Bristol slammed over recycling centre planning “failings”

In a report published last week, a local authority Ombudsman explained that the council approved an application by waste management firm Elm Recycling in 2004 to use an industrial unit on the Willow Industrial Estate as a waste recycling centre.

However, the report found the council did not directly consult neighbours or its own environmental health department before approving the application, which lead to two local residents complaining of a “constant banging” and “debris” after the site opened in July 2005.

The noise was believed to come from skips being dropped and dragged outside the building and from noisy machinery sorting materials including wood, metal, plastic, card, stone and soil inside the facility. When recorded by the council, it was measured at over 17 decibels, well above the 10 decibels which is believed can give rise to complaints. Meanwhile, debris was claimed to have blown from the skips onto the neighbouring road.

Compensation

Ombudsman J R White acknowledged that Bristol council took action to resolve the situation – such as monitoring the site extensively and talking with the operator to see if there was any scope for reducing noise and noted that it was not creating a statutory nuisance by July 2007.

However, due to “failings” during the planning process he recommended the council should pay the two complainants – given the false names of Mrs Ash and Mrs Oak – £2,000 each in compensation and review its planning procedures.

Writing in the report, he said: “The council should pay £2,000 each to Mrs Ash and Mrs Oak for their loss of amenity between August 2005, when the first complaints were made, and November 2006, when it was reported that the waste recycling centre was complying with the planning permission.”

“The council should review its procedures to ensure that the maladministration identified does not recur. It should continue to monitor the site and, once the outcome of the latest monitoring is known, take action if there is evidence of a statutory noise nuisance in order to protect the amenities of local residents,” he added.

Errors

In response, Bristol council said it was already on the record as acknowledging there were errors in the way the planning application was handled and was working with local people to remedy the situation – such as considering planting trees around the site to shield it from nearby properties.

However, it said that its planning procedures had always required officers to consider noise impact and directly consult residents and that a particular officer was to blame.

A spokeswoman said: “Our planning team have always been required to follow a very clear checklist of actions when dealing with these kinds of applications … unfortunately in this case, some of these procedures were not followed by the officer handling the matter at the time. Since this matter came to light we have reviewed the way the guidelines are followed by planning teams and taken steps to minimise the chance of any possible repeat.”

The council added that it dealt with thousands of planning applications every year and that an oversight of this nature was very rare but stressed: “That said, we again apologise to the residents in this particular case and, although the matter has yet to be formally considered, it is likely that we will accept the Ombudman's recommendations in full.”