Decision details

A report was presented on a retrospective application for the change of use of land to the site at the Former Haulage Yard, Simonswood Industrial Park, Stopgate Lane, Simonswood, for the processing of inert waste to produce recycled aggregates. 

The report included the views of Knowsley Council, Simonswood Parish Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Environment Agency and LCC Highways Development Control. No comments had been received from West Lancashire Borough Council. Two representations objecting to the application had been received, the details of which had been provided in the Committee report.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which contained details of West Lancashire Borough Council's objections and details of three further representations from Councillor Brennan, Councillor Wright and Councillor Rowe from Knowsley Council.

The Head of Development Control presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans, aerial views and photographs of the view from the site entrance and view of the site.

Dale Milburn, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I'm Dale Milburn, Knowsley's Executive Director for Regeneration & Economic Development, and I have responsibility for the Council's planning function. The application before you remains largely unchanged from the application you refused in October 2023. Consequently, my comments today largely remain unchanged from when I last addressed you, so apologies if you've heard this before. Members, I told you last time that Simonswood is no longer an industrial estate, it's more like a waste estate, and sadly that remains the case today. I know you're aware how bad the conditions are as you visited the site. The amount of waste being processed on the site significantly exceeds what your local plan allows and has been a total failure of regulation to the detriment of local residents. You agreed with me last time that it's not appropriate to continue to allow waste activities on an estate where significant problems and evidence that the infrastructure simply cannot cope with what is already there. You took an opportunity to draw a line under it rather than continue to make things worse. With this in mind, I will turn to the application itself, which I do not feel is capable of support, and I respectfully urge you to move an alternative motion to refuse the application as you did last time. I note your officers state that your local plan is time expired, which it is by some four years and therefore they assert its policies no longer carry much weight. I assume this is their argument to try and justify the proposal not being in a building which is required by your waste plan and why they are happy to allow a further waste processing at Simonswood, despite the estate already having over three times the amount of permitted waste it should have. I'm sorry Members, but that justification just does not hold water. To be clear, this proposal is contrary to policy WM4, which requires the processing to be in a building; one is not proposed. You clearly thought this was necessary last time and for consistency purposes, I'm sure you'll be of the same opinion this time. Access to the site is via the worst section of the estate road in terms of its condition and there is no certainty that the section of road will be improved, despite what the officer report says. There is an open boundary to the estate road which allows material to spill out, which it's clearly been doing and will probably continue to do even if planning conditions are imposed. I do not agree with or support the reference to need in the report, although I welcome its reference, given my insistence that it was required last time, albeit your officers guidance at that time was that it was irrelevant.
There still isn't space for a proper wheel cleaning facility on site, or at least sufficient space is not being given over to provide one. I can only assume that this is because it would reduce the space available for the storage of waste. Given the nature of the site, I'd say a wheel wash is an essential requirement and I think you agreed with me on this point last time. Members, this is not the right development for this site, despite the conditions recommended by your officers, the application is largely the same as the one you refused and I respectfully ask that you refuse it again.'

Councillor Tony Brennan, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Good morning Chair, good morning, councillors. As stated in addition to me sitting on Knowsley's planning committee, I'm also deputy leader of Knowsley Council and also the Council's cabinet member for regeneration and Economic Development and therefore fully appreciate the constraints in which you make your decision on applications such as that before you this morning. That said, as planning Committee members, we must offer challenge to the advice offered by our officers. Especially if after balancing all of the facts, we come to a different judgment. Unsurprisingly, I was fully supportive of your decision to refuse permission the last time the committee considered a waste use on this site. I hope that we can still count on the support of councillors Berry, Clark, Cullens, Hindle, Holgate, Pattison, Pope, and Westley, who voted to refuse an almost identical application in October 2023. Councillor Westley, when you moved to refuse the last application, you said the industrial estate has been deteriorating for the last 15 years. You identified that the nature of the business means that it should be housed inside a building and that the use being conducted in the open air is partly responsible for the poor state of the road. You also identified that the use not being in the building meant it can't comply with policy. Councillor Holgate, you described the industrial estate as appalling and a cross between Sarajevo and Dodge City. You highlighted that the condition of the roads was disgraceful and that the failure to house the use in a building meant the application doesn't conform with policy and is not a sustainable development. You also said if they appealed your refusal, they could appeal, which might help draw attention to the appalling conditions of the estate. It will come as no surprise to you that I agree with you. There seems to me to be little change to the proposal since it was last considered, the use is still not housed in the building. The environment on the Simonswood Industrial Estate has also continued to deteriorate. I urge you to stand by your conviction too, and do the right thing and refuse the application. Thank you.'

Cllr Tommy Rowe, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you, Chair. Good morning Members and a Happy New Year to you all.
I, along with Councillors Wright and Brennan, live in and represent Shevington Ward. The ward immediately to the South of Simonswood Industrial Estate, the ward that takes the brunt of the issues caused by all the waste businesses operating on this estate. I previously addressed this Committee in relation to the previous planning application for this site in October 2023 and, prior to that, the application for the proposed medical waste incinerator. I was opposed to these applications and I remain completely opposed to this one. During my last visit to this Committee, I was delighted that the elected Members here are concerned, and decided to refuse planning permission for the application, against the advice of your officers, who recommended that the use should be given permission. You can imagine how disappointed I was when I learned that the same application had been resubmitted and that your officers again were recommending it for approval, despite the clear and unequivocal decision of this Committee to refuse it just 12 months ago. Since this time, nothing has changed on the estate. Sorry, I'll correct myself, nothing has improved on the estate; indeed, this has gotten far worse. With Kirby residents not only suffering from dust pollution, but now foul odours from the estate and, upon leaving the house this morning, this pungent odour was again very evident. When you considered the application, you refused planning permission because the use was not enclosed in a building as is required by policy WM4 in your local plan. You decided that this would lead to unacceptable impacts on the local environment, by the way of dust and noise pollution; Members, nothing has changed. The proposed use would still take place on an open site and no building is proposed to enclose the use. The officer report says there is limited potential for dust generation and that measures in a dust management plan have been submitted with the application which would control dust to acceptable levels. Despite what your officers say, there are no acceptable levels of dust, especially given that residents on Pingwood Lane and Shevingtons Lane are already suffering from dust pollution caused by HGVs from Simonswood Lane depositing and whipping up dust which settles on their properties. I therefore ask you to stand by your previous decision and refuse this application, as no attempt has been made to address your concerns from last time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members.'

Cllr Aimee Wright, Knowsley Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Thank you Chair and thank you Members. Like Councillor Rowe, I was assured when you decided to refuse planning permission for this use the last time it was presented to you. Myself and Councillor Brennan sit on Knowsley's planning committee and we know how difficult it can be to go against the advice of your officers, but I urge you to do so once again. You know that this use has been operating without planning permission for a considerable time. Activity which, given the estate's condition, the lack of management and enforcement only compounds the problems being encountered by nearby residents. Members, you are well aware that the industrial estate already accommodates three times the amount of waste it should. Having regard to your own waste plan, how can you therefore simply approve more, yet here you are today being asked to do just that. Last time you decided to take a stand and by refusing the application, you were able to proactively reduce the amount of inert waste being handled on Simonswood Industrial Estate, which is already far too much; I urge you to do so again. Ultimately, it is only Lancashire County Council and you, as Members of its Development Control Committee, that can determine if this site is appropriate for waste processing.
You didn't think it was last time and agreed with us that if permission were to be granted, the use should be housed in a building, as required by your own local plan.
There is no building proposed as part of this application and therefore there is the same risk of unacceptable harm being caused to local residents as there was last time. On this basis, surely the only conclusion that can be reached is that what is being proposed should be refused. When you decided to refuse permission for this use in October 2023, you took an opportunity to go some way to addressing the awful conditions that this Committee has spoken about previously, sending a strong message to other businesses on the estate and to local residents that Lancashire County Council is serious about making things better in Simonswood. However, if you decide to approve this application today, you will effectively be accepting that Simonswood remains a dumping ground and will compound the adverse effects being experienced by our local community. Thank you.'

The Head of Development Control answered questions from Committee.

After a lengthy discussion, it was Proposed and Seconded that:

"The application be refused as the proposed development is not enclosed within a building, as required by policy WM4 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies. Without enclosure within a building the development would have unacceptable impacts on the local environment by way of noise and dust, contrary to Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies."

Upon being put to the Vote, the Motion was Carried.

Resolved: That planning permission be refused as the proposed development is not enclosed within a building, as required by policy WM4 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies. Without enclosure within a building the development would have unacceptable impacts on the local environment by way of noise and dust, contrary to Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Development Management and Site Allocations Policies.