Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a materials recovery and recycling facility and Civic Amenity Site, incorporating a recovery and recycling building, storage bays, administration office/training building, external processing and storage area, two weighbridges, reuse and extension of railway sidings, and Civic Amenity Centre, together with associated car parking, landscaping, fencing and infrastructure (additional documents received 11/11/13).

Recommendation : Refusal, subject to the Mayor for London not directing the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application, or issuing a direction under Article 7.

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a materials recovery and recycling facility and Civic Amenity Site, incorporating a recovery and recycling building, storage bays, administration office/training building, external processing and storage area, two weighbridges, reuse and extension of railway sidings, and Civic Amenity Centre, together with associated car parking, landscaping, fencing and infrastructure.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the petitions received in objection to the proposal were invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioners raised the following points:

• Over 3,500 residents had signed the petitions.
• Many organisations such as local businesses, schools and places of worship had also signed petitions asking the Committee to reject the proposals.
• The site had already been considered unsuitable by the Council in 2011 when it decided that it would be excluded from the West London Waste Plan.
• If approved the application would bring misery and danger to the people of West Drayton and Yiewsley.
• Would harm the lives of local residents and destroy businesses.
• Who would want to live, work or do business near a waste plant?
• Residents had conducted a traffic survey in 2011.
• The site would generate 100,000 to 400,000 additional vehicle movements a year.
• If the plant was at a 600,000 tonne capacity it would equate to nearly 70 tonnes per hour in both directions all day and night.
• Latest data did not show how much material would be transported by rail.
• Statistics show that West Drayton does not meet EU air quality standards.
• Rats and vermin will increase, the MP for Ealing had suggested this was a continual problem effecting residents near Powerday’s site in White City.
• Tavistock Road was a narrow road.
• Powerday would be processing the equivalent weight of 15 Titanics or 7 Costa Concordias.
• The people of West Drayton and Yiewsley are asking Powerday to take their business elsewhere.
• Petitioners reminded the Committee of the Council’s policy of ‘putting our residents first’.

• Powerday assumed all their traffic would be routed via Horton Road.
• Traffic exiting Horton Road into the High Street would need to give way to southbound traffic.
• Horton Road was on an upward gradient slope.
• Traffic exiting Horton Road on the slope would have to join slow moving traffic in the High Street.
• The pedestrian crossing could be activated at any time causing traffic to back up.
• Once past the mini roundabout the HGVs would need to turn right into Tavistock Road.
• Next to the turning lane there was a yellow box junction and a few feet beyond that there was a zebra crossing.
• The station generated foot, bus, car and taxi traffic.
• West Drayton was benefiting from Crossrail.
• Tavistock Road was a local road with businesses located either side of its entrance and residential properties.
• Tavistock Road was often used as a short-cut through to Cowley over the next canal bridge.
• A residential development recently approved would add to Tavistock Road traffic.
• The access road to the Coal Yard was not wide enough for a HGV to enter the yard whilst another vehicle was exiting.
• Traffic into the site would back up at peak times.
• Network Rail had objected to the application because of the traffic levels that would generate at the level crossing.
• Approximately 1.2 million tonnes would travel by road.
• Approximately 138 tonnes would travel in and out of the site every hour.
• Cyclists and pedestrians would be subject to higher emissions when heavy vehicles start up in the traffic.

• Powerday claimed there would be 130 jobs created.
• The former tenant employed people on the site.
• There had been unauthorised activity taking place on the site.
• The Environment Agency had taken enforcement action at the site.
• Those who signed the business petition feared Powerday would have a negative impact on businesses trading along the High Street and Station Road.
• Businesses would lose trade if pedestrians were reluctant to cross roads.
• Horton Road was often congested.
• There was often traffic gridlocked up to the Stockley roundabout.
• Businesses had objected to the Council individually.
• The proposals would have a negative impact on residents and businesses.
• The proposed 130 jobs must be offset against the existing employment lost on the site and the negative impact on local employment.

• Important to set out the hours of operation proposed by Powerday.
• Import and export of material at any time on any day.
• Outdoor loading and unloading would happen on a 12 hour period on any day.
• Noise, light, dust, litter, flies and vermin would be attracted to the site.
• The timber shredder would create the most continuous noise.
• The mitigating counter measures proposed would be ineffective.
• The site was not part of an industrial site.

• The proposals would mean the loss of a large rare railhead.
• There was positive regeneration taking place in West Drayton and Yiewsley.
• Crossrail was attracting new businesses to the area.
• Powerday have not indicated that discussions had taken place with Network Rail as requested by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
• Powerday stated it was difficult commercially to commit to a minimum amount of importation by rail.
• Powerday wanted to keep their options open.
• Residents expected other developers to utilise the use of the railhead.
• The site could be used for public services or housing.
• 600,000 tonnes of waste a year or more would not add to the local amenity.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

• Requested that the decision be deferred.
• Normally requested that applications be approved.
• Additional information was put forward and needed to be considered.
• Everyone needed to be clear of all the facts.
• There was a proposed reduction of capacity which should reduce traffic.
• Wanted officers to accept amendments to address their expressed concerns.
• What was the point in public consultation if the concerns raised could not be addressed?
• Conclusion was that there was a need to defer.

A local Ward Councillor spoke in objection to the proposals and raised the following points:

• Had taken drastic action by resigning from the Major Planning Committee so that he could speak in support of local residents and petitioners.
• Was a local ward Councillor and local resident and had listened to the views of the local people.
• Not one resident spoken to had been in favour of the development which was after all in a residential street.
• The West London Waste Plan just over 2 years ago sent a clear message that a waste and recycling centre with a concrete crushing plant was not right for this area.
• In the public consultation which reached over 2500 residents just 1 letter in favour was received with over 200 letters against.
• The strong feeling was evident by the 3000 plus people who had signed petitions objecting to the scheme.
• Had received 100’s of emails from Yiewsley and West Drayton residents, retailers and other stakeholders all against the application.
• Welcomed the officers’ report which clearly indicated that the applicant had no local support or could not demonstrate how they could overcome the planning concerns.
• Petitioners should be congratulated for their speeches, using clear planning terms as to why the Committee must go with the officers’ recommendations and refuse the application.
• Tavistock Road was a residential street with more residential properties recently approved by the planning Committee.
• A Town Centre environment was not a practical place to have a waste and recycling operation running 24/7.
• The applicant had failed to demonstrate that it would not be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety.
• Air, light and noise pollution at unacceptable levels could not be overcome.
• There were 2 primary schools in local proximity of the site.
• The Council had a history of putting residents first and asked the Committee to refuse the unwanted, unneeded and un-welcomed application.

Members of the Committee discussed the application.  Members agreed that there was no reason for the application to be deferred and a decision would be determined at the meeting.

Officers informed the Committee that additional information had been received on 8 November 2013 which was advertised via a local newspaper. Officers also referred to the addendum sheet and informed the Committee that Powerday had proposed a reduced scheme of 450,000 tonnes of waste per annum on the 28th November 2013.  It was explained that officers considered the proposed amendment was substantially different from the original application and therefore required a fresh application rather than an amendment to the current scheme.

Members agreed that London Plan Policy 2.15 should be added to reason for refusal no.1.  Members expressed concern that there was no commitment from the applicant to use the railhead facilities on the site.

Members questioned the impact the proposals would have during the school runs in the morning and afternoon.  There was also concern about an unmanned railway barrier.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the, vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That  should  the  Mayor  not  direct  the  Council  under  Article  6  to  refuse  the application,  or  issue  a  direction  under  Article  7  that  he  is  to  act  as  the  Local Planning  Authority  for  the  purposes  of  determining  the  application,  delegated powers  be  given  to  the  Head  of  Planning,  Green  Spaces  and  Culture  to  refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the officers’ report and any other material planning reasons which might be raised by H.M. Railway Inspectorate.