Replacement recycling canopy building at Plots 19 To 26, Sanders Lodge Industrial Estate, Rushden

What was proposed

The applicant proposed a 992-square-metre canopy building to replace one damaged by fire, providing covered storage and protection for machinery and workers.

“The applicant, Monoworld Recycling Limited, is seeking planning permission to construct a canopy building to replace one damaged by a fire at the facility in May 2025. The proposed building measures approximately 31m x 32m which would provide an additional 992 square metres of covered, indoor space for the storage of processed materials and to protect machinery and site operatives from the elements.”

Officer report

The site

The site is an established waste recycling facility within an industrial estate, near Rushden town centre, residential properties and the A45.

“The application site is located approximately 1km to the north of Rushden town centre and 0.5km to the south of the A45. Industrial and residential properties are located to the south with further industrial land located between the site and A45. The site is located within the centre of an industrial estate, bounded by an unadopted circular road leading from the adopted highway A5001 Wellingborough Road.”

“The wider industrial estate covers an area of approximately 3.2 hectares consisting of a number of industrial buildings, a two-storey office building, outdoor concrete yard and car parking. The site currently accepts mixed plastic, fibre and metal waste, including those from household waste collections.”

Officer report

Site history

The site has a long industrial history, with permissions since 2014 for buildings and facilities for storing and processing recyclable materials.

“The application site has a long history of industrial uses dating back to the 1960s. The buildings on site were extended both in the late 1960s and more extensively in the 1980s. Prior to 2014 the site was utilised for the reconditioning of Caterpillar machinery components.”

“67/0123/RUS - Factory for manufacture of industrial housing units ▪ 67/0366/RUS - Storage building (12,000 square feet) ▪ 68/00020/RUS - Extension to factory area (4,000 square feet) ▪ 83/1505/FUL - Change of Use from Industrial to Warehousing ▪ 85/0450/FUL - Link extension and canopy for industrial purposes ▪ 87/0201/FUL - Warehouse building ▪ 87/1131/FUL - Extension to form new parts store ▪ 88/0012/FUL - New accesses and car parking ▪ 88/1560/FUL - Extension to existing…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal replaced an existing building without changing waste types or volumes, and its environmental, highway and amenity impacts were acceptable.

“In determining this application, it is important that a balanced judgement should be made taking into account relevant issues in the overall context of the development plan and national guidance. The acceptability of this proposal comes down to two issues: that of whether it is in principle acceptable having regard to national and development plan policy and whether the environmental, highway safety and amenity impacts are acceptable.”

“The application does not propose changes to the types and volumes of waste being processed at the site and it is not envisaged that any unacceptable adverse impacts will result from the addition of the canopy building. The site is located within an identified industrial estate for waste uses, is an existing waste management facility and the building design is considered acceptable having regard to Policy 23 of the MWLP.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Twelve objections raised concerns about health, flies, odour, fire risk, pollution, traffic and the possibility that operations could intensify.

“Below is a summary of the third party and neighbour responses received at the time of writing this report. A total of 12 objections have been received which raise the following concerns:”

“Amenity Impacts o Pests – including ongoing fly infestation o Odour • Fire Risk o Inadequate fire risk controls o New infrastructure could intensify operations which would be inappropriate given demonstrated fire risk o Recent fire has resulted in substantial air pollution, contamination, dust and loss of business to neighbouring companies o Insufficient water supply on-site to extinguish fire • Traffic and Highway Safety o Heavy traffic passing and queuing on the estate…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident, a town council representative and a councillor described concerns about flies, odour, fire, pollution, water supplies and disruption.

Committee debate

Members recognised the seriousness of earlier environmental problems but considered them outside this replacement-building application and found no reason to refuse it.

“In summary members expressed their concern over the environmental issues experienced by residents but noted that these did not relate to the application for the replacement of the canopy.”

“The fire had been large and invasive causing disruption to residents and many businesses. It was however considered that this application was for the replacement of the former canopy and as the site already had planning permission there was no reason to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Seven members supported the motion and three abstained; permission was approved subject to the report’s conditions and delegated amendments.

“The chair put the motion to the vote, there were seven votes in favour and three abstentions, and the motion was declared carried.”

“(i) That the application be approved, subject to the conditions contained within the report and (ii) That delegated authority be given to the assistant director of planning to approve any amendments to the conditions as deemed necessary.”

Minutes