Planning Dept "justification" to grant Hanson Cement Plant - read it & weep ......
Planning Committee 27/11/13 Schedule Item: 03 Ref : P/2013/3475Address: HORN LANE GOODS YARD 305 HORN LANE ACTON W3 0BPWard: Acton CentralProposal: Retention of replacement Concrete Batching PlantDrawing numbers: 62584.06.001; 62584.06.002; 62584.06.003; ATN/009; and ATN/010 (received 06.08.2013)Type of Application: Full ApplicationApplication Received: 06/08/2013 Revised:Report by: Peter Lee Executive Summary: Recommendation: Grant with Conditions The application site is located within the Horn Lane Goods Yard, a former British Rail goods yard adjoining the Great Western mainline railway, and is located to the west of Horn Lane (the A4000). In addition to the Hanson operation, the Goods Yard now accommodates a number of other industrial occupiers, including:• DB Schenker (rail freight operator);• Aggregate Industries (formerly Yeoman’s Aggregates) (rail aggregate depot);• Horn Lane Metals (scrap metal merchant);• Derlin Construction Ltd (builder’s yard);• Gowing & Pursey Skips (waste transfer and materials recovery facility); and• BAM Nuttall (Crossrail contractor).The application site is located at the eastern end of the former Goods Yard, near the entrance off Horn Lane.A concrete batching plant has operated from the site since the 1960’s following the grant of planning permission (by Middlesex County Council) on 5 February 1965. Until 2000 the site was operated by Pioneer Aggregates until that company was acquired by ARC Ltd (now Hanson). The former plant suffered a major breakdown and the developer elected to demolish it and erect a wholly new unit in 2011, believing that the works constituted ‘permitted development’. However, following the commencement of a planning enforcement investigation and the refusal of a subsequent Certificate of Lawfulness application, the retrospective application the subject of this report was submitted in August 2013.The application site is shown to be located within an Employment Site, a Minerals Aggregate Distribution Site and a Residential Area on the adopted UDP Proposals Map as well as being identified as being within 200 metres of the Crossrail route and Horn Lane (the A4000) is identified as a Main Distributor Road.The emerging draft Proposals Map Booklet does not specifically identify the Horn Lane Goods Yard site but the area is identified in the Development Sites Development Plan Document as development site ACT6 that encompasses Acton Crossrail Station and 239/265/267/305 and 307 Horn Lane. This site is identified for the “consolidation of industrial, aggregates and waste facilities to the north of railway, safeguarding of the rail sidings, and introduction of commercial and residential (potential for student accommodation) uses south of the railway, compatible with the functioning of the station.”The application seeks permission for the retention of the concrete batching plant that was constructed on the site in 2011. The development comprises cement storage silos; aggregate storage bins; covered conveyors for transferring aggregate to the mixers; enclosed cement mixing house (two mixing drums); water storage tank; admixture storage vessels; control room; administration and welfare cabin; aggregate recycling/washout skip; electricity sub-station; and an associated yard area. The main structures and buildings are within an area of approximately 35 metres by 38 metres. The tallest structures on the site are the fully enclosed storage bunkers and silos which have a maximum height above ground level of 17.2 metres.The main issues in the determination of this application are whether the principle of the development is appropriate in this location, taking account of its proximity to surrounding residential development; and the implications of the development on neighbouring residential amenity in respect of noise, air quality, traffic generation and visual impact. Objections to the development have been raised by eighteen local residents, the Stop Horn Lane Pollution group (SHLAP) and the West Acton Residents’ Association (WARA). The main issues raised comprise that the location of the development is too close to residential properties; air pollution concerns, especially PM10; noise nuisance associated with the development; that the use is detrimental to residential amenity due to vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust and grit; that the company have continually flouted the terms of their licence; the health risks for local residents and pedestrians using Horn Lane as a result of poor air quality; that vehicles associated with the development ignore bridge weight limits and speed down residential streets causing noise and disturbance; that the development results in loss of privacy as a result of persons climbing to the silos; the adverse visual impact as the plant is bigger and in a different place than the facility it replaced and that the plant is extremely ugly and an intrusive industrial installation; that the development is inconsistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and the Local Plan; that the development gives rise to highway safety issues due to the number of HGV movements (which are stated to be about 200 per day), vehicles blocking the bus lane and poor visibility at the access road; that the hours of operation are anti-social and the company breaches the time constraints; and that the application is retrospective and permission should have been applied for before the development was carried out. However, the application is recommended for approval as the use of the site as a concrete batching plant is well-established and has been carried out for over 50 years and is considered to be acceptable. Development plan policies contained within the London Plan (policy 5.20), which seeks to ensure an adequate supply of aggregates to support construction in London, the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (policy 2.4), which seeks to retain the aggregates and cement works on the site as this is considered to be an important railhead for the distribution of construction materials in West London, and in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (policy 2.4), which seeks to encourage the increased use of rail freight, particularly for aggregates, are generally supportive of the retention of the facility.With regard to the environmental implications of the development, particularly in respect of noise generation and air quality, the new development is considered to represent a marked improvement over the previous development at the site and the works the subject of this application either result in less noise and air pollution or can be appropriately conditioned to ensure further reductions are achieved. Regulatory Services have indicated the new equipment “represents a significant improvement over the dry-batch plant it replaced” in air quality terms and it is considered that with the additional noise attenuation measures that have been indicated to be provided, the development would create less noise than the previous situation and would accord with relevant guidance.In terms of vehicle movements the development is not considered to have resulted in any increase over the previous situation and Transport Services have raised no objection in highway safety or traffic generation terms. In visual terms, the impact of the new development is somewhat different to the previous situation but, overall, the impact of the development is considered to be neutral, with some increase in impact from certain viewpoints being balanced out by a decrease in impact from others. In addition, the maximum height of the development on the site is now around 1.2 metres less than the previous situation.Whilst acknowledging that the development needs to be carefully regulated to ensure the minimum impact on neighbouring residential amenity, which can be secured through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the environmental permitting regime, it is considered that, on balance, the retention of the new structures and buildings in conjunction with this long-established concrete batching plant facility, with its acknowledged benefits in terms of its location at a railhead and its ability to serve developments in West London, is considered to be acceptable. Approval, subject to appropriate conditions, is therefore recommended.Recommendation: Grant with ConditionsConditions/Reasons: 1. Approved PlansThe development hereby approved has been carried out in accordance with drawing title number(s) 62584.06.001, 62584.06.002, 62584.06.003, ATN/009 and ATN/010 and this approved development shall not be altered unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.2. Hours of OperationThe development permitted shall not operate outside the hours of 07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Saturday and not at any time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.REASON: In the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.1 and 7.15 of the London Plan, policies 1.1(j) and 2.4 of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, policies 7A and 7B of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document, policies 2.4 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and the advice contained in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 10: 'Noise and Vibration'.3. Noise Mitigation MeasuresWithin one month of the date of this decision details of the additional noise mitigation measures recommended in the Planning Noise Assessment Issue 2 document, prepared by URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd (dated August 2013) submitted with the application and comprising the improvement of sound insulation of the hopper enclosure; the installation of side shielding to the conveyor belt; and the installation of a partial barrier to the rear elevation of the despatch house, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be provided within three months of the date of such approval and shall thereafter be permanently retained for the life of the development. REASON: In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.1 and 7.15 of the London Plan, policies 1.1(j) and 2.4 of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, policies 7A and 7B of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document, policies 2.4 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and the advice contained in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 10: 'Noise and Vibration'.4. Additional Noise AssessmentDetails shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the rating noise level emitted from the plant and machinery at the site, as assessed under BS4142:1997, shall be lower than the existing background noise level without the development by at least 5 dBA as measured at a point 3.5 metres from the nearest ground floor noise sensitive facade and 1 metre from the neaest upper floor noise sensitive facade, during the relevant period of operation.REASON: In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.1 and 7.15 of the London Plan, policies 1.1(j) and 2.4 of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, policies 7A and 7B of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document, policies 2.4 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and the advice contained in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 10: 'Noise and Vibration'.5. Air Quality MonitorDetails shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority of a continuous air quality monitor for particulate matter, to be installed on the application site. The approved monitor shall be installed within three months of the date of this permission and shall thereafter be permanently retained for the life of the development.REASON: In order to protect the amenities of the area, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.1 and 7.14 of the London Plan, policies 1.1(j) and 2.4 of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, policies 7A and 7B of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document and policies 2.4 and 2.6 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).6. Permitted Development RestrictedNotwithstanding the provisions of Classes A and B of Part 8 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Oder 1995 as altered by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010, (or any other Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no erection, extension or alteration of an industrial building, no additional plant or replacement plant or machinery nor the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a conveyor shall be carried out within the application site without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority, obtained through the submission of a planning application.REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and to safeguard the living conditions of adjoining properties and visual appearance of the building, in accordance with policies 5.20 and 7.1 of the London Plan, policies 1.1(j) and 2.4 of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, policies 7A and 7B of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document and policy 2.4 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan.InformativesThe decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 1. Building a strong, competitive economy4. Promoting sustainable transport 13. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London - July 2011 and London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations – October 20132.6 - Outer London: vision and strategy 2.7 - Outer London: economy3,2 - Improving health and addressing health inequalities 4.1 - Developing London's economy 4.4 - Managing industrial land and premises5.3 - Sustainable design and construction 5.12 - Flood risk management 5.13 - Sustainable drainage5.14 - Water quality and wastewater infrastructure 5.20 - Aggregates 6.3 - Assessing effects of development on transport capacity 6.9 - Cycling 6.10 - Walking 6.13 - Parking6.14 - Freight7.1 - Building London's neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 - An inclusive environment 7.3 - Designing out crime 7.4 - Local character 7.6 - Architecture 7.7 - Location and design of tall and large buildings 7.14 - Improving air quality 7.15 - Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (April 2012) 1.1(b),(c),(f),(h),(j) - Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 1.2(h),(l),(m) - Delivery of the Vision for Ealing 2026 2.4 - Regenerate the Acton Main Line station area Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2012/2013) 4A - Employment Uses Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking 7A - Operational Amenity Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.4 Local Character Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.7 Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings Unitary Development Plan 'Saved' Policies (2004) 2.1 - Environmental and other Sustainability Impacts 2.4 - Land - Mineral Aggregates Distribution 2.5 - Water - Drainage, Flood Prevention and Environment 2.6 - Air Pollution and Quality 4.1 - Design of Development 4.3 - Inclusive Design - Access for All 4.4 - Community Safety 4.11 - Noise and Vibration 9.1 - Development, Access and Parking Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents SPG2 - Water, drainage and flooding (Draft) SPG3 - Air quality (Draft) SPG7 - Accessible Ealing SPG8 - Safer Ealing SPG10 - Noise and vibration In reaching the decision to grant permission, specific consideration was given to the impact of the development on neighbouring amenty, in terms of air quality, noise generation, traffic generation and visual impact, having account of the authorised use of the site and the previous development present on the site and on the need for the development in strategic terms given its railhead location and the need for such industrial facilities in the area. In balance, it was considered that the development was acceptable on these grounds and it is not considered that there are any other material planning considerations that would warrant refusal of the application. 2. To assist applicants in a positive manner, the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, and offers and encourages a comprehensive pre-application advice service, all of which is available on the Council's website and outlined in a 24 hours automated telephone system. The scheme complied with policy and guidance. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision proactively in accordance with requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Site Description:The application site has an area of 0.21 hectares and is located within the Horn Lane Goods Yard to the west of Horn Lane, virtually opposite its junction with York Road, in the north of Acton and in close proximity to Acton Main Line railway station.The site is located within an enclave of commercial development to the north of the railway line between Paddington and Ealing, and to the south of Noel Road on a former British Railways goods yard. The former goods yard now houses a number of commercial operations including Aggregate Industries Ltd., BAM Nuttall Ltd., DB Schenker, Derlin Construction Ltd., Gowing & Pursey and Horn Lane Metals, as well as the Hanson Concrete facility the subject of this application.The site is accessed via a privately owned road from the A4000 (Horn Lane). The application site is occupied by a Concrete Batching Plant (CBP) which was constructed in 2011 to replace an earlier CBP that was constructed in 1965 by Pioneer Aggregates. It is this ‘new’ CBP that is the subject of this retrospective planning application.Surrounding development immediately in the vicinity of the application site comprises the Gowing & Pursey skip hire site and the Shamrock Club sports ground and pavilion to the north, the Aggregates International (formerly Yeoman Aggregates) site to the west, the Horn Lane Metals and DB Schenker sites to the south, on the opposite side of the private access road, and the Derlin Construction to the east, with residential dwellings (224-248 (even) Horn Lane) beyond. The nearest residential properties are those located on Horn Lane, approximately 37 metres to the east, southeast and northeast and in Lowfield Road and Noel Road, approximately 55 metres to the north and northwest.The application site is identified as an Employment Site and a Mineral Aggregate Distribution Site on the Proposals Map of the adopted UDP. The UDP is, however, in the process of being replaced by Local Plan Framework documents. The new draft Policies Map that accompanies the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012) does not specifically identify the ‘Acton Goods Yard, Horn Lane, W3’ site and the Policies Map Atlas of Proposed Changes document (June 2012) indicates that it is proposed to “remove Employment Site Layer/designation” and that: “The management of uses on such sites will be judged against Policy 4A of the Development Management DPD.” However, the emerging draft Development Sites DPD document (2013) does identify the wider area, incorporating the application site, as a Development Site – ACT6 Acton Crossrail Station and 239/265/267/305/307 Horn Lane. The specific allocation of the area is: “Consolidation of industrial, aggregates and waste facilities to the north of railway, safeguarding of rail sidings, and introduction of commercial and residential (potential for student accommodation) uses south of the railway, compatible with the functioning of the station.” The Development:This retrospective planning application seeks permission for the retention of the new Concrete Batching Plant (CBP) facility that was constructed during 2010/2011 to replace the earlier ‘Pioneer’ CBP that was constructed in 1965.The new CBP comprises the following elements:• Cement storage silos;• Aggregate storage bins;• Covered conveyors for transferring aggregate to the mixers;• Enclosed cement mixing house (two mixing drums);• Water storage tank;• Admixture storage vessels;• Control room;• Administration and welfare cabin; • Aggregate recycling/washout skip;• Yard area; and• Electricity sub-station.The CBP structure occupies an area of approximately 35 metres by 38 metres and is essentially laid out in a virtual inverted L-shape. The Aggregate Feed Hopper is located in the western corner of the site, with the Radial Conveyor running from the Hopper along the northern boundary to feed the Aggregate Storage Bins. To the south of the Bins are located the three Cement Storage Silos and to the southeast of these is the Cement Mixing House, with two Water Storage Tanks located behind this structure and a Wedge Pit located to the southwest of the Cement Mixing House. Along the northern boundary of the site, to the east of the Cement Silos there are two office buildings. Along the eastern boundary adjacent to the private access road from Horn Lane are located two Switch Houses with a Transformer between them. The rest of the site is laid to concrete to provide the yard area and this is served by separate gated entrance and exit routes.The tallest structures on the site are the three Cement Silos which have a maximum height of 17.2 metres above ground level. The Aggregate Storage Bins have a maximum height of 13.73 metres and the Aggregate Feed Hopper has a maximum height of 11.84 metres. The Cement Mixing House has a maximum height of 11.53 metres and the Water Storage Tanks are around 6 metres in height. The offices are 3 metres in height and the Switch Houses are 2.6 metres in height. In terms of the operation of the facility the six aggregate storage bins are in an elevated position, and they are filled via an inclined (covered) conveyor. The conveyor is loaded from ground level via sunken feed hoppers by lorries that reverse up to the hopper and tip material out into a loading chute which is constructed with pre-fabricated walls on three sides.An elevated central control room next to the mixer house allows oversight of the operations across the site.The CBP operates during the following hours: Monday to Saturday – 07:00 to 18:30 hours; with no operations on Sundays or statutory Bank Holidays.No floor area figure has been provided with the application, but the majority of the ‘built development’ constitutes plant or machinery that are not generally accessible to workers on the site. The two office units have a total floor area of 60 square metres and the central control room is estimated to be around 18 square metres. Relevant Planning HistoryRef: Date: Proposal: Decision:30585P/2005/2580PP/2012/1741 05.02.196519.12.200503.07.2012 Erection of a ready mixed concrete depotErection of replacement concrete batching plant with ancillary facilities, including alteration to internal site layout and removal of existing plantRetention of concrete batching plant (Lawful Development Certificate for Existing Use) ApprovedWithdrawnPlanning Permission Required Consultation:Public Consultation - SummaryNeighbour Notification: Initiated on the 20/08/2013 (expired on 30/09/2013). 875 surrounding residential and commercial occupiers notified.Advertised Local Press: In the local press and by a site notice on the 23/08/2013 (Expired on the 13/09/2013). 18 letters of representation have been received from occupiers of properties in Cecil Road, Eastfields Road, Emanuel Avenue, Goldsmith Avenue, Grafton Road, Highlands Avenue, Horn Lane, Noel Road and York Road raising the following objections:• Location so close to residential properties is inappropriate and unacceptable;• Air pollution concerns, especially PM10;• Noise nuisance associated with the development;• Detrimental to residential amenity due to vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust and grit;• The company have continually flouted the terms of their licence and pass the blame for pollution issues on to other sites;• Health risks for local residents and pedestrians using Horn Lane as a result of poor air quality;• Vehicles associated with the development ignore bridge weight limits and speed down residential streets causing noise and disturbance;• Development results in loss of privacy as a result of persons climbing to the silos;• Adverse visual impact as the plant is bigger and in a different place. Plant is extremely ugly and an intrusive industrial installation;• Development is inconsistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and the Local Plan;• Development gives rise to highway safety issues due to the number of HGV movements (about 200 per day), vehicles blocking the bus lane and poor visibility at the access road;• Hours of operation are anti-social and the company breaches the time constraints;• Application is retrospective and permission should have been applied for before the development was carried out. Officers’ Response: The location of the development is comparable to the previous situation and the site has an authorised, long-established use as a Concrete Batching Plant dating back to the mid-1960’s. The replacement plant and machinery would be located further away from some residential units than previously, but closer to other – overall the relationship between the industrial and surrounding residential uses is not considered to be significantly different. Potential air pollution is a material consideration and is discussed within the body of the report. However, it is concluded that the development has actually resulted in an improvement in air quality terms in respect of the industrial operations carried out at the site. The noise generated by the development is also a material consideration which is also discussed in detail in the report. It is, however, considered that any approval could be reasonably conditioned to ensure further mitigation works are undertaken to reduce likely noise disturbance to a level below that generated by the previously authorised plant and equipment at the site. It is not considered that the development itself gives rise to any significant issues in terms of vibration, smell, fumes, smoke or soot. The development does have the potential to generate dust and grit and again this is discussed within the report. The routing of vehicles accessing and leaving the site has not been subject to control through planning conditions and the development would not generate any additional vehicle movements over and above the level associated with the former development at the site. The occasional need for personnel to access the silos at the site is not considered to result in any demonstrable harm to neighbouring residential amenity. The plant and equipment are of a specialist nature reflecting the processes carried out at the site. In visual amenity terms the effect of the redevelopment of the site is considered to be neutral when compared to the previous development of the site. The development is not considered to be inconsistent with relevant development plan policies, particularly policy 2.4 of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy 2012. The number of HGV movements associated with the development is comparable to the historic use of the site and would amount to between 36 and 72 movements per day. The Transport Development team have raised no objections in highway safety terms. The hours of operation are consistent with the long-term situation at the site. Whilst it is regrettable that the applicant company choose to undertake the redevelopment of the site without either planning of Building Regulations approval and without seeking the advice of the Council prior to undertaking the works, it is not illegal to carry out development without permission and this would not constitute a reason to refuse permission. External Consultation ListAngie Bray MPEnvironment AgencyStop Horn Lane PollutionThames WaterWest Acton Residents’ Association No response received.Initial comments received indicating that a detailed drainage plan for the development was required. This information has been requested and updated comments will be provided at the Committee meeting. Object to the application on the following grounds:1. Contravention of original planning permission;2. Pollution issues – air and noise;3. Visual appearance;4. Loss of privacy;5. Traffic/highway safety;6. Proposals in the Development Plan.Officers’ Response: The original planning permission for the erection of a ready mixed concrete depot on the site was subject to five planning conditions which were based on the guidance and policies in place at the time, principally in the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and any Development Plan policies that were in effect in 1965. The planning system has been subject to significant change since that time and the ‘tests’ for planning conditions are now more restrictive. Circular 11/95 now requires that planning conditions are: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and, reasonable in all other respects. The application proposal has to be considered on its merits having account to current development plan policies and other relevant guidance. Pollution issues, the visual impact of the development, privacy issues, traffic and highway safety and compliance with relevant policies are discussed in detail in the report. However, none of these matters are considered to be of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application. No response received.Express particular concerns about particulate matter emissions given that Horn Lane has been described as the most polluted place in London and statistics show that the area has consistently breached EU and National air quality requirements. In addition to the pollution originating from the plant operations, there are numerous heavy vehicle movements per day at the plant which can lead to significant increases in particulate matter.Whilst it is appreciated that the high PM10 particulate levels recorded at the Horn Lane monitoring station are not due to emissions from Hanson alone, the site is considered to be a major contributor. The submitted Air Quality Impact Assessment indicates that the development has had a negligible or slight effect but in an area where air pollution levels already breach EU requirements even a slight increase is not acceptable. Noise issues in Lowfield Road are also of concern as excessive noise has been experienced by residents, particularly in the early hours and at weekends.The external appearance of new plant provides a poor visual outlook, as it is a high, intrusive industrial structure. It is sited too close to residences, with no attempts made to ameliorate its impact. Persons climbing the silos can overlook nearby properties and thus reduce privacy. Consequently, it has a detrimental effect on the quality of life and general wellbeing of neighbouring residents.The initial granting of permission for a concrete batching plant at this site was made in 1965. One condition of acceptance in relation to the old plant was that it was to be located at the southernmost part of the site so as to reduce the risk of injury to the amenities of residential properties to the north of the site in Horn Lane and Noel Road. The location of the new plant is further north on the site and closer to residences. A second condition was that the premises shall not be used in any manner which is detrimental to the amenities of the locality, whether by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, soot, smoke, ash, dust, grit, or any other means. This was to ensure that the development did not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of the properties. The requirement of this condition has not been met by the new plant.Officers’ Response: The issues raised reflect those of local residents and Stop Horn Lane Pollution, which are commented on above and relevant planning considerations are discussed in detail within the report. Internal ConsultationListRegulatory Services - PollutionTransport Services Noise Impacts: The noise assessment as submitted does not provide an adequate basis for ensuring that the new plant will not give rise to noise nuisance or loss of amenity. If the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission, it is recommended that a condition is imposed requiring that a further noise assessment is carried out to quantify the remedial works necessary to achieve the criterion set out in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 10 for the said plant. Air Quality: In terms of the measures incorporated into its design to achieve effective air pollution control, the new Hanson concrete batching plant, as constructed, represents a significant improvement over the dry-batch plant it replaced. Regulatory Services considers that the plant design substantially complies with the required BAT standard, subject to some improvements to the management of waste concrete that have been agreed with the plant’s management. Improvements to site housekeeping, in particular measures to prevent the tracking-out of material from the site have been identified and the Council, as regulator, will require these improvements to be implemented through the plant’s environmental permit.Notwithstanding the effectiveness of controls provided under the environmental permitting regime, it is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land, taking into account the impact of the use and other material considerations. If the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission, it is recommended that a condition should be imposed to require the provision of a particulate monitor on the Hanson site, to form part of a wider network within the Goods Yard. Officers’ Response: Noted. The two conditions suggested are recommended to be imposed should the Committee be minded to grant permission. It is considered that the noise issue can be addressed through the provision of additional mitigation measures as indicated in the submitted Planning Noise Assessment. Similarly, the air quality issues should also be able to be addressed through revisions to existing working practices such as wheel washing procedures, hosing down all vehicles before they exit the site and ensuring sufficient capacity is available in the drainage system to ensure contaminated water does not pool on the site. The issue of whether the existing use of the site as a concrete batching plant is acceptable in land use planning terms is discussed within the body of the report. No objection.Officers’ Response: Noted.Reasoned Justification: Principle of Development:In support of the application the agents acting for the applicant have stated that the application site has been in use as a Concrete Batching Plant (CBP) since the mid-1960’s following the grant of planning permission, by Middlesex County Council, in 1965. The site was operated by Pioneer Aggregates until 2000, when that company was acquired by ARC Ltd (now Hanson, which is part of the Heidelberg Cement Group).The company indicates that, in October 2009, the CBP suffered a ‘major plant breakdown’ which could not be repaired and Hanson elected to demolish it, in July 2010, and erect a wholly new CBP unit which became fully operational in November 2011. The company believed these works constituted ‘permitted development’ under the remit of Schedule 2, Part 8, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.Class B relates to: “Development carried out on industrial land for the purposes of an industrial process consisting of –(a) the installation of additional or replacement plant or machinery; (b) the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a sewer, main, pipe, cable or other apparatus; or(c) the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a private way, private railway, siding or conveyor.”It is further stated that: “Development described in Class B(a) is not permitted if –(a) it would materially affect the external appearance of the premises of the undertaking concerned; or(b) any plant or machinery would exceed a height of 15 metres above ground level or the height of anything replaced, whichever is the greater.”Following the commencement of an enforcement investigation, following the receipt of complaints about the works that had been undertaken, in July 2011, Hanson elected to submit a Lawful Development Certificate application. However, the Council was of the opinion that the works undertaken did ‘materially affect the external appearance of the premises’ and the Lawful Development Certificate application was subsequently refused in July 2011.The site has been in use as a Concrete Batching Plant for approaching 50 years and the activities associated with the use are well established. The site does however lie in relatively close proximity to a number of residential properties and the activities carried out do clearly have the potential to impact on residential amenity, particularly in respect of air quality, noise and traffic generation. Nevertheless, the planning history of the site is clearly a material planning consideration and the fact that the site has been in use as a Class B2 (General Industrial) location for a number of years has to be afforded significant weight.The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) provides guidance on the presumption in favour of sustainable development and re-iterates the case that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In section 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals, the NPPF, in paragraph 143, provides the following guidance:“In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should: …• safeguard: - existing, planned and potential rail heads, rail links to quarries, wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials; and - existing, planned or potential sites for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material.” With respect to the relevant development plan policies for the site the London Plan, in policy 4.4, states that: “The Mayor will work closely with boroughs and other partners to: a) adopt a rigorous approach to industrial land management to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and related uses in different parts of London, including for good quality and affordable space; and b) plan, monitor and manage release of surplus industrial land where this is compatible with a) above, so that it can contribute to strategic and local planning objectives, especially those to provide more housing, and, in appropriate locations, to provide social infrastructure and to contribute to town centre renewal.”Ealing lies in an area, identified on Map 4.1 of the London Plan (Borough level groupings for transfer of industrial land to other uses), as ‘Limited Transfer’, which is an intermediate category between the managed and restricted categories. As a result, the Council, through the Local Development Framework process has reviewed industrial land allocations to ensure appropriate protection for identified Strategic Industrial Locations but to allow limited release of sites in appropriate circumstances. Policy 1.1 of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy states that, for industrial and warehousing businesses, the Council will seek to protect its position as one of London’s premier locations and, that development of new business premises will be primarily concentrated in the Uxbridge Road/Crossrail corridor, including in Acton and around Acton Main Line station and in the A40/Park Royal corridor, including around Acton Main Line station. Policy 2.4 of the Development (or Core) Strategy indicates that the Council wishes to: “retain the aggregates and cement works to the north of the (Acton Main Line) station, as this is an important railhead for the distribution of construction materials in West London”, but that: “Opportunities will be sought to reduce further the environmental impact of the industrial activities on the surrounding residential areas.” The adopted UDP, dating from 2004 and with a number of policies ‘saved’ in 2007, identifies the application site as lying within an Employment Site and a Mineral Aggregate Distribution Site. Policy 2.4 (Land – Mineral Aggregates Distribution) states that the Council will seek: “the increased use of rail and barge borne freight, particularly aggregates. Applications for the sorting and storage of aggregates for local re-use, intensified use of existing rail depots at Horn Lane, Park Royal Road and Willesden Rail Depot, or establishment of similar new facilities, will be assessed having regard to the proximity principle for minerals and other bulk products, and the following requirements:(i) The development would increase the proportion of recycled aggregates, particularly those available locally;(ii) The development would increase the proportion of recycled aggregates transported by rail or barge;(iii) The development would not substitute for rail-based or other sustainable facilities elsewhere in London, and thereby give rise to longer road journeys for the materials from the railhead or other facility to their ultimate destination; and(iv) Environmental and transport impacts are acceptable in relation to other policies in the Plan.” The reasoned justification for this policy does, however, state that: “Government guidance predicts the demand for aggregate will rise, and the proportion of the demand supplied from south-east sources will decline. London will need to import larger quantities of aggregate from other regions, as well as distant coastal super-quarries. As the aim should be the maximum use of rail and canal, a long-term, strategic approach to mineral planning is required to meet the needs of development in London. However, there are non-operational railheads in London and transfer is concentrated at a limited number of railheads, of which Horn Lane, Acton is the largest. As demand rises, it is important that transfer from road to rail distribution is not concentrated at the existing depots, because this would increase road movement within London and place increasing environmental pressure on the existing depots.”The Council’s emerging Development Sites Development Plan Document identifies the area within which the application site is located as a Development Site, specifically ACT6 – Acton Crossrail Station and 239/265/267/305/307 Horn Lane.The emerging DPD allocates the Horn Lane site for the:“Consolidation of industrial, aggregates and waste facilities to the north of railway, safeguarding of rail sidings, and introduction of commercial and residential (potential for student accommodation) uses south of the railway, compatible with the functioning of the station.”The document further states, within the Design Principles section, that:“North of the railway will continue to be safeguarded for essential aggregates/waste functions and related B1(c), B2, and B8 industrial uses, including the consolidation and maximization of existing freight operations at the railways sidings. Reorganisation of the site is encouraged to allow the accommodation of additional complementary uses on the site, including the relocation of the builders yard from south of the railway. Proposals should contribute to improved site operation and reduction of the environmental impact of these industrial activities on the surrounding residential areas.” Given this development plan policy background and the established use of the application site the application development is considered to be acceptable in principle and to accord with relevant guidance and policy requirements. Design, Scale and Siting:In support of the application the agents acting for the applicants have stated that:“Due to changes in design standards and substantial improvements in the environmental performance of modern CBP’s, it is not feasible to precisely replace the design and layout of the 50 year old Pioneer unit. However, the new plant occupies a similar area and includes similar structures, it incorporates an improved operational layout which when combined with modern control systems allows for precise computer controlled production with high energy efficiency/low energy use and minimal wastage. It thus provides a highly efficient method of production and tight environmental controls. The overall production system is therefore more sustainable than the Pioneer plant.”The CBP structure occupies an area of approximately 35 metres by 38 metres with additional space utilised for parking/waiting, administration offices and electrical apparatus.The fully enclosed storage bunkers and silos have a maximum height of 17.2 metres, which is stated to be less than the maximum height of the Pioneer silo structures which had a height of 18.4 metres above ground level.The six aggregate storage bins are in an elevated position and they are filled via an inclined (covered) conveyor. The conveyor is loaded from ground level via a sunken feed hopper by lorries delivering from the adjacent rail depot reversing and tipping out into a loading chute which is constructed with pre-fabricated walls on three sides.An elevated central control room is located next to the mixer house which allows oversight of the operations across the site.The yard area is all concrete hard surfaced draining to a collection point where the water is harvested and recycled.The production of concrete at the site is made via the mixing of coarse sand; aggregate (crushed rock or gravel); powdered cement; water; and small amounts of additives may be added to vary ‘standard’ characteristics e.g. to extend shelf life, reduce or increase the hardening time, provide chemical or salt resistance, increase water proofing qualities, or improve slump/flow characteristics for example. Cement may be substituted in part by recycled powdered Pulverised Fuel Ash on occasions.The operation of the CBP is undertaken on a ‘batch’ system where only enough mixing is undertaken to meet specific orders, in order to minimise storage requirements and wastage.The Acton CBP stores all raw materials in enclosed hoppers and silos. It is a fundamental requirement of the site’s Environmental Permit for the handling of powered cement that delivery, storage and mixing is made through a sealed system to prevent any escape. The heavier aggregate components are considered to be less of a dust risk and the coarse sand used at the site usually arrives in a damp state, due to water residue entrapped from the raw material washing stage. Bulk containers and wind/rain screens are therefore required for safe storage and handling of the coarse aggregates.Water supply is a key component of the process and utilises both recycled drain collected water (‘grey water’) and main fed supply kept in storage tanks and drawn down by the mixers as required.The concrete mixing is performed in either of the two sealed vertical ‘drums’ and the addition of the raw materials is done sequentially automatically adding the required amounts to a pre-set sequence and ‘recipe’The despatch of the premixed batch of concrete from the mixer into the company vehicle positioned underneath the mixer is made via a loading chute directly into the top of the drum on the vehicle. Given the ‘specialist’ nature of the design requirements for the facility, the scope to alter the design of the development to reflect local character is limited, except for possible amendments to some external materials and colours. The size of the facility, in terms of the amount of material to be produced, matches the maximum production capacity of the original Pioneer plant that it replaced, albeit that it is more efficient in the use of raw materials, power and water.Turning to the siting of the components of the CBP it is recognised that there have been some significant changes to the ‘layout’ of the structures within the site when comparing the original Pioneer Aggregates layout to the current position of buildings and structures. Previously the main structures, such as the hopper, silos, water tanks and conveyor belt were located in the eastern corner of the site, abutting the Derlin Construction yard and the Gowing & Pursey site. With the new arrangement the main elements of the cement production facility are located along the northern boundary of the site extending into the central area of the site. This has had the effect of moving the main structures further away from dwellings in Horn Lane, but closer to properties in Lowfield Road and Noel Road. In the original arrangement the cement loading hopper facility was located approximately 53 metres from the nearest residential property (234 Horn Lane), the conveyor belt 40 metres from the nearest dwelling (309/311 Horn Lane) and the silos 46 metres away (from 234 Horn Lane). With the new arrangement, the subject of this application, the hopper is 58 metres from the nearest dwelling (62 Lowfield Road), the conveyor belt 61 metres from the nearest unit (again 62 Lowfield Road) and the silos 59 metres away (from 309/311 Horn Lane). Whilst it is acknowledged that background noise levels in Lowfield Road and parts of Noel Road are likely to be generally lower than those in Horn Lane, it is not considered that, given the setting of the site in an enclave of industrial activities alongside a major railway line and railhead facility, the relocation of the concrete batching plant facilities could be argued to be inappropriate, particularly given the existing steps that have been taken to attenuate noise emissions and the opportunities to introduce further noise reduction works that could be reasonably conditioned (as discussed further below). In general terms, therefore, it is considered that the new layout represents an improvement in terms of the relationship between the industrial activities at the site and nearby residential properties over the previous situation, with the distances between the main elements of the development and the nearest residential dwellings being increased by between 5 and 21 metres over the previous situation In the particular circumstances of this case it is considered that the design, siting and scale of the development are appropriate. Impact on Residential Amenities of Adjoining Properties:It is considered that the main issues to be considered in respect of the impact of the development on residential amenity relate to noise generation, air quality issues, traffic generation and the visual impact of the development.Noise:With regard to noise it is considered that the main potential sources of noise disturbance relate to the loading of aggregate into the hopper, the discharge of finished concrete into the vehicle drums, the running of the conveyors, the mixing of the concrete and the noise associated with vehicle movements.The application is accompanied by a Planning Noise Assessment, dated August 2013, and undertaken by URS Infrastructure and Environment Ltd. The report confirms that the area is generally a high noise level area, with several noise sources including road traffic, railway noise and the wider industrial estate itself, consisting of the aggregate depot, a waste recycling and skip hire business and heavy machinery plant hire.Noise surveys were undertaken in May and June 2013 utilising data from sound level meters located within the Hanson site, outside 236/238 Horn Lane and adjacent to 60/62 Lowfield Road.Based on the results of the noise survey, an assessment of noise from the Hanson site was carried out in line with the criteria laid down in BS4142:1997 – ‘Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’, and a rating level has been derived for the noise from the application site. The resulting assessment indicates that noise generated from the Hanson site is 9dB below the existing background noise levels at the façade of 236/238 Horn Lane, and is 4dB in excess of the background levels at the rear façade of 60/62 Lowfield Road, which represents an increase of ‘marginal significance’ in BS4142 terms, i.e. below the criteria where complaints are considered likely.The noise survey indicates that the existing background noise levels are 50dB LA90,5min in the absence of noise from the application site. The following noise sources have been identified as the chief contributors to the noise levels at the residential receivers in Lowfield Road:• The hopper enclosure where the aggregate is discharged at high level;• Conveyor belt to hopper;• Discharge of the mix into the company lorries in the despatch house.The assessment therefore makes the following recommendations to further mitigate noise from these sources:• Improve sound insulation of the hopper enclosure;• Install side shielding to the conveyor belt; and• Install a partial barrier to the rear elevation of the despatch house i.e. further down the elevation to the maximum extent practicable.The assessment concludes that, with these mitigation measures in place, it would be expected that consequent noise levels at the receptor locations would reduce significantly, minimising the potential impact and reducing further the likelihood of noise related complaints.Regulatory Services have reviewed the submitted noise survey and have stated that:“a) In deciding that a reasonable target noise level should be a rating noise level difference over background of not greater than +5 dB, account has not been taken in the applicant’s noise assessment of L.B. Ealing’s SPG10 guidance. SPG10 requires that plant attenuation should achieve a standard 10 dB lower than that advocated in the assessment. The standard to be met is as follows:Table 3A3) Criteria for BS 4142 AssessmentsMajor industrial sourcesThe rating noise level of the noise emitted from the proposed development, determined by the procedure at BS 4142: 1997, should be at least 5 dB(A) below the background LA90, 1hr noise level, measures or calculated at 3.5 m from ground floor facades and 1 m from upper floor facades at the nearest affected premises.b) The specific noise level determined for the plant needs to be corrected by +5 dB, if the following conditions apply:To corrected specific LAeq add correction of 5 dB if offending noise has discreet tones, or is impulsive or irregular enough to attract attention – this gives the Rating Noise Level.No one third octave band analysis of the noise has been produced to demonstrate whether or not discreet tones are present and a short term noise trace of the activity has not been supplied to demonstrate that there are no impulsive events or irregular events.c) BS 4142 assesses the likelihood of complaints being received on the following basis:1. By subtracting the measured background noise level LA90 from the rating level LAeq, 1hr or LAeq, 5min2. The greater the difference, the greater the likelihood of complaints +10dB or more – complaints are likely +5dB of marginal significance -10dB or more – complaints unlikelyDesigning to a rating level difference over background of +5 dB would not therefore guarantee that there would not be nuisance or loss of amenity, especially since there has been no uncertainty build into the assessment with regard to tonal, impulsive or irregular elements in the noise.d) There is a history of complaints from residents in the area about the level of industrial noise, due to the combined activities of the Hanson plant, the Yeoman Aggregates/Aggregate Industries site and the Gowing & Pursey Waste Transfer Station etc.Conclusions on noiseThe noise assessment as submitted does not provide an adequate basis for ensuring that the new plant will not give rise to noise nuisance or loss of amenity. If the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant the application, it is recommended that the following condition be applied requiring that a further noise assessment is carried out to quantify the remedial works necessary to achieve the criterion set in SPG10 for the said plant:Details shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the rating noise level emitted from the proposed external plant and machinery at the proposed development, as assessed under BS4142:1997, shall be lower than the existing background noise level by at least 5 dBA as measured at 3.5 m from the nearest ground floor sensitive façade and 1 m from upper floor noise sensitive façades, during the relevant periods of operation.” The suggested mitigation measures and additional noise assessment could be secured by the imposition of appropriate conditions imposed on any permission should the Committee be minded to grant permission.Air Quality:The existing CBP is regulated by a Local Authority Permit issued by the Council. The Permit regulates in detail the specifications for plant that may emit or produce substances that may have an impact on the environment including cement, dust, process water etc.It is considered that the operation of the CBP has the potential to generate dust emissions as a result of both the on-site operations and the tracking out of material from the yard by vehicles entering and leaving the site. The application is accompanied by an Air Quality Impact Assessment, dated June 2013, and produced by URS Environment and Infrastructure Ltd. This assessment concludes that:“In general, the operation of the batching plant would have the potential to generate fugitive dust emissions as a result of on-site emissions and the track out of material. The concentrations of any airborne particulate matter generated by these activities would be controlled using the site management practices considered to be Best Available Techniques (BAT) within the Process Guidance Note for facilities handling cement, to the extent that the proposed development should only give rise to effects of negligible significance on dust deposition rates at the nearest sensitive receptors, by comparison with the old dry batch process.Any increase in delivery trips from the facility would have at worst a slight effect on amenity and a slight effect at receptors, due to the increased re-suspension of existing road dust.The impact of fugitive emissions of PM10 at receptors, with BAT control measures applied would be negligible when compared with the old batching plant. An increase in delivery trips from the facility would have at worst a slight effect on long term and short term PM10 concentrations at receptors, due to increased re-suspension of existing road dust.Overall the effect of fugitive emissions of particulate matter (dust and PM10) from the proposed development is considered to be not significant with respect to potential effects on health and amenity.The proposed development would not hinder the implementation of measures as have been identified in current local Air Quality Action Plan. Overall, the proposed development is ‘not significant’ in term of local air quality.”The main issues in respect of air quality are considered to be associated with the handling of the raw materials, principally the powdered cement, used in the production of the concrete, particularly when materials are unloaded or transported around the site, potential dust generation from the production process itself and the tracking out of material from vehicles entering or leaving the site.Pollution control at the site is also regulated by the Regulatory Services – Pollution team. The CBP site has a Local Authority Permit, issued in March 2012, under the terms of Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Regulatory Services officers therefore make regular visits to the site to monitor compliance with the Permit. The Permit regulates in detail the specifications for any plant that may emit or produce substances that could have an effect on the environment, including cement, dust and process waters.The new plant and equipment the subject of this application has been designed to limit the generation of pollutants by enclosing those areas where dust is likely to be generated. The nature of the operations at the site mean that the main potential source of air pollution is from material deposited in the yard areas and on vehicles entering and leaving the site. There is therefore a vehicle wash down facility, using a high volume (fire hose) water supply, within the mixing house where all vehicles leaving the site are sprayed by water to wash any loose material from the vehicle wheels and bodywork into the drainage system at the site where an interceptor removes material suspended in the mix. In addition all vehicles returning from a delivery and at the end of the day have a final internal clean of the vehicle’s mixing drum to remove any remaining solids that would otherwise set hard. A washout skip is provided as a receptor and the contents of the skip are periodically dug out by excavator and recycled back into the concrete mix. Regulatory Services have reviewed the submitted Air Quality Assessment and have concluded that:“In terms of the measures incorporated into its design to achieve effective air pollution control, the new Hanson concrete batching plant, as constructed, represents a significant improvement over the dry-batch plant it replaced. Regulatory Services considers that the plant design substantially complies with the required BAT standard, subject to some improvements to the management of waste concrete that have been agreed with the plant’s management. Improvements to site housekeeping, in particular measures to prevent the tracking-out of material from the site have been identified and the Council, as regulator, will require these improvements to be implemented through the plant’s environmental permit.Question on air pollution impact Summary of Regulatory Services’ commentsDoes the plant have the potential to contribute significantly to local air pollution? Yes. As a bulk cement activity it is subject to regulation under Pollution Prevention and Control legislation because of its potential to cause air pollution. It is also located less than 40 metres from the nearest housing. Its ability to pollute is minimised by design measures but depends upon effective site management.Does the plant contribute significantly to local air pollution? No. The materials with the most potential for air pollution, dry cement and similar fine powders, are fully contained in sealed silos and transfer equipment. Other emissions from the plant are either insignificant or controllable through proper site management and housekeeping. Does the present plant emit less pollution than the previous plant? Yes. Its design complies with the current DEFRA guidance, whereas the previous plant did not.Is the present plant operated in such a way as to minimise air pollution? Generally yes, but some improvements to waste management and vehicle cleaning have been identified and these are being implemented by the company under the environmental permit. Would the grant of permission hinder the achievement of local air quality objectives? (Policy 2.6) No. The effective control of pollution from this plant is essential to local air quality, but other local industrial activities are considered to have greater impact. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of controls provided under the environmental permitting regime as outlined above, it is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land, taking into account the impact of the use and other material considerations.If the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant the application, it is recommended that the following condition is attached to the permission to provide a particulate monitor on the Hanson site, to form part of a wider network within the Goods Yard:-Details shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority of a continuous air quality monitor for particulate matter, to be installed at the application site. The approved monitor shall be installed within three months of the date of grant of permission and permanently maintained thereafter.” The provision of an on-site air quality monitor for particulate matter could be secured by an appropriate condition imposed on any planning permission, should the Committee be minded to approve the application. Traffic Generation:The applicants’ agent has stated that the:“CBP operates to market demand which fluctuates from month to month and year to year reflecting the level of economic activity, infrastructure development and secured sales. The number of Hanson RMC vehicles operating from the Site reflects this demand and the journey time to the customer. Generally 6-9 RMC” (vehicles) “operate from the facility and will make 3-4 deliveries each per day.The new plant has not been developed to suddenly increase production capacity it will still meet the same market needs as the former Pioneer plant and will produce the quantities of concrete as has been produced historically. Although traffic numbers will fluctuate they will fall within the same range year on year.The Site operates in an industrial setting being only one development within a series of waste and commercial firms that generates road traffic. Under the Pioneer operation a portion of the aggregate (sand, coarse aggregate/gravel) was delivered by road. Under the present supply arrangement all aggregate is delivered via the adjacent rail depot. The depot is supplied from a range of quarries and marine aggregate wharves operated by the minerals industry to supply the London market. This method of supply removes thousands of lorry journeys from the local and regional road network and reduces the carbon cost per mile travelled for each tonne of aggregate/concrete used/produced considerably.Powdered cement is delivered in sealed containers by road tanker and piped into storage silos: the number of deliveries varies between 2 and 4 per day.When leaving the Site the RMC vehicles access Horn Lane and then journey to their destination which can be anywhere within a radius of some 10 miles (north of the River Thames).” The level of traffic generation would therefore equate to around 102 movements per day, comprising staff (approximately 18 movements), RMC vehicles (approximately 80 per day) and tanker deliveries (approximately 4 per day). The application has been considered by the Council’s Transport Services team who have raised no objections to the development on traffic generation or highways safety grounds. The issue of vehicles associated with the use of the site breaching the weight restriction controls in place on the nearby bridge is not a planning matter but will be pursued by the Highways team. Visual Impact:The application is also accompanied a Visual Statement, dated May 2012, and produced by DB Landscape Consultancy Ltd. The Statement concludes that:“The previous plant and the existing replacement plant do have certain differences that are clear to all, including colour, design style, outline and collective height (especially the concrete silos). There are other differences that are more difficult to ascertain such as total footprint or exact location.From any location…views of one plant have been replaced by views of another plant; a fact which is not in dispute. The existing plant does generally take up a higher proportion of the view from locations to the north/northwest but it is considered that from locations to the south/southeast, the previous plant took up a higher proportion of the view and was more noticeable.It is therefore considered that when the old plant and the existing plant are compared using a number of criteria, the differences identified due to the existing plant are clearly noticeable, especially the new white colour, but do not ‘materially affect’ the external appearance of the property.” Whilst these conclusions are noted, it is however considered that the visual impact of the new development, in comparison to the original appearance and layout of the site is materially different than was previously the case. What needs to be considered is whether the changes to the visual impact of the development are harmful to interests of acknowledged importance, particularly in terms of effect on outlook from surrounding properties and the wider impact on the character and appearance of the area as a whole.Whilst it is acknowledged that the changes to the layout of the CBP have resulted in a greater impact in visual terms for the occupiers of some properties, particularly in Lowfield Road and, to a lesser extent, in Noel Road, they have resulted in improvements to the outlook from other properties, particularly in Horn Lane and York Road. Overall it is considered that the visual impact of the replacement plant and machinery is comparable to that of the earlier situation and it would not be possible to justify that demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential dwellings has resulted from the development. Impact on Heritage Assets:The nearest ‘heritage assets’ to the application site comprise locally listed buildings in Cloister Road, some 310 metres to the north of the site, and in Lynton Road, around 600 metres to the southwest. It is therefore not considered that the development has any adverse impact on any heritage assets. Car Parking, Access and Traffic:The application site provides six on-site car parking spaces, and can accommodate 9 HGV’s that are parked on-site overnight and on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The applicant company also lease a car parking area located to the rear of the Derlin Construction site for over-spill parking.The access arrangements have been changed as a result of the development with the site now being provided with separate access and egress routes which is considered to be operationally more efficient and safer in highways safety terms.The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 5 (Good). The site is located close to Acton Main Line railway station which is less than 2 minutes walk time (100 metres) away. The nearest bus stop, outside Acton Main Line station, and served by the 266 service, is less than a minutes walk time (51 metres) from the site. Other bus services serving the site comprise the 95, 266, 440 and 487 all of which can be accessed from bus stops located within 500 metres of the site. North Acton London Underground station is located less than 10 minutes walk time (760 metres) from the site providing access to the Central Line. The details of the application have been reviewed by the Transport Development team which has raised no objection to the development.Accessibility:The site has level access from the private access road that serves the site. There is a defined pedestrian access route through the site and a ramped access is provided to a disabled WC facility within one of the ‘office’ buildings. There is a small step to the second office building but this would appear to be readily negotiable by wheelchair uses if they required access to the building. Whilst there is no designated disabled user car parking space there is sufficient space adjacent to the parking area, marked out as a servicing area, for disabled users if required. Refuse & Recycling:Refuse and recycling collection is contracted out to a cleaning company which collects material from the site and processes it elsewhere.Energy Efficiency/Sustainability: The replacement plant and machinery is stated to be more sustainable than the equipment it replaced as the current development is more efficient in terms of energy and water usage and results in less emissions of pollutants than the previous, 1960’s technology, equipment. Whilst no detailed information has been provided to confirm the overall energy efficiency and sustainability measures built into the development and unfortunately Building Regulations approval was also not sought for the development undertaken, the Council has no reason to believe the development does not accord, or cannot be made to accord, with relevant requirements.Following the service of a Building Regulations contravention notice, in March 2012, a regularisation application, reference number R/2012/0788, was received in respect of the development on 1 June 2012 but has still yet to be determined. Biodiversity:The site has limited biodiversity value being virtually devoid of any form of vegetation or wildlife habitat due to the limited size of the site and the nature of the commercial operations carried out. However, this is a historical situation that has existed at least since the site was first used as a CBP in the 1960’s. Employment Issues:The submitted application form states that the number of people employed at the site is 8 full time staff, the same as in respect of the former CBP operation.The supporting information submitted further states that:“The CBP employs two full time members of staff on site with up to nine drivers. Many further jobs are involved with the distribution of concrete to building sites and within the Hanson business through sales staff, quality control, admin, environmental auditing, health and safety, and management positions etc.”Planning Obligations/Community Infrastructure Levy:The application is not considered to raise any issues that would require the provision of any legal agreement. The area is already provided with air quality measuring equipment, including monitors on the site itself.With regard to any requirement for the payment of a Community Infrastructure Levy it is considered that the development only provides around 78 square metres of new floorspace that is used by staff working on the site and as such does not exceed the 100 square metre figure where a Mayoral CIL payment would be required. Human Rights Act:In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
Rosco White ● 4678d5 Comments