Agenda item

15/00229/MMFUL - Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough

Minutes:

Two planning applications were presented to Committee. 15/00229/MMFUL sought the restoration of part of the quarry at Cooks Hole, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh, to the original ground levels using inert materials and consequential amendments to the restoration scheme. 15/00230/MMFUL sought the continuation of landfilling in phases 1 and 2 at the Thornhaugh Landfill Site, Leicester Road, Thornhaugh. This included consequential amendments to the phasing scheme, relocation of the site roads and infrastructure, including the landfill gas flare, minor amendments to the final restoration contours, continued periodic use of the crushing and processing plant and the deferment of the dates of the cessation of landfilling, and final restoration by 6 years.

 

It was officer’s recommendation that both planning permissions be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Senior Officer Minerals and Waste provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the reports.

 

Gean Wilson addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Dr Wilson advised that the officer report was accurate.

·         It was clarified that the restoration of the site was progressing and that Councillors were more than welcome to visit the site if they wished.

·         The material intended to infill the hole on the site was to be mineral material, which was already present. The surrounding area would be filled with a mixture of low degradable material, with little odour.

·         There would be no toxic ash at the site.

 

The Committee were content with the established nature of the site and were pleased that conditions had been proposed to address dust and noise issues. It was considered that the applicant was to be praised for decontaminating the land fully.

 

15/00229/MMFUL

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The NPPF stated that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development - in terms of decision making this meant approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. The principle of development was clearly in accordance with policy SSP W2 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals DPD which allocated the site for inert landfill, and contributed to the provision of inert landfill capacity as required by Core Strategy policy CS20.

 

The proposals also enabled the provision of Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW) and non-hazardous wastes at the neighbouring Thornhaugh I landfill, contributing to the aims of Core Strategy policies CS19 and CS21. The proposals also complied with Core Strategy policies CS14 and CS15 in respect of the need and location of waste management facilities.

 

An Environmental Statement accompanied the application which was comprehensive and met the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Detailed topic areas had been assessed/considered.

 

The comments of consultees had been taken into account and suitable conditions would be attached to mitigate any of the issues raised. The comments of neighbours had been taken into account, but given that the site was allocated for waste development and in all other respects the proposal was acceptable, there was no reason not to approve the application in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act.

 

15/00230/MMFUL

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The NPPF stated that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development - in terms of decision taking this means approving development proposals that accorded with the development plan without delay. The principle of development was clearly in accordance with policy SSP W4 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific DPD (Site Specific DPD) which allocated the site for SNRHW and complementary non-hazardous land fill. The proposal also sought to provide an appropriate long term solution to the potential pollution risks of over tipping phases 1 and 2 through their excavation and re-engineering into a modern contained landfill design and is in accordance with policy CS46.

 

The proposal also included recycling of inert waste (from within the site and imported) for use on the site or for sale off site.  The site was not allocated for inert waste recycling but the proposal complies with policies CS14 and CS15 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD (the Core Strategy) with regards to the need and location of waste management facilities. The additional component parts of the application, namely the retention of the gas flare and time extension to the completion of landfilling operations were considered acceptable in light of the requirements to secure the long term pollution prevention measures at the site as represented by the re-engineering of phases 1 and 2.

 

An Environmental Statement accompanied the application which was considered comprehensive and met the requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.  Detailed topic areas had been assessed/considered.

 

Comments of consultees had been taken into account and suitable conditions would be attached which address any issues raised. The comments of neighbours had been taken into account, but given that the site was allocated for waste development and in all other respects the proposal was acceptable, there was no reason not to approve the application in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act.

 

Supporting documents: