Agenda item

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s report on the following planning application:

Oral representations in support of the application were made at the meeting by Mr Nigel Cronin, Technical Director of SLR Consulting, an environmental consulting business. 

SLR Consulting had provided technical support for the application specifically on air quality, dispersal modelling, noise and alternative site assessments together with advice on highways and landscape.

Since 2001, the site at Cookham Road had provided waste management services to the Borough via a simple small scale composting operation.  Since that time, the site had continued to develop as a key asset within Bromley, assisting in the diversion of garden waste from landfill. The current application sought to bring the operation to the forefront of waste technology to enable the treatment of a wider range of organic materials including food waste generated by householders and commercial businesses within the Borough. The proposed technology of Anaerobic Digestion (AD), was the Government’s and the UK Environment Agency’s preferred solution for treating organic waste and would enable a move away from open windrow composting.

AD technology was entirely self-contained, encompassing tried and tested processing equipment which produced a high quality natural compost product as well as a nutrient rich liquid fertiliser.  As part of the proposal, much of what is produced would be utilised by directly adjacent agricultural users. The process also captured significant volumes of renewable energy in the form of gas which would be converted on site into electricity. This would enable the site to operate self-sufficiently in terms of energy and any surplus energy would be exported to the National Grid. 

During the application process, SLR Consulting had engaged with Council Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers within Bromley, Bexley and Sevenoaks, the Highways Authority and the GLA on a variety of matters including government policy and environmental impacts, in particular, air quality concerns. All parties were fully satisfied by the inclusion of mitigation measures where required in order that all reasonable design and operating measures were incorporated within the application.

There were no objections from any statutory consultee on the proposal and Bromley’s Waste Management officers were keen to see such a facility developed within the Borough rather than have to rely on the current ‘out of Borough’ solution that impacted on travel times, carbon efficiency and costs. 

SLR Consultancy were happy to be given the opportunity, via the proposed planning conditions, to enhance the scheme further by discussing landscaping and colour finishes on the main process buildings as suggested within the report’s recommendation. This would run in tandem with the required Environmental Permit Application which would add further controls on operational standards (including a detailed Odour and Dust Management Plan), before any operations could commence.

Councillor Michael asked Mr Cronin how far the nearest residential property was situated from the site and also asked him to explain how the development would control air quality and contain odour emissions.

Mr Cronin was unsure of the exact distance of the nearest residential property but estimated that it was at least 200 metres away from the facility so there was unlikely to any detrimental impact on the property.  With regard to air quality and odour emissions, Mr Cronin said the design of the buildings included negative air pressure control which was a normal operative procedure.  No odour would escape as there would be a suction of air within the building which would then be filtered.

Councillor Ince asked if the surrounding road infrastructure was sufficient enough to cope with an increase in vehicular traffic.  Mr Cronin replied that the Highways Agency was satisfied that the small increase in traffic (two vehicles per hour) would have no significant impact on the surrounding roads.

The Chief Planner circulated a layout plan of the development together with elevational drawings. He confirmed that the nearest residential property was located 250 metres from the nearest point of the boundary of the application site.

The following amendment to the Chief Planner's report was noted:-

  Under the heading 'Planning History' on page 28, the date stated in the first bulleted paragraph as 'December 2010' should read 'December 2001'.

The Chairman thanked Members for attending visit to the application site which had taken place on 3 September 2011.

Councillor Fawthrop declared this to be a good application and in broad principle believed that the very special circumstances required to develop on Green Belt land had been met.  The site was also adequately hidden from view and sheltered.  Councillor Fawthrop asked if a condition could be imposed to return the development back to Green Belt land if, in the future, activity were to cease or if new technology became available during the anticipated 25 year life of the development as it currently stood.  Councillor Fawthrop moved approval of the development.

In response to Councillor Fawthrop's question, the Chief Planner stated that it was not usual practice to impose such a condition for that length of time however, should the application be approved, officers would be engaged with the site on a regular basis and any such issues would be dealt with as they arise.

Councillor Michael commented that although she was not keen on industrial development on Green Belt land, the site was already being used for waste recyclement and was therefore lost as Green Belt land.  Councillor Michael stated that the application, together with the conditions attached, was acceptable and seconded the motion for approval.

Councillor Mrs Manning thought the site visit was very useful and reported that the emanating odour was not overwhelmingly strong.  With proper controls in place, the recycling of waste was to everyone's advantage.  The surrounding residents would also gain by the process being contained inside.  Councillor Mrs Manning would like to see the top of the buildings painted with colours that blend in with the surroundings and commented on the need for good landscaping.

Although the application provided sufficient landscaping around the perimeter of the site, Councillor Joel would like to see a little more in the vicinity of the golf course.  Councillor Joel requested that a condition be added to ensure that no telecommunication equipment be erected on the site.  Councillor Fawthrop agreed with this suggestion.

Councillor Mellor attended the site visit and was impressed with the compactness of the site.  Councillor Mellor stated that he was opposed to industrial use of Green Belt land but in this particular instance as the project was initiated by farmers and the site's largest clients would be farmers, he supported the application. 

Councillor Bosshard supported the application, stating that although the application was for industrial development, operations would be self-contained.  He also commented on the need for adequate landscaping.

RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the direction of the Mayor of London in accordance with powers under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 and subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to source of waste material as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the addition of a further condition to read:-

'41.  No telecommunications equipment shall be installed or placed on the roof of the buildings hereby permitted or the chimneys/flues without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area.