Aggregate recycling facility at Claridges Barn, Kislingbury

What was proposed

The applicant sought permanent permission to receive and recycle inert waste, manufacture recycled aggregates and process up to 24,000 tonnes annually.

“Proposal The applicant is seeking planning permission for the use of land for the receipt and recycling of inert wastes and the manufacture of recycled aggregates…”

“The applicant, M F Quinn Limited, is seeking planning permission to establish a permanent aggregate recycling facility. The site has previously benefited from permission for aggregate recycling operations and other uses on a temporary basis.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 0.70-hectare site lies between Kislingbury and Rothersthorpe, with existing recycling infrastructure, concrete hardstanding, bunding and access from Gayton Road.

“The application site is located on the Gayton Road between the villages of Kislingbury and Rothersthorpe on the southwest fringe of the town of Northampton. Covering an area of 0.70 ha.”

“The application site includes the various infrastructure associated with the permitted use of the site for the recycling of carpets and former permitted use of the site for the recycling of aggregates. This infrastructure includes the site weighbridge, a small office/cabin, and a large area of concrete hard standing with a 2-metre high, 5.5-metre- wide grass bund along the southern and western site boundaries.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

The site previously had permissions for aggregate recycling and other waste uses, including a one-year aggregate recycling permission approved in 2023.

“SN/00/697C - Provision of composting facility approved on 31 October 2000 • 13/00021/WASFUL - Carpet recycling facility and wood waste recycling facility including two new buildings and retrospective permission for an aggregate recycling operation withdrawn on 10 June 2013 • 13/00059/WASFUL - Retrospective planning permission for carpet recycling facility and wood waste recycling facility, aggregate recycling operation and change of use and restoration of a building to B1…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and its highway, noise, dust, amenity and landscape impacts could be controlled by conditions.

“Policy 18 of the MWLP requires that proposals for waste development should demonstrate that any impacts associated with it have been addressed to ensure that the environment and local amenity are protected. This includes matters such as noise, dust, and air quality.”

“In terms of the proposed development being acceptable having regard to national policy and development plan policy, the principle of development was assessed previously under planning permission 13/00059/WASFUL and it was acceptable subject to conditions. No changes to the development plan or material considerations are considered to necessitate a change to this assessment of the principle of development.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Statutory consultees raised no objections after further noise and dust information, while parish councils and the ward councillor raised traffic and local impact concerns.

“West Northamptonshire Council Environmental Health (EHO) An objection was received initially due to the lack of information provided for noise and dust from fugitive emissions from the site. However, after further information on dust management and submission of a Noise Impact Assessment, the objection was removed.”

“Ward Councillor Raised concerns about potential impact of additional HGV traffic on local road infrastructure and residents.”

Officer report

Public representations

No public representations were received in response to the application.

“Below is a summary of the third party and neighbour responses received at the time of writing this report.”

“No representations have been received in response to this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Representatives of Kislingbury and Rothersthorpe parish councils spoke against the proposal, while the agent spoke in support.

The committee vote

The deferral proposal was carried, with nine members voting in favour and two abstaining.

“Councillor Manners proposed that the application be deferred to allow the Committee to attend a site visit and to provide further clarity regarding weight limits and vehicular movements. The proposition was seconded by Councillor Bignell and on being put to the meeting was declared carried with 9 voting in favour of the deferral and 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

Why the decision was deferred

The committee deferred the application to carry out a highway site visit and obtain clarity about weight limits and vehicle movements.

“Resolved: that a decision on the application be deferred for the following reason:”

“To allow for the Committee to carry out a site visit to assess the impact of the development on the local highways. 2. To ensure that the Committee were provided with clarity in respect of weight limits and the number of vehicle movements both on and off of the development site.”

Minutes