehicle movements to the incinerator or rendering facility;

Concern about future expansion of the business on this site; Without considerably greater investment than is suggested in the OMP the

odour problem will not be adequately addressed; No confidence in Mr Yarworth's intention to comply with any requirements

should planning be granted. Author of odour management plan and odour impact assessment has never experienced the activity personally. Figures in section 2.3 of the management plan do not make sense and cause a smoke screen; 10-12 tonnes of rotting carcasses per week and every 2 days an artic lorry would be collecting 2-2.5 tonnes, which is unrealistic. Section 2.3 - Why does burner breaking down lead to increase from 10-12 tonnes/week to 25 tonnes/week;

5.4 4 petitions containing a total of 111 signatories have been received objecting

to further development of the land at Orchard Court for the storage of animal carcasses due to odour. Records and photographic evidence of the intensity of lorry movements into and out of the site have been received.

5.5 The following comments were received in respect of changes to activities at the site arising from changes to animal health legislation.


5.6 A further 6 letters of objection have been received from local residents in response to the recent intensification of activities at the site. Local residents are concerned that the number of carcasses being handled at the site is much greater than the figure of approximately 40 per week as quoted by the applicant.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS 6.1 Forest of Dean District Council

Forest of Dean District Council objects to the application and comments as follows:

6.2 Conservation Officer – Collow is an attractive small hamlet with a long

association of river trade. The principle building is Underhill Farm (Grade II Listed) which has recently undergone restoration and been removed from the local Buildings at Risk register. It is used as a high quality visitor accommodation. The footpath that approaches Underhill Farm directly from the river Severn follows the boundary of the site. Any increase in volume or scale would have further visual impact on the setting of and approach to, the listed building. It may also be a consideration that any increase in trade may have further impact on the tourism business operated from Underhill Farm.

6.3 Environmental Health Officer – Objection, I am not satisfied that that the

details submitted with the application will adequately control environmental issues of odour and noise. (See further comments below).

Policies 6.4 (R)FNE.1 – Natural Environment; (R)FBE.1 – Built Environment

District Local Plan Review (Adopted) Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) Evaluation 6.5 The following issues are considered relevant in determining this application:

Visual Amenity Residential Amenity Impact Upon Listed Building Building History Impact on Tourism Visual Amenity

6.6 The extension proposed is considered to be in character and scale with that of the existing buildings. It is not going to be any higher that the existing building and therefore it is felt that the extension is not going to be visually intrusive.


In considering the visual impact the comments under the heading ‘Building History’ should also be considered.

Residential Amenity 6.7 The additional information submitted by the applicant is noted however, this

has not addressed the fundamental concerns of the previous proposal. The nearest neighbouring properties to the application site are Underhill Farm (Grade II Listed Building) and 1-6 Welling Terrace situated on the opposite side of the A48 road, approximately 80m distance away. The use of the site has resulted in an extensive history of odour complaints from nearby residents. Environmental Health Department has received regular complaints, which were substantiated and resulted in service of a formal abatement notice and a subsequent successful prosecution. Since this prosecution further regular complaints have been made which are the subject of on-going investigation. The Environmental Protection & Licensing Officer has confirmed that he objects to this proposal on odour and noise issues. Therefore it is considered that the proposal to store carcasses, with the associated odours, is not acceptable and would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents, contrary to Policy (R)FBE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.

Impact Upon Listed Building

6.8 Underhill Farm is situated on the other side of the A48 road and is a Grade II

Listed Building in use as tourism accommodation. Due to the proximity of the Listed Building to the site the proposal would be detrimental to the beneficial use of the adjacent Listed Building, as tourist accommodation. This would adversely affect the Listed Building contrary to advice in PPG15.

Building History 6.9 An agricultural prior determination was submitted to this authority in 2001 and

was approved. The building that has commenced on site and is the subject of this application is in a different position to that approved under the agricultural determination. Consequently, the lawful status of the building is in question. The County Council should in their determination of the application consider the impact of the building itself as well as its use.

Impact on Tourism 6.10 The District Local Plan Review identifies the need to increase the number of

staying visitors within the Forest area. Retention of the use of the application site for storage of carcasses would, due to the odour problems associated with the use, have an adverse effect on the tourist accommodation at Underhill Farm, contrary to policy (R)FNE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.


Conclusion 6.11 The proposal would allow an inappropriate commercial use to continue near to

residential and tourist properties, including a Grade II Listed Building (Underhill Farm), would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of nearby residential properties and the operation of tourist accommodation by reason of odour. Furthermore it may adversely affect the Listed Building Underhill Farm contrary to advice in PPG15 and Policies (R)FNE.1 and (R)FBE.1 of the District Local Plan Review.

6.12 Forest of Dean Environmental Health Officer objects to the application and makes the following comments: “ The current use of this site, for which this application relates, has resulted in an extensive history of odour complaints from nearby residents. Since 2003, the Environmental Health Department has received regular complaints, which were substantiated and resulted in the service of a formal abatement notice and a subsequent successful prosecution. Since then, further regular complaints have been made which are the subject of on-going investigation and possible enforcement action.

Therefore I am very concerned that unless operations carried out on the site are designed and managed appropriately, there is a proven potential for substantial detriment to amenity of nearby residential properties.

Due to the site’s location causing an inherent very high odour nuisance risk, I strongly object to the use of the site for this purpose in the first instance. An alternative site away from odour sensitive properties should be used instead.

However, whilst not to inhibit my fundamental objection above, I comment on the details submitted with the application as follows:

I am not satisfied that the odour management measures proposed in the Odour Management Plan will adequately prevent detriment to amenity to nearby residents.

It is incorrect to assume that a more frequent collection of carcasses will reduce the odour source potential – carcasses are often on an advanced state of decay on-farm before they are received at Orchard Court. Washing of vehicle trailers in some cases may actually increase the odour source potential because the washings themselves will be odorous. Unless very carefully controlled, the odorous liquid will remain on ground surfaces and in drainage systems causing an odour source. Such necessary control is not mentioned in the OMP. There is no mention of the need to ensure a door between the storage area and the loading bay is kept closed and sealed air-tight while the loading bay doors are open.


Truly effective and reliable odour abatement is notoriously difficult to achieve. A robust, case proven odour abatement system will therefore need to be proposed, and its effectiveness fully described, assessed and guaranteed before it can be considered suitable for this high odour-risk development. To maintain negative pressure to effectively prevent fugitive emissions, a large fan/s running at high speed is likely to be necessary. Such a fan will need to be carefully designed and specified in order to control the likely noise emissions Unless the noise emissions are controlled effectively they will be likely to cause substantial detriment to the amenity of local residents. Details of the fan and its noise control are not included in the OMP. Due to the site’s proximity to nearby residents and their down-prevailing-wind locations, this site is inherently very high risk for its odour nuisance potential. Therefore, if permission is granted, very careful and effective odour and noise control measures would be crucial in this case to ensure that the nuisance currently being suffered by nearby residents is stopped.” In respect of recent changes in the level of activity at the site the Forest of Dean District Council’s Environmental Health Officer had the following comments: “ I continue to receive regular complaints from the residents living close to this site. They report to me that they continue to suffer a substantial odour nuisance caused by the activities at the site. Residents also report that activity at the site has recently intensified. The residents report that this is causing an increase in strength and regularity of odour nuisance, in addition to the nuisance already suffered. I remain very concerned that effective and suitable noise and odour control at this site is very unlikely to be achievable in this case. This is because of the significant technological and managerial challenges that would be required, exacerbated by the sites’ close proximity to nearby residents. I am very concerned that if operations carry on at the site, they will continue to cause substantial nuisance and detriment to amenity to nearby residents. My strong objection to this application therefore remains, as outlined in my previous consultation response dated 5th December 2009.”

6.13 Newnham Parish Council

The Parish Council has considerable concerns regarding the effect that the above planning application. Local experience of this situation particularly on days of high temperatures makes us aware of the odours that are caused, and the fact that the carcasses can be seen being eaten by the owner’s dog and large birds.


In the past when agricultural buildings have received planning permission the Authority has, as part of the approval, asked for landscaping, in other words the planting or growing of densely leaved and heavy trees to serve as barriers which would be of very obvious benefit to neighbours and people using the Public Footpath. The Parish Council and local people have never understood why Mr Yarworth has to locate his buildings so close to the A48, Public Footpaths and dwellings as he has other parcels of adjoining land that could be used without affecting the general public. Newnham on Severn Parish Council are not happy regarding this application - we expect your Authority to carry out "unheralded" inspections. Landscaping to include tree screening ie vivid blue 'polythene' roofing does not add to the renowned Severn Valley views from St Peters Church also the adjoining public footpath (west of Severn Walkway).

6.14 Councillor S McMillan, local councillor (comments received in respect of

application ref. 08/0008/FDMAJW) “ In case you are not aware, this site has a history where neither the District

Council nor County Council have covered themselves in glory, in my opinion. (That would probably be seen as too kind by some residents).

Some comments on this application if it connected to a prospective increase

in business activity (I can’t tell from the paperwork I have seen):

1) I believe there is potential for an increase in size of lorries using it. 2) I believe the frequency of lorry use may increase. 3) I believe that there is a an issue with highway safety at the entrance to the

site as vehicles have to pull out onto the opposite side of the road to get in and out as the entrance s too narrow.

4) I suspect that on egress, the visibility to the left from the entrance is not good either.

I do hope that a proper level of dialogue is maintained from the start with the District Council to avoid some of the communication and decision making difficulties that have occurred over this site in the last five years.

I particularly request that proper compliance with whatever planning permissions allowed is monitored and enforced. I note that an element of the application is retrospective, implying that works have been carried out without proper permission. Given that this application for an extension and alteration is to a building that should not have been allowed in the first place, and with a retrospective element included, you may understand the heightened sense of interest and concern locally.”


6.15 County Highways Representative does not object to the application and states:

“ I recommend that no highway objection be raised subject to the following

condition(s) being attached to any permission granted:-

The proposed extension shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the existing use of the main building.

Reason: To ensure that no separate additional use/unit is established on the site requiring further vehicular access or parking provision.

Within 1 month of the development hereby being granted consent details for the modification of the existing vehicular access shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning manager. These details shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the approval.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory access is provided in the Interests of Highway Safety.

Note: The proposed development will require the alteration of a vehicular crossing from the carriageway and the Applicant is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire Highways on 08000 514 514 before commencing works on the highway.

Note: The vehicle crossing needs to be extended by 2m to properly accommodate vehicle-turning movements associated with the development.”

6.17 The Environment Agency: The Agency has no objections to the proposed development and comments: The continued use of the septic tank soakaway for the discharge of steam cleaning effluent from the cleaning of trailers used to transport carcasses is acceptable provided it is adequately sized and no chemicals are used. Any clean water must be directed away from the soakaway. .

6.22 Animal Health

REGULATION (EC) NO 1774/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HEALTH RULES CONCERNING ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION THE ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 2005 (SI 2005/2347)

Under the above regulations Mr Paul Yarworth's plant is classed as an

Intermediate Plant approved to process Category 1, 2 and 3 by-products. Category 1 or Category 2 intermediate plant’ means a plant in which unprocessed Category 1 or Category 2 material is handled and/or temporarily stored for the purpose of further transportation to its final destination and


where certain preliminary activities, such as removal of hides and skins and performing post-mortem examinations, may take place. A wheeled/mobile trailer does not meet intermediate plant requirements. If planning permission were not granted for the current application then Mr Yarworth could not operate an intermediate plant as he would not be able to handle or bulk up material at this site. But the parking of vehicles containing animal carcasses on route to the disposal point does not require an intermediate plant approval provided the parking does not constitute undue delay and that the parking is not a risk to animal or public health. Orchard Court is also approved under The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 as an approved sampling site - to remove the brain stem from eligible cattle and send it to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to be analysed.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Archaeology 7.1 The application site has been checked against the County Sites and

Monuments Record and there is no known archaeology at this location. It is the view of the Senior Archaeological Officer that this development has low potential to adversely affect archaeological remains, and I therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation or recording should be required in connection with this scheme.

Ecology

7.2 The County Council’s Ecology Officer comments: 7.3 “The development lies over 3km from the Severn Estuary SSSI, SPA and

cSAC site but its scale and nature are such that there is no likelihood for there to be a significant effect on this European Marine Site either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

7.4 I note that the new extension (only part of this application) will mean the loss

of a section of an existing bank in the southwest corner. This bank is well vegetated and over time would develop some value for breeding birds and small mammals. I therefore advise that the developer should compensate for this loss. An appropriate measure would be to (re-) create a continuous hedgerow along the northern boundary of the application site. The benefit of doing this is that the hedgerow abutting the A48 would be strengthened to the advantage of various species. This could be easily achieved by a short section of infill planting of native shrubs on the western end of the northern boundary. I would also recommend one or two appropriate native trees are planted here to be managed as standards above the hedge line.


7.5 To conclude, a hedgerow and tree planting scheme for the northern boundary

is required as a condition for any consent granted.”

Planning 7.6 This proposal is for the erection of a single-bay width extension to an existing

agricultural style building and would extend the building by 6.35m, using the same roof heights and other dimensions. The extension would be small in scale and would be at the southern end of the building, facing away from the road. For these reasons it is considered that the extension would not be prominent in any views from nearby dwellings or public vantage points. It would not affect the setting of the Grade II Listed Underhill Farm. In addition, I do not consider that any potential visual impact on the nearby Underhill Farm’s use as a tourist facility should be accorded any weight as a material consideration in terms of either that building’s Listed status or Policy (R)FHE.3 of the District Local Plan Review, November 2005 . Therefore, from the perspective of appearance, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable.

7.7 The proposal is part retrospective in that the use of the building to store

animal carcasses, which already takes place, is not permitted, and requires planning permission. The use of the wider application site in connection with a slaughterman’s business has been established, and that use is not at issue. However, due to changes in animal health legislation since the use commenced at the site, there is a requirement for storage and testing of carcasses in a building. As a consequence, use of the wider site for a slaughterman’s business would not be able to continue without planning permission being granted for carcase storage and testing.

7.8 The service provided at and from the site is important to the local agricultural

community and economy, and is also important as part of animal health management beyond the agriculture sector. Depending on which alternative site(s) come forward, the loss of the facility may require increased transport requirements at economic and environmental cost. In terms of the environment, increasing the distance over which carcasses are transported would have adverse impacts on air quality and noise levels. In addition it is noted that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to unacceptable impacts on landscape, biodiversity, cultural heritage, the water environment, highway capacity or highway safety. In terms of the local economy this has to be balanced against the loss of tourism trade at the nearby Underhill Farm that is used as a bed and breakfast and for holiday lets.

7.9 There is an extensive history of odour complaints at the site, which have

arisen principally from the storage and handling of carcasses. These complaints are referred to in the consultation response of the District Environmental Health Officer. The District Council has received further complaints in respect of the recent intensification of activity at the site. As summarised in this report there is evidently a high level of opposition to the planning application from local residents, local businesses and the District’s


Environmental Health Officer. Past performance is not in itself a valid reason for refusal, but the past and continuing effects on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in this instance is a significant material planning consideration. If the application is approved then it is implicit that storage of carcasses will continue at the site.

7.10 While the recent increase in the frequency of carcass collections has the

potential to reduce odour generation at the site this is dependent on a number of factors including the method of carcass handling at the site. It is considered to be of paramount importance that all carcasses would need to be loaded and unloaded within a fully enclosed building. It is also considered that the scale of the building extension is appropriate in terms of its impact on landscape and visual amenity. Taking the odour and the landscape/visual amenity issues together I conclude that the proposed development would provide an important facility for the local market, but that the site does not represent an appropriate location for a testing and bulking up facility serving the whole of Gloucestershire and/or beyond.

7.11 There are two main options for addressing the odour problem permanently. The first would be to refuse permission for the proposed development, preventing use of the building for carcass storage, and therefore leading to slaughterman activities largely having to cease at the site. This would improve the living conditions of residents in the locality, but would have the adverse economic and environmental effects outlined above (see para 7.8).

7.12 The second option would be to grant permission, allowing the business to

continue, but subject to very strict conditions controlling the scale and nature of activities taking place, and which ensure that odour and noise control is fully addressed. The measures proposed in the submitted odour management plan are not considered to be sufficient to avoid harm to residential amenity. However, it is considered to be technically possible to provide facilities to control and abate odour and noise, albeit that such modifications would need to be substantial. In order for this proposal to be acceptable, detailed odour and noise impact assessments and management plans, including the use of a fully sealed building maintained under negative air pressure, would need to be submitted, approved by the appropriate consultees, and then implemented and maintained in full for the duration of operations at the site.

7.13 I consider that the second approach offers the most appropriate balance

between protecting the amenities of local residents and securing an important local sectoral waste facility. In taking this approach I recognise that the current odour management proposals are not acceptable, but I have mind to the fact that it is technically possible to implement a suitable scheme that removes the odour impacts on the nearby residential properties. The effect of the recommended planning conditions would be to require the applicant to implement and maintain such an odour management scheme, and unless this is done then the overall proposal is not acceptable. The impact on the nearby tourist-related business at Underhill Farm is a material consideration. However, the odour mitigation measures and planning conditions would when


fully implemented mean that significant detrimental odour will not arise at the nearby residential properties and therefore it should not adversely affect Underhill Farm’s trade.

7.14 The facility forms an important element of waste management capacity

handling predominantly agricultural animal waste from the local area, and hence is well aligned with PPS10 advice that communities should seek to take greater responsibility for wastes arising in their local area. There is demand for increased waste processing capacity for commercial and industrial wastes in particular. I also consider the proposal accords with the ‘unsaved’ Policies 3 and 6 of the adopted Waste Local Plan. As the Waste Planning Authority sought for Policy 6 to be saved it is appropriate to give this policy a degree of weight, although little weight should be attached to Policy 3 of the adopted Waste Local Plan.

7.15 The proposed development would not create any risk to water resources and

does not conflict with Policy 33 of the Waste Local Plan. The site does not give rise to any flood risk and the Environment Agency does not object. Therefore there is no conflict with Policy 34 of the Waste Local Plan.

7.16 The odour management plan submitted with the current application does not

satisfy my concerns in respect of the proposal’s potential to cause harm to residential amenity. However, I am of the opinion that it is technically possible for the proposed development to incorporate appropriate measures to minimise adverse impacts on local amenity. I consider that, subject to conditions concerning operation of the facility, the proposed development can be accommodated at the site without unacceptable impacts on the amenity, character and appearance of the local area and it would not conflict with Policy 37 of the Waste Local Plan or policies (R)FBE.1, (R)FNE.6, (R)FHE.3, (R)FNE.1, or (R)FTRL.2 of the Forest of Dean.

7.17 The County Highways Officer does not object to the proposed development,

and has considered the additional vehicular movements associated with the ‘temporary’ use of the site for animal testing. In addition, whilst a public right of way runs from the A48 via the access to the site and then alongside the main site itself, I do not consider that the proposal has a significant impact on this right of way.

Human Rights

7.18 From 2nd October 2000 the Human Rights Act 1998 has the effect of

enshrining much of the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law. Under 6(1) of the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by Section 6(1) and that he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act, may bring proceedings against the authority under the Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or may rely on the convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings.


7.19 The main Convention rights relevant when considering planning proposals are Article 1 of the First Protocol (the peaceful enjoyment of property) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life). Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life. Article 8 also provides that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the freedom of others.

7.20 Objections have been received from local residents relating to concerns about odour, increased lorry movements, noise, highway safety, water pollution and impacts on a footpath. For the reasons set out in the observations of the Head of Planning and Development, and subject to the conditions in this report being imposed, it is not thought there would be any breach of the convention rights. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development.

Conclusions and summary reasons for grant of planning permission and relevant development plan policies and proposals

7.21 The service provided at and from the site is important to the local agricultural

community and economy, and is also important as part of animal health management beyond the agriculture sector. Loss of the facility may result in an increase in transport distances for animal carcases which would have adverse environmental and economic consequences. I consider that, subject to conditions, particularly the requirement for a robust odour management scheme, this application is acceptable both in terms of its impact on the environment and on traffic and accords with the relevant development plan policies. The specific issues of odour, noise and HGV movements to which objections have been received can be suitably mitigated and controlled through the use of appropriate planning conditions. This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan policies, including the following:

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review - policies Policy S4, S.6,

E4, which relates to rural commercial and industrial development. Policy WM.2, WM3 and P1.

Gloucestershire Structure Plan Third Alteration Deposit Draft - policy SD.24, MR.10.

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan – ‘saved’ policies 37 and 40. ‘Unsaved’ policies 3 and 6.

Forest of Dean District Local Plan Review policies R)FBE.1, (R)FNE.6, (R)FHE.3, (R)FNE.1, and (R)FTRL.2.


7.22 The summary of reasons for granting approval is as follows:

The Council is of the opinion that provided a suitable odour management scheme is put in place and maintained for the duration of operations, the proposed development gives rise to no material harm, is in accordance with the development plan and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made otherwise.

8.0 Recommendation 8.1 Therefore I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED for the

reasons set out in this report and summarised at paragraphs and 7.21 and 7.22 and subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

Commencement 1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Development to be in Accordance with Approved Plans

2. Unless varied by other conditions of this consent, or unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted application form, supporting information and plans 2054.08.i dated 8.10.2008, 2054.08.iv dated 8.10.2008, 2054.08.v dated 8.10.2008 and 2054.08.vi dated 8.10.2008. For the avoidance of doubt, the area subject to this application, hereafter referred to as ‘the site’, is the area outlined in red on plan 2054.08.i.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details in the submitted planning application in the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Hours of Operation

3. Except in emergencies, which the Waste Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of, no Heavy Goods Vehicles shall enter or leave the site other than between the following hours: 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance Policies 37 and 38 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Highways

4. No vehicle accessing the site, in connection with the development hereby

permitted, shall exceed 8m in length and no more than 8 vehicle movements


in connection with the operation hereby permitted shall take place at the site in any day. Details of commercial vehicle sizes and movements are to be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority upon request.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

5. Within 3 months of the date of this planning permission, the public right of way

access road from the A48 to the site boundary , as depicted on plan 2054.08 i, is to be surfaced in a consolidated material in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason: To provide and maintain a suitable access for vehicles and pedestrians.

6. Within 3 months of the date of this planning permission, a sign warning drivers

of approaching pedestrians is to be erected at the side of the access road in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety. 7. Any gates erected across the access road are to be set back a minimum of

10m from the carriageway edge and shall open inwards only. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the

Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. 8. The proposed extension as depicted on Plan No. 2054.08.vi dated 8.10.2008

shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the existing use of the main building.

Reason: To ensure that no separate additional use/unit is established on the site requiring further vehicular access or parking provision.

9. Within 1 month of the development hereby being granted consent details for

the strengthening and widening of the existing vehicular access shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by Waste Planning Authority. These details shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the approval.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory access is provided in the interests of Highway Safety in accordance with Policy 40 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Odour

10. All animal carcasses and animal residues stored at the site will kept in a fully enclosed building.


Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

11. All animal carcass and animal residue handling will take place within a fully

enclosed building which is maintained under negative pressure at all times and all openings between the storage area and the loading bay will be closed while the loading bay doors are open.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

12. Within two months of the date of this permission a scheme for the effective

control and management of odours produced by activities at the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include, as a minimum:

1. An odour management plan (including specification of a fully enclosed

building, specification and use of a suitable odour abatement system, details of measures to control odorous liquid generated by the washing of delivery vehicles);

2. A comprehensive complaint response procedure. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in full within four months of the date of this permission. Operations at the site shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the scheme as submitted and approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. Noise

13. Within three months of the date of this permission a scheme for the effective control and management of noise produced by activities at the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include, as a minimum:

1. Noise impact assessment (including details of vehicle movements on, to

and from site); 2. Noise management plan; 3. Details of the fan unit proposed to maintain negative pressure in the

building including measures to control noise emissions from the fan. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in full within four months of the date of this permission. Operations at the site shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the scheme as submitted and approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.


Landscaping 14. Within two months of the date of this permission a scheme for the planting

reinforcement of the hedgerow on the northern boundary of the application site extending for the width of the frontage to the A48 highway and on the eastern boundary of the application site adjacent to the public right of way shall be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented no later than the next planting season following the commencement of development of the building extension hereby permitted. Within five years of planting, any trees, shrubs, or other plants that die or become diseased, are removed or damaged, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of a similar size and species in accordance with the details of the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies 37 and 43 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan. Drainage

15. Within two months of the date of this permission details of the size of the septic tank soakaway for the discharge of effluent shall submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. No chemicals will be used in the treatment of the aforementioned effluent. Any clean water must be directed away from the soakaway.

Reason: To control discharges to the water environment in accordance with Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan.

Notes to applicant The proposed development will require the alteration of a vehicular crossing from the carriageway and the applicant is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire Highways before commencing works on the highway

The vehicle crossing needs to be extended by 2m to properly accommodate vehicle-turning movements associated with the development.

Background Papers: Planning Application Forms and accompanying plans Consultation Reponses and letters of Representations. Planning application 08/0008/FDMAJW. Contact Officer: Case Officer – Atkins (Neil Carpenter) Gillian Parkinson Legal and Democratic Services. Application History Consultee Time taken (weeks) Forest of Dean District Council 4 weeks 6 days Newnham Parish Council 2 weeks Environment Agency 12 weeks 1 day County Highways 8 weeks 1 day Ecology 3 weeks 1 day Archaeology 4 days Time taken 16 weeks