PLANNING COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE ITEM: 02

Site Location : Old Oak Sidings, Willesden

Tra vell in gC ran
STA TIO NA

es
ridg e

PPR OAC

34.1m

40.9m

BM 33.97m
The New Business Centre
1

Pip elin

eB

Freightliner Terminal

Subway

39.0m

Willesden Junction

73

80

Club
78

74

STE PH EN SO NS TR EE T

78

71

71

Warehouse

FB
CR EW

64

72

34.2m
1

Posts
52 GO OD HA LL STR EE T
45

33 LD OAK .64 LA NE m

ST OK E
21

67

PL AC E

42

Sto
22

BM

WE B

61

PL AC E

30

32.7m

56

Posts

18

Posts

50

Posts
9
2

LB

Fis he rm Arm an (P s 's H)

GO OD HA LL

ST RE

ET

BM 31.35m
49

31.1m
ld O

Depot
rf ha

Depot
16

Atl

as

W ha

rf

33 .9m

29.9m
El Su b

St

BM 30.77m 30.2m To win g

13

LA NE

SP
Depot

SP
Depot

Works

1
5

30.2m
kJ un ctio n
FB

Grand

Union

Canal

Old

SP

British Railways Hostel

Branch Paddington m BM 30.44 30.1m

Oa

Stones
Old Oak Common Diesel Electric Locomotive Depot

Ap

ex In

ng E

stat e

du s

Tradi

tria

Gat eway

lE

Sta

30.2m

Works

L Twr Tank L Twr

L Twr
L Tw r

L Twr

L Twr
L Tw
Garage

L Twr

L Tw

L Twr
r

WB

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Ealing Licence no. 086355 2004 The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this web-site/document is provided by the L.B. of Ealing under licence from OS in order to fulfil its public function to act as a planning authority. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence OS mapping for their own use.

Print Date 29 / 10 / 2004 Planning Services EGIS 2002 Original Image Captured at Scale 1:2500 THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO SCALE

23

te

to

25

El Sub Sta

25

24

BM 31.04m
6

23

Gra Pad nd Un ding ion ton Can Bra al Tow nch ing Path 29.9m

OA K

OL D

10

12

Pa th

11

15

ne

59

59
57

EP

LA C

45

14

33

14 15 10 1 116

SB

33

Willesden High Level Junction

gs

23

27

h ut So

es W

tS

id

in

SP

15
13
11

21

31

Signal Station

37

Old Oak Sidings

43

Path

ak O W

14

15

Gateway Trading Estate

Works
19

SP

30.8m
18
H

1
2

BM 31.55mYTH

ER

OA D

17

30.1m

To g win

L Twr

th Pa

02
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: REF: WARD: 10th Nov 2004 801/3/248 Out of borough (LBHF) Nearest ward in LBE is East Acton

PLANNING OFFICER: Samantha Powell

TEAM MANAGER:

Aileen Jones

Address: Proposal:

Oak Sidings, Willesden Junction London NW10 The use of the site as a waste management facility and storage depot for bulk construction materials including the erection of three buildings and covered storage bays, the formation of a railway platform, a canal barge loading bay and 2.4 m high [initial application was 4m high] noise barrier. The proposed buildings are to provide offices and a recycling and recovery facility in phase 1, the latter building then being converted into a vehicle maintenance and training facility with offices in phase 2 and the erection of a larger recycling and recovery building in phase 2. The covered bays would be used for the storage of bulk construction materials (Out of borough consultation on full (Environmental Impact Assessment) planning application) 14/01/04 (Confirmed LBE raise objection under delegated powers 5/05/04) Addendum information received : 7/09/04.

Application Received:

Type of Application:

Out of borough consultation on full (Environmental Impact Assessment) planning application

RECOMMENDATION RAISE OBJECTION ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. The potential adverse noise impacts resulting from the proposed waste management facility are likely to harm the living conditions of residents within the London Borough of Ealing.

CONSULTATION: Neighbour Notification: 219 Residents in Goodhall Street, Stoke Place, Crewe Place, Webb Place, Old Oak Lane, Stephenson Street and Victoria Terrace were consulted. 42 Responses to consultation on addendum. Concerns relate to: Traffic, environmental (air and light pollution) and noise impact and the proposed size and nature of the operation on the adjacent residential area Impact on the character of Old Oak Conservation Area. Ecological impacts impacts on habitats along the canal. Conservation/Biodiversity management plan would be required should development go ahead.
Page 2 of 10

02
The Island Triangle Residents Association (TITRA) (various letters) Impact on health of residents No need for the facility.

Re: Addendum. Concerns expressed: Acknowledge changes to proposed working hours and operation but still inappropriate location close to residential area Acknowledge concrete crusher proposed within a building within Phase 1 same should apply to other noisy processing Noise from rail loading in excess of London Borough of Ealing (LBE) and World Health Organisation limits Other noise- reduction in hours of operation not far enough Phase 2 building will not provide adequate shielding from noise from the activities on site. Air pollution reduction in air quality for residents, some only 50m away. Traffic High no (488) suggested vehicle movements per day will harm living conditions. Also concern applicants will seek to use Old Oak Lane as access point in future. Visual impact Size of Phase 2 building (160m long x 18.5m high) will be visible from and have a harmful affect on character of local residential streets and designated Conservation Area.

Subsequent response: Island Triangle Residents Association (TITRA) produced a table of suggested conditions to mitigate the potential impact of the development and forwarded to LBHF.

Response: Potentially many of the concerns raised could be met with stringent mitigation measures imposed on any grant of consent by LBHF. However, in the absence of adequate mitigation measures, recommend LBE objection maintained in terms of potential noise impact on local residents.

Transport Services

Response to initial application: Concerns regarding narrowing of the access road and requirement for light signalling in both directions (advisory signs not adequate). Concern re: mini roundabout accident data. Recommend a safety audit be carried out. Night deliveries should not be permitted Contributions to improve pedestrian safety in vicinity of site should be sought.

Response to addendum: Whilst above concerns still apply, the proposal is likely to result in local traffic impact only (ie not in LBE road network), and therefore raise no formal objection.

Response: Raise no objection on traffic grounds as potential impact unlikely to affect residents in LBE.

Page 3 of 10

02
Principal Environmental Health Officer Response to initial application: A more in depth acoustic survey is required before full observations can be given. The proposed barriers would not achieve our criteria; the background noise survey has been too limited and does not reflect weekend levels for day, evening and night and the Noise Exposure Category (NEC) assessment is incorrect for this site. (NECs only apply for transportation sources such as rail and traffic). Also have concerns regarding air quality from the dust generated by the crusher. The potential impact upon LBE residents is therefore currently of significant concern. Assume LBHF EHO will also be concerned at the environmental impact, albeit that the residents most affected reside in Ealing borough. In order that we can provide a comprehensive response, additional technical information is required from the applicants. More details and discussions required with noise consultants re: assessment methodology. Suggest engage suitable consultants. Refer to conditions on QUATTRO decision. Also have concerns re: concrete crusher and impact on air quality. Response to addendum: Conditions must be specified to regulate the noise to a low enough level. Need to control noise breakout from yard, from building and noise from fixed plant and machinery. Suggest following condition which follows the recommended wording advised in PPG 24:
`The rating noise level emitted from any operation carried on in any building on the proposed site, any operation carried on within the curtilage of the proposed site and from any fixed plant or machinery audible beyond the boundaries as assessed under BS4142: 1997, shall be lower than the existing background LA90 noise levels pertaining during the permitted period of operation by at least 5 dBA at 3.5 m from the nearest ground floor sensitive facade and 1 m from the nearest first floor or higher noise sensitive facade.`

Need to set a noise level maximum for construction, and need to deal with dust, bonfires, asbestos and informing the public, as per LBE recommended informatives/conditions Would welcome conditions restricting: loading/unloading the railway

Response: Potentially the impacts of the facility may be able to be mitigated to achieve the required standards to protect local residents. The mitigation measures currently proposed for the facility however fail to meet the required standards by LBE in terms of noise impact and as such the proposal would be likely to result in conditions likely to harm the living conditions of the residents of LBE. As such recommend previous objection on grounds of potential impact on living conditions on LBE residents be maintained.

Page 4 of 10

02
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: (LBHF Planning history) Ref: Date 1980 Proposal Outline permission for concrete mixing plant, industrial units and warehouse and oil distribution depot Outline application for use of the site as recycling facility not determined. Appeal on deemed refusal. Decision Permission lapsed

1998

Appeal withdrawn as Environmental Statement not submitted prior to Public Inquiry.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: SUMMARY The potential contribution of the proposed development to waste management within London in accordance with the Mayors London Plan is recognised. However, the mitigation measures currently proposed for the facility fail to meet the required standards by LBE in terms of noise impact and the proposal would be likely to result in conditions likely to harm the living conditions of the residents of LBE. As such it is recommended to raise objection. SITE DESCRIPTION AND DETAILS OF PROPOSAL Old Oak Sidings is adjacent to the LBE borough boundary at the eastern end of the borough. The site is fully within LBHF, within an industrial zone, the Park Royal Regeneration area. The site is railway land and is in part still used for temporary storage of construction materials. To the north-west of the site across the railway lines lies Old Oak Lane conservation area, a residential area within LBE. LBE residential properties also lie to the south-west of the site. Proposal The application is a Consultation from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on an application for: The use of the site as a waste management facility and storage depot for bulk construction materials including the erection of three buildings and covered storage bays, the formation of a railway platform, a canal barge loading bay and 2.4 m high [initial application was 4m high] noise barrier. The proposed buildings are to provide offices and a recycling and recovery facility in phase 1, the latter building then being converted into a vehicle maintenance and training facility with offices in phase 2 and the erection of a larger recycling and recovery building in phase 2. The covered bays would be used for the storage of bulk construction materials. Additional information to which the most recent consultation relates comprises revised drawings (showing minor amendments to layout not effecting the environmental impact) and an addendum to the Environmental Statement dealing with noise, dust, ecology and waste recycling rates. The planning application involves the use of the site for the recycling and subsequent transfer of waste materials and for the bulk storage and distribution of aggregates, eg. sand, ballast, hardcore, etc. used in the construction industry. Waste materials would comprise paper, glass, metal, tyres, plastic, wood, stones, soils and secondary aggregates. Essentially the proposed waste streams are: commercial and industrial, construction and demolition materials and municipal solid waste.
Page 5 of 10

02
The proposal would not operate as a civic amenity site and therefore no household waste could be delivered to the site by residents. Initially it is proposed that only the eastern part of the site (Phase 1) would be developed pending the release of the remainder of the site by Balfour Beatty following the completion of their contract for rail-related works. Phase 1 would involve:i) the erection of a building measuring 40m x 50m x 18m high, with a double skin to provide sound insulation, to be used for the preliminary separation, sorting and storage of some reclaimed or salvaged material for onward transfer. the erection of a run of covered storage bays partly for the storage of aggregate and sand prior to distribution to construction sites and partly for the storage of waste material for disposal at landfill sites. the provision of a machine for crushing concrete that would be located in the Phase 1 building. the laying out of hard surfacing over the Phase 1 part of the site to provide vehicle parking, loading /unloading and manoeuvring areas

ii)

iii)

iv)

Phase 2, which would only be implemented when contracts were in place for the use of rail and barge transport for carrying waste, aggregates and recycled materials to and from the site, would involve the development of the remainder of the site by:i) the erection of a building measuring 44.5m x 159.5m x 19.5m high, with a double skin to provide sound insulation, along the western boundary of the site that would house the activities formerly carried out in the Phase 1 building except for the concrete crusher that would be located outside the Phase 1 building and the formation of an adjacent rail platform. This would then allow the Phase 1 building to be used for vehicle and plant maintenance, offices for these facilities and training areas. The erection of the Phase 2 building would provide the noise reduction barrier to residential properties to the west, from the concrete crushing operation, formally located within the Phase 1 building; the erection of a two storey office building measuring 15m x 30m x 7.5m high and 30 car parking spaces, at the north end of the site, close to the access roads entrance into the site. It is proposed to transfer the applicant companys headquarters staff, currently located in Hythe Road, to the application site; the provision of a permanent 2 metre high acoustic barrier between the office building and the Phase 2 recycling building; the installation of a weighbridge adjacent to the site entrance; the erection of a further run of covered storage bays partly for the storage of aggregate and sand prior to distribution to construction sites and partly for the storage of waste materials for disposal at landfill sites; the formation of a wharf adjacent to the Grand Union Canal measuring 66 metres x 4.6 metres being of sufficient size to provide mooring space for three barges without obstructing the existing width of the canal; the provision of areas of soft landscaping at the perimeters of the application site to encourage biodiversity;
Page 6 of 10

ii)

iii)

iv) v)

vi)

vii)

02
viii) the laying out of hard surfacing over the remainder of Phase 2 of the site to provide loading/unloading and manoeuvring areas for on-site machinery and motor vehicles.

The applicant proposes to sort all waste material only within the Phase 1 building and subsequently within the Phase 2 building on a 24 hour basis, with the exception of the crushing of aggregates. The concrete crushing operation would take place between 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. There will be no concrete crushing operations on Sundays in either Phase 1 or Phase 2. The main volume of material to be transported to/from the site by road would be between the hours of 6.00am and 6.00pm with an allowance for no more than 10 HGVs to access the site between the hours of 6.00am and 6.00pm. Whilst importing and exporting material would also occur on a 24 hour basis, the loading and unloading of material from road vehicles, barges or railway wagons would only take place between 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. This means that rail or canal transport that arrived at night would have to remain until daytime before loading or unloading could take place and road vehicles would have to carry out loading/unloading operations within the Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildings. Office activities in the headquarters building would take place between 6.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 6.00am to 3.00pm on Saturdays. The only activity to occur on a Sunday would be the sorting of waste within either the Phase 1 or Phase 2 building and the transfer of material to/from the storage bays and a limited number of road vehicles importing and exporting materials. All materials transported to and from the site during Phase 1 would be by road as access to the rail and canal would not be available. The applicant also states that until contracts are in place for rail and water transportation of materials both into and out of the site then it would not be viable to construct the rail platform or canal wharf. The applicant currently handles 120,000 tonnes of waste per annum and would source additional volumes of waste through contracts gained elsewhere in North and West London with the intention of eventually processing 1.6 million tonnes per annum. Because of the variation in the amount of processed material over time and because of market conditions precise tonnage figures cannot be provided nor the breakdown of the transport modal split. However the applicant states that given the constraints of the access road it is capable of accommodating an additional 488 two-way vehicle movements daily. A vehicle movement being a single journey or trip either in or out of the application site. This would give an annual input of 546,000 tonnes of waste. Above that figure, given the restriction on daily vehicle numbers, further waste would have to be imported by rail or canal to reach the predicted target of 1.6 million tonnes per annum. Addendum to Environmental Statement The applicant has submitted an addendum to the environmental statement to address some of the issues that had raised concern, including those raised by LBE in the formal objection raised under delegated powers in May 2004. The issues addressed are noise, air quality (dust), ecology and the contribution that the proposed development would make to the Mayors London Plan waste policies. As a result of objections the concrete crushing operation would initially take place within the Phase 1 building. Only when the Phase 2 building was constructed would the concrete crushing operation take place outside, where the Phase 2 building would then act as an acoustic barrier for the benefit of the residential properties in Old Oak Lane and beyond. Additionally the proposed hours of operation of the concrete crusher would now be from 8.00am to 6.00pm on weekdays and from 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. No operation is proposed on Sundays.

Page 7 of 10

02
PLANNING POLICY UDP - Plan for the Environment 1.1 1.2 1.9.1 2.4 2.6 2.10 2.11 4.1 4.8 4.11 9.1 9.6 9.9 9.10 Overall aim Environmental resources and waste Transport Land Mineral aggregates Distribution Air pollution and Quality Waste minimisation and management Waste Environmental Impacts Design of development Conservation Areas Noise and vibration Development, Access And Parking Cycling Highways and Traffic Management Freight

REASONED JUSTIFICATION Background LBE were originally consulted as an adjacent borough by Hammersmith and Fulham Council (LBHF) on 14/01/04 with a full application and Environmental Assessment for the proposed waste management facility. LBE consulted local residents and internal departments with details of the proposal. The nearest residential properties to the site are situated within Ealing borough rather than LBHF. The potential impact on LBE residents was therefore carefully considered. On the basis of the application information submitted, responses received and with reference to relevant UDP policies, LBE confirmed objection to the initial proposal under delegated powers on 5/5/04 on the following grounds: LBE object on the basis of inadequate data submitted (noise survey and absence of a traffic safety audit) and potential impact on air quality from the concrete crusher, resulting in conditions likely to harm the living conditions of the residents of LBE. No formal decision was made on the application by LBHF. Further to subsequent discussions between LBHF and the agents, the agents submitted an addendum to the Environmental Statement to LBHF, seeking to address noise and environmental concerns raised by LBHF (LBHF concerns took into account objections raised formally by LBE). A meeting was subsequently held at LBE on 7/07/04 with LBE planning and Environmental Health officers (EHO), the LBHF planning case officer, LBHF Environmental Health officer, representatives from the GLA (Planning and noise officers), the planning agents and applicant. Issues discussed included the addendum to the application and related Ealing EHO concerns with respect to noise and impact on adjacent residential occupiers. Following receipt of minutes of the above meeting on 7/09/04 (and confirmation that LBHF had accepted that the addendum submitted was accepted as additional information to the main application) LBE residents, Members and amenity groups were again consulted by LBE. This re-consultation was on the addendum to the Environmental Statement. The case officer at LBHF also confirmed that any LBE residents that had previously responded to the initial application direct to LBHF were also consulted on the addendum by LBHF.
Page 8 of 10

02
Issues: For the purposes of this report, the proposal sited within LBHF is required to be assessed in relation to the potential impact on the environment and residents of LB Ealing, measured against the relevant Ealing UDP policies. Relevant issues are:

Principle Noise - Impact on adjacent occupiers Transport/traffic - Impact on adjacent occupiers

These will be assessed in turn below. Principle It is recognised in the London Plan that facilities to deal with waste generated by Londons population are required in sustainable locations within London. The GLA have confirmed to LBHF that The Mayor welcomes the principle of the new waste facility in this location. Further, the principal is supported in UDP policies 1.2 and 2.10. A detailed assessment of the impact is however required with reference to other relevant criteria. Noise - Impact on surrounding occupiers Many of the residents consultation responses relate to potential noise impact. UDP Policy 4.11 applies. EHO response to the addendum confirms that the noise is not mitigated to a low enough level to comply with Ealing standards, and as such the proposal would be contrary to relevant policies. With adequate mitigation measures it may be the case that the living conditions of residents adjacent to the site could be adequately protected. Despite revisions to the proposal highlighted in the proposal description above, such mitigation is not however currently shown and as such it is recommended that formal objection to the application be maintained, on the grounds of potential impact of noise on living conditions of local residents in LBE. Transport/traffic- Impact on surrounding occupiers Transport Services have previously raised concerns as outlined above in the consultation section. LBHF Engineers however consider light signalling is not required and a safety audit is unnecessary. Restrictions on the number and frequency of vehicle movements/deliveries could potentially be applied to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area and local environment. However, this would be within the powers of LBHF and not LBE as the adjoining borough. In response to the addendum Transport Services have expressed concerns; however, they have not raised formal objection, as the potential impact is unlikely to affect residents within LBE. As such it is recommended not to raise objection on highway grounds. CONCLUSION The potential contribution of the proposed development to waste management within London in accordance with the Mayors London Plan is recognised. However, the mitigation measures currently proposed for the facility fail to meet the required standards by LBE in terms of noise impact and as such the proposal would be likely to result in conditions likely to harm the living conditions of the residents of LBE. As such, it is recommended to raise objection.

Page 9 of 10

02
HUMAN RIGHTS Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 October 2000, all public authorities must act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is considered that whilst the objection to the proposed use may lead to a recommendation for refusal (from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham), thereby depriving the owner of the site of part of his business, such action is in the general interests of the residents of the London Borough of Ealing. The objection is considered to be a proportionate response to the harm that could be caused by the proposed development. In this case the Council deems the objection to be acceptable for the reasons set out in this report (Article 1 of the First Protocol applies).

Page 10 of 10