Agenda item

Retention of hospital waste store (Retrospective Application) with new boundary hedge planting.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Retention of hospital waste store (Retrospective Application) with new boundary hedge planting.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and noted that 51 residents had signed a petition requesting the removal of the waste store. The Committee heard that there was no consultation regarding the building, which was built in front of the building line, without planning permission in the Green Belt and Harefield Village Conservation Area, and it was 1.65m from the boundary of the hospital, which put clinical waste very close to the public. In addition, the doors of the waste store were often not locked and there was no security, which meant that there was nothing stopping members of the public and vermin from accessing the waste store.

The applicant addressed the Committee and accepted that all the points raised by the petitioner were justified, but the hospital had action plans in place to deal with the concerns, including new security measures and locks on the waste store’s doors. The applicant apologised for the mistakes that were made, and stated that the hospital had wrongly assumed that the waste store could be built with the previous planning permission, but the error was not intentional.

Responding to Councillors’ questions, the applicant confirmed that the waste store was placed at the front of the site to avoid taking waste through the hospital building past vulnerable patients, as well as members of the public and staff, and by positioning it closer to the ITU, it would save resources that would be used taking the waste around the site.

Councillor Higgins, Ward Councillor for Harefield, noted that the waste store security was lacking, and as such, it risked contamination and vermin, and would have an adverse impact on local residents who would also be put at risk. The Committee heard that the retrospective application meant that there was not a chance for residents or Councillors to object in the correct manner, and the building does not fit in the area. Councillor Higgins commented that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, much stronger conditions were required to prevent any future issues.

Councillor Palmer, Ward Councillor for Harefield, had also submitted a written objection to the Chairman which cited concerns regarding the waste store’s positioning, impact on street scene, impact on residents and public health, lighting, and its building in the Green Belt without planning permission.

The Committee commented that the petitioner made some very persuasive arguments regarding health concerns at the site, and also noted that the planning impact on the listed building nearby and Green Belt were concerns.

Councillors expressed their sympathy with the hospital, but noted that the waste store was in front of the building line, affected the street scene and view of the listed building, and there were a number of concerns expressed regarding the siting of the waste store and its impact on local residents. Members stated their apprehension about the lack of security at the site, and that the waste store would attract vermin. The Committee noted that a more secure location that did not interfere with a locally listed building would be preferable to the current arrangement.

Responding to questioning regarding whether the application could be considered as infill, officers confirmed that policy PR20 allows infilling at the hospital, but it would be able to enforce security within one month through conditioning, should the Committee be minded to approve.

Members agreed that if the waste store remained in its current position, it would require a tree planting all around it which would obscure the view of the listed building. As such, the Committee confirmed that they would like waste store relocated, but noted that a refusal would not help the hospital. A motion to defer the application was moved, to allow time to negotiate with the applicant to try and agree a better site for the waste store. This motion to defer was seconded, and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.