Agenda item

A report was presented on an application for an extension to a building at a waste transfer station and erection of a screen wall at Waterbarn Mill, Newchurch Road, Stacksteads, Bacup.

The committee was reminded that at their last meeting they had resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to redesign the building in a way that would attenuate noise and provide dust suppression.

The report included details of a presentation made by four residents to the committee on the 15 July 2013 and details of four presentations made at the meeting on the 17 July 2013.

The case officer, Catherine Lewis, presented a PowerPoint presentation showing an aerial view of the site and the nearest residential properties. The committee was also shown an illustration of the building and the proposed elevations together with photographs of the site and surrounding residential streets.

It was reported orally that the views of Rossendale Borough Council had been received. They advised that the revised noise assessment had been briefly reviewed. Initial observations in the time available, were that the report contained a number of omissions and inconsistencies in relation to the data provided. Accordingly, the Council’s position of referencing noise as one of the concerns leading to objection remained the same as that set out in their representations of 20^th June 2013.

The committee was informed that an independent assessment of the noise report submitted by the applicant had been sought by the County Council and which advised:

'The measurements taken at 9 Brandwood Park are fairly consistent with those that we obtained earlier this year. There is an error in Table 2 under para 2.4 - For location 5b the Lmax noise levels have been entered in the column that should show LAeq.

I consider the report reasonable in its findings and conclusions.

I would take issue slightly with the conclusion (4th bullet point under para 5.1) that the Rating Level [in relation to 9 Brandwood Park] is "comfortably below the recommended noise limit of 45dBLAeq,1 hour", when in fact it is only 1dB below. 

However, if the recommended noise limits are applied and complied with these should adequately protect the nearest sensitive receptors'.

Inconsistencies in the report had been identified by Rossendale Borough Council's Environmental Health Officer and the County Councils own specialist advisor. However, it was considered that in the main, the report was reasonable in its findings and conclusions and that should the inconsistencies be addressed, they would not alter the overall conclusion.

A further representation had been received maintaining that the site was co owned, that the applicant was not the sole owner of the site and should therefore have completed Certificate B rather than Certificate A and served formal notice of his intent to submit an application on the co-owner before the submission of the application.

The applicant had subsequently confirmed that the site was co-owned but the co-owner had left him to deal with all operations on site and so he did not think it was necessary to make reference to the co-owner in connection with the application.  The co-owner had confirmed he was aware of the application and that he had no objection to it. 

The committee noted that as the applicant did not serve the correct ownership certificate there had been a breach of the statutory requirements and s.327A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 provides that a local planning authority should not entertain an application where there has been a breach of the requirements.

However, if planning permission were to be granted notwithstanding this breach, the permission would still be valid unless set aside by the High Court on review.  In a case in 2012, (Queen on the Application of O'Brien v West Lancashire Borough Council), the High Court declined to set aside a planning permission in similar circumstances for the following reasons:

1.  There was no evidence of bad faith and no intention to deceive;

2.  Those challenging the permission were not owners of the land;

3.  Those who had been directly affected by the breach (the other land owners) had made it clear they did not consider themselves as prejudiced because they never intended to make representations in relation to the grant of permission;  and

4.  The adjoining landowners were aware of the application and had made representations.

The committee was advised that all the above reasons applied here and it was clear that no prejudice had been caused to the co-owner of the land or to those third parties now objecting to the application.  In the circumstances it was considered that should planning permission be granted any challenge on this point would fail and the permission would be allowed to stand.

The case officer reported that it was proposed to amend Condition 3 'Working programme' by substituting:

'Drawing entitled Waste Transfer Station-proposed elevations-North rev A received 3 July 2013.'

With

'Drawing entitled Waste Transfer Station-proposed elevations-North rev B received 3 July 2013.'

Following debate and concerns raised by the members with regard to the breach of the statutory requirements, it was Moved and Seconded that:

"The application be declared invalid due to the submission of an incorrect certificate declaring ownership".

On being put to the vote the Motion was Carried whereupon it was:

Resolved: That the application be declared invalid due to the submission of an incorrect certificate declaring ownership.