Agenda item

Change of use to clinical waste treatment and transfer facility, including autoclave, air condenser, boiler, shredder, compaction units, bin washes and extraction flue.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Shields, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for change of use to clinical waste treatment and transfer facility, including autoclave, air condenser, boiler, shredder, compaction units, bin washes and extraction flues and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the application site had previously been used as a distribution hub and explained the adjacent unit, owned by the applicant, was used for same use as proposed within the application.  Members were advised of the site layout, including loading dock and locations of equipment such as wash plant, shredder and autoclave.  The Committee were informed of the proposed access arrangements from Meadowfield Avenue and details of car parking and vehicle movements.

 

In reference to consultee responses, the Senior Planning Officer noted no objections from Statutory consultees subject to conditions.  He noted in respect of public responses there had been 134 letters of objection from residents, and objections from County Councillor N Grayson and Spennymoor Town Councillor M Harmer.  It was explained that the objections were set out within the report and included: odour; noise and disturbance; traffic and increased vehicle movements; potential risk from hazardous materials; and potential negative impact upon house prices.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the development was mainly the relocation of a long established business from an adjacent unit with the addition of a treatment process for a waste stream that was already collected at the adjacent site.  He explained that the potential impacts of the development had been fully assessed and found to be acceptable, subject to conditions where appropriate and that the development would be fully contained within an industrial building on a site allocated for employment use.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted concerns of objectors had been taken into account along with other responses including those of statutory consultees that had raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions where appropriate.  He added that whilst mindful of the nature and weight of public concerns it was considered that those were not sufficient to outweigh the planning judgement in favour of the proposal.

He concluded by noting that the proposals were considered to fully accord with all relevant national and local planning policies and therefore were recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked if the objections raised by Spennymoor Town Councillor M Harmer were on behalf of the Town Council or as an individual Member.  The Senior Planning Officer noted they were in his capacity as an individual Town Councillor.  The Chair asked Mr M Fearman, local resident, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Mr M Fearman thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and also thanked Planning and Environmental Health Officers for their time and help in respect of his, and his brother’s, objections.  Mr M Fearman thanked the applicant and noted he understood that, if the application was granted, the applicant had agreed conditions that would ease some of the concerns.

 

Mr M Fearman noted that his objections were based around the noise report, adding he did not believe the report was based on a “worst case scenario” as requested by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.  For context, he explained that the BS4142 noise assessment would entail a noise consultant visiting the area, obtaining existing noise measurements in the area where the properties were and then modelling of the plant that would go into the unit would be undertaken.  He added that then the modelled level of noise from the plant would be compared to the existing noise level in the area.  Mr M Fearman explained that the noise consultant could add subjective penalties on to the assessment if they believed certain noises would be heard at the nearest residential property, those noises being: impulsive; tonal; intermittent; and other sounds characteristics that may be distinctive against the residual acoustic environment.  

 

Mr M Fearman noted that the conclusion of the noise report could be one of three, namely: any noise up to 5dB above the background level showed no impact from the development, the result in this case with the report noting only 3dB above the background level; any noise of 5-9dB above the background level, which showed the development may have an adverse impact; and noise levels of 10dB or above which showed the development may cause a significant adverse impact.  He reiterated that he believed that the report had not been undertaken in terms of a worst case scenario as requested by the Council.  He added that the noise levels within the report show the shredder would operate at 102dB and the autoclave being 96dB.  He explained that these levels were obtained by the noise consultant when visiting another site to record similar plant noise levels.

 

Mr M Fearman noted he requested that those results were made available to scrutinise, to understand at what distance the noise levels were recorded from the plant, and whether the plant was operating at full load or half load, full speed or half speed and so on.  He noted that some penalties had been applied in respect of tonality, for the extraction system, with the consultant noting the noise would just be perceivable for the nearest residential properties and some penalties had also been applied in terms of impulsive noises for door slams and skid movements, again just perceivable for the nearest residential properties.

 

Mr M Fearman noted that he felt that the BS4142 assessment should have additional penalties applied to it for the noise characteristics of the shredder in operation as he felt the level of 102dB would be audible at the nearest residential properties and, as the report was requested on a worst case scenario, he felt that the penalty should have been taken into account. 

 

Mr M Fearman noted that on Sunday, 1 November, it had been witnessed that the roller shutter doors at the unit had been open most of the day while heavy good vehicles were moving in the yard and he added he had no doubt this would continue throughout the lifetime of the development.  He noted that the noise report did not take into account noise escaping from the building when any roller shutter doors may be open and therefore he felt this did not allow for a full picture of the unit in terms of what the noise levels would be at the nearest residential properties with the doors open, again not a worst case scenario. 

 

Mr M Fearman explained that the background noise level used within the noise report were not the lowest recorded background level, not a worst case scenario.  He accepted that the report had been done using BS4142 methodology and that stated that the lowest background noise level did not have to be used, however, as the Council had requested worst case scenario it was his opinion that the lowest background level should have been used and if that lowest level had been used it would have taken the noise levels from being 3dB over the background, showing no impact, up to 7dB over the background, likely to cause an adverse impact.

 

Mr M Fearman concluded by noting that difference in dB level, the assessment being carried out with the doors closed, and lack of penalties on the application would, if looking at a worse case scenario, would change it from being currently acceptable to being unacceptable and he thanked the Committee for their time.

 

The Chair thanked Mr M Fearman and asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted an officer from Environmental Health, the Principal Public Protection Officer, John Hayes unfortunately had been unable to join the meeting, however, he had asked for a worst case scenario in terms of the noise report.  He added the study was carried out and the noise report was passed to the Principal Public Protection Officer who had been satisfied with the outcome and had recommended conditions.  The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to condition four which set specific noise levels for the site and asked for the applicant to monitor levels, while not precluding the Council from undertaking monitoring itself.  He explained that they were essentially top-level limits, with no degree of freedom within that, and therefore the Council would expect the applicant to reach those levels and indeed the applicant had indicated they could achieve those levels.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and noted other issues raised by objectors and responses to those were set out within the report.  He asked Mr K Sheehan to speak on behalf of the applicant.

 

Mr K Sheehan thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he was the Technical Manager from Sharpsmart Limited, the applicant, and he covered areas of work such as compliance, new infrastructure and project management.  He noted that at Sharpsmart, the core business was the manufacture, supply and servicing of reusable sharps containers and their aim was to make healthcare safer through their safety engineered containers, a more environmentally friendly alternative to single-use, virgin plastic containers which are burnt after one use.  He added that Sharpsmart containers could be used up to 500 times, saving thousands of tonnes of plastic and reducing CO2 emissions by 80 percent over the life of the container.

 

Mr K Sheehan explained Sharpsmart had supplied the NHS with reusable containers and healthcare waste services for close to 20 years from their headquarters at Unit 44, Meadowfield Avenue and since June/July 2019 from Unit 1 which had been used for distribution and storage.  He noted that Sharpsmart serviced hospitals such as the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Sunderland, James Cook and other major NHS Trusts within the region.  He added that in the company’s history, nationally the company had no health and safety or environmental issues, having four further regional facilities in Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex and Berkshire. 

 

He asked Members to note that, in supporting the healthcare sector and NHS in the north east, Sharpsmart were looking to invest in their Spennymoor facility with new equipment and technologies for the safe processing of certain healthcare waste.  He noted the sustainable process allowed waste to be rendered non-hazardous by the means of steam treatment. 

He explained that the resultant material was used as an alternative to fossil fuels in power stations and cement kilns.  Mr K Sheehan noted that currently there were no facilities within the region that were permitted to this, meaning waste from local hospitals was transported hundreds of miles for processing and disposal, an additional cost to the local NHS. 

 

Mr K Sheehan explained that the investment in Unit 1 would create long-term jobs in the region, Sharpsmart currently employing 21 staff from the local area in the current facility, some of which had been with the company since the company began operating.  He added there were currently five new open roles and he reiterated that the Spennymoor facility was Sharpsmart’s national headquarters.  He noted that roles at the site included drivers, plant operators and site managers, and the Spennymoor site was also home to the company’s customers service teams, human resources department and national operation leads and the company was looking to grow the administration side of the business further out of that facility.

 

Mr K Sheehan explained that the healthcare waste treatment facility being proposed was not what people might envisage when they thought of a waste disposal site, with waste arriving in sealed waste containers which were then placed in locked waste carts within the building to await processing.  He added that waste would be processed within 24 hours of arriving on site and then removed for onward recovery for energy to waste facilities or power plants.  He noted large quantities of waste would not be stored, there would be no lose piles of material on site, all waste being stored in the sealed carts until processed.  It was explained that the equipment and process underwent in-depth testing to meet the high standards set and controlled by the Environment Agency, those standards being checked weekly within the first six months of operation and then monthly for the life of the plant to ensure high standards were maintained.  Mr K Sheehan explained that Sharpsmart would be willing to have open days to show the local community how the operation worked and wanted to have working relationship with the local area to be able to discuss any concerns.  He added that Sharpsmart had taken note of the concerns raised to date and offered solutions to address those as set out within the conditions agreed to, such as removal of gate alarms, reversing alarms and a traffic management system to ensure no Sharpsmart vehicles accessed the site from the residential side. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In reference to the noise report, Mr K Sheehan noted he was not qualified to speak in-depth on the issues, however, in terms of issues in respect of doors being open or closed, he explained that once the site was a permitted, operational facility there would be requirements that the doors be shut while in operation and, as per the site plan included within the Officer’s presentation, the loading dock to be used for the movement of the materials was enclosed and almost a separate unit from where the waste processing would take place.  He added there was an extra internal wall being in between the processing plant and the doors that would be open during loading and unloading. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr K Sheehan and noting the Senior Planning Officer had no points to raise he asked if the Committee had any points of clarification.

 

Councillor J Clare noted he took comfort in the reference to the Environment Agency carrying out inspections weekly and explained he had questions relating to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report, referring to 600 litres of liquid effluent per cycle.  He asked what the total amount would be, whether that was the 1.2 million litres referred to and also whether there was any potential for contaminated effluent being discharged to the sewer to present a danger or smell.

 

The Chair asked Mr K Sheehan if he could respond.  Mr K Sheehan noted that in terms of contaminated effluent, it sounded worse that it was, in essence being condensed steam.  He explained that it was classed as effluent as it had gone through a treatment process and classed as contaminated as it would have been in contact with a waste stream, even though that waste stream would have been rendered non-hazardous.  He added that the effluent would be tested on a regular basis as part of the company’s discharge consent and the company had such a consent already at Unit 44 for the discharge of wash water.  He reiterated that it was condensed steam from a wash process and was non-hazardous and similar operations were carried out at other similar facilities around the country.

 

Mr K Sheehan noted that in terms of volume question, the 600 litres stated would be a higher estimate of the amount of effluent, this varying by ambient conditions.  He added that on cold days more steam was required and this in turn would produce a greater amount of effluent.  He reiterated that 600 litres would be a maximum with a more usual amount being around 300 litres per cycle, with around ten cycles on a normal processing day. 

 

Councillor J Atkinson asked as regards the autoclaves being used subject to “high pressure and high vacuum” and asked what pressures were being used and whether there were any potential issues in terms of leakages or explosions. 

He added he had worked with high pressure vessels and noted in his experience there had been a process of inspection to be able to obtain insurance and asked if such inspections were undertaken.

 

Mr K Sheehan explained that the pressures were in the region of 45psi, being deemed “high pressure” in terms of clinical waste treatment as some parts of the process operated under no pressure.  He noted some elements used steam injected under pressure, however, the system would not in turn hold that pressure.  He added that insurance requirements were such that vessels were required to be MDT tested and pressure tested annually and signed off by insurers.

 

The Chair thanked Mr K Sheehan and asked the Committee for their comments or any proposals in respect of the application.

 

Councillor J Atkinson noted he would propose that the Committee accept the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor J Clare noted for planning applications it ultimately depended upon the promises of applicants in maintaining and in some cases, those promises were not upheld.  He added that was why he asked questions and had noted the processes would be subject to regular testing by the Environment Agency.  He explained this has alleviated his fears in respect of the application and that, in terms of noise and the number of journeys generated, residents would have recourse via Planning Enforcement at the Council and be able to challenge any misuse of the system.  Councillor J Clare noted resident’s concerns and was heartened that the company would be offering to show residents around the facility and hoped residents would be reassured by this.  Councillor J Clare noted, given the promises of the applicant, he would second the proposal for approval as per the report.

 

Councillor I Jewell added he felt the stringent conditions associated with the application probably mitigated any of the fears local residents had.

 

The Chair asked the Solicitor – Planning and Development, Clare Cuskin to take the vote for the approval of the application.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

 

 

Councillor J Robinson left the meeting at 10.03am

 

Councillor I Jewell in the Chair