Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission 172600.
781
The Committee considered a planning application for the removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission 172600 at Fairfields Farm, Fordham Road, Wormingford, Colchester. The application had been referred to the Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor Chapman.
The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information was set out.
The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
David Lewis, Planning Officer, presented the report and, together with Simon Cairns, Development Manager, Belinda Silkstone, Environmental Health Manager and Guy Milham, Environmental Health Officer, assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
Daniel Fenn addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He was speaking on behalf of a number of residents of Wormingford. He had been a resident of Spring Cottage for 14 years over which time the number of nuisance complaints and the extent of the odour problem had steadily increased. He also referred to the problem extending into Sundays and Bank Holidays and being sufficiently intense to penetrate indoors even when doors and windows were closed. He and other residents had been hopeful that the new odour elimination system specified in the previous planning permission would successfully resolve the problems for residents, however he considered the system chosen to be installed by the applicants did not work to the standard required. As such, he was of the view that the implementation of increased working hours would increase the odour nuisance and health risks for residents. He expressed disappointment about the threat of legal action by the applicant, should approval of the application not be granted, along with statements about heavy investment in the business and potential job losses. He confirmed he and many other residents were small business owners and, as such, were aware of the challenging economic environment whilst also investing heavily in their homes. He was of the view that, if the odours did not occur, there would be no problem with the location of the factory. He asked the Committee members to support the residents’ view and to refuse the application.
Robert Strathern addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the family business employed 40 local people, who faced the possibility of redundancy should the application be refused. He explained that the application was not to allow an extension of operating hours but that permission had been granted in 2017 for the business to operate over 24 hours, six days a week, subject to the installation of an odour unit. He confirmed that an odour unit had been installed at a cost of £250,000. He explained that the current application had been requested by the Council as a result of Environmental Health Officers not discharging the conditions associated with the 2017 planning permission, on the grounds that the approved drawings required the erection of a wall which had yet to be complied with. He understood that the Environmental Health Officer’s view was that the absence of the wall would reduce the effectiveness of the odour unit, however no evidence had been submitted to support that concern. He referred to a letter from Land Air Consultants (LAC), consultants appointed by him, explaining why an internal wall would not have an observable effect on odour impact and concluding that local amenity is not adversely affected by 24-hour production. He also referred to the review of the LAC results, commissioned by the Council and regretted that this had not been published until the day before the Committee meeting. He considered this review did not address the issue of the internal wall and was of the view it was not relevant and compared its desk-top nature to be inadequate, particularly given the presence on site of his own consultants on many occasions. He noted that the residents of the two properties located closest to his business had indicated their support for the application as well the view of the Environmental Health Officers who were unwilling to support the application whilst odour complaints continued. He considered this provided residents with an incentive to continue to complain and that the majority of objections had been made by a few residents living more than 1km from the site. He referred to the Environmental Health Officer’s confirmation that none of the complaints had constituted a statutory nuisance whilst he had received confirmation that his own legal situation was robust. He considered his business was at severe commercial risk despite support for the business out-weighing objectors. He was hopeful that the Committee would approve the discharge of the condition associated with the planning permission granted in 2017.
Councillor Chapman attended and, with the consent of the Chairman, addressed the Committee. He considered the applicant to be a very successful and innovative local employer but he was of the view that the production was causing considerable issues for residents locally and sometimes for others in the wider village. He explained that the prevailing westerly wind affected homes in a line, eastwards from the site. He had tried to be impartial but he acknowledged that complaints had escalated. He had assisted in facilitating liaison meetings between the applicant, residents and the Parish Council and regretted these had not continued due to the continuing level of complaints. He confirmed that many of the objectors were business owners who did not wish to become serial complainants. He considered the situation now needed to be resolved, he asked the Committee members to support the recommendation contained in the report and he asked the applicant to be willing to work with the officers as well as his neighbours to resolve the issues.
Members of the Committee noted the substantial numbers of complaints recorded over a series of months, the number of occasions when the site was visited by the Environmental Health Officer together with the associated intensity of odour recorded and supported the view expressed by the ward Councillor for the applicant to be willing to work constructively with the residents. Comments were made regarding the odour reduction system which had been installed and the professional view of the Environmental Health Officer that the system was not operating at the optimal level that it was capable of delivering. Reference was made to the conditions and illustrations associated with a grant of planning permission and the need for those associated documents to be complied with. It was also noted that, on one visit by the Environmental Health Officer, the factory was in production but the extraction system had been switched off. Acknowledgement was made that complaints had not constituted a statutory nuisance but that there was a responsibility on any business owner to seek to address complaints, particularly when they were increasing in frequency and had occurred over a long period of time.
An observation was also made by those Committee members who had attended the site visit regarding the lack of separation between the frying and packing areas, the occasional escape of steam, its potential to spread across the factory area and to be extracted without any form of treatment from a high-level vent in the factory building. Reference was also made to the height of the chimney from the extractor unit and the potential for steam to travel beyond the closest neighbouring properties before descending.
Clarification was sought from the Environmental Health Officer regarding the additional work being required of the applicant and the likelihood that it would successfully address the odour problems being experienced by residents. Advice was also sought regarding the continued operation of the site, should the current application be refused, as recommended by the officer; whether the odour problems were required to be reduced to an acceptable level or to be eradicated completely and the discrepancies between the extreme intensity of the odour problem described by residents in comparison to the Environmental Health Officer’s assessment of the odour as generally being of very faint or faint intensity.
Belinda Silkstone, Environmental Health Manager, explained that Environmental Health Service had been unaware of a high level vent prior to the publication of the report by LAC when they learnt that they had been provided in 2014 to enhance the environment for the staff and explained that work was still required to determine what effect the closure of the vents would have on the negative pressure of the building. She also confirmed that the assessment of the application made in 2017 in the absence of knowledge of the high-level vents.
Guy Milham, Environmental Health Officer, clarified that high-level extraction vents were positioned on the apex, just under the roofline of the building which extracted air without any form of treatment and he explained that air was treated by means of the canopy directly above the frying unit which directed air for treatment to the air handling unit. He went on to explain that the objective was for the impact on the amenity of the residents to be reduced such that the odours were reduced to negligible levels. He confirmed that during the course of visits the recorded intensity had ranged from very faint to very noticeable, whilst predominantly being very faint or faint. However, he considered the odour was clearly having a detrimental effect on amenity, often over 1km away from the site, whilst, if the air handling unit was operating effectively, odours would not be present that frequently at that distance from the site.
The Development Manager explained that the Committee members were being asked to consider the acceptability of the odour system as it stood, in terms of its operation, extraction, installation and location in the factory building, together with the odour problems which had been reported. He acknowledged Committee Members own observations from the site visit regarding the high-level vent which was taking volumes of air from the building and dispersing it into the wider environment. He also referred to problems associated with the system itself which may be due to design or operational problems, yet to be determined.
The Chairman confirmed her understanding that, if the current application was refused, production at the site could continue but the implementation of an extended 24-hour, six day per week operation would be dependent on the installation and operation of an air handling unit considered to be satisfactory by the Council’s Environmental Health Service.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the conclusion had been drawn that the air handling unit in place was considered by the applicant to be an efficient system but this meant that odours were escaping from elsewhere which weren’t being directed through the unit. The negative pressure of the building should prevent leakages occurring and, accordingly, the reason why this was not the case needed to be determined by the applicant. He also confirmed that the Chairman’s understanding was correct, such that the air handling unit needed to be shown to be fit for purpose for the extended operating hours to be permitted.
RESOLVED (EIGHT voted FOR and ONE ABSTAINED) that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.