The site was in open countryside and comprised a concrete strip, about 35m by 230m, which formed part of a much larger former airfield. It had access from a narrow lane which served a small number of dwellings and a dairy farm. Compost and wood chippings were brought to the site to be mixed together. The mix was then left in piles which were about 4m high at the time of the inspector’s visit. These were turned regularly for about ten weeks before being stockpiled and then moved elsewhere to be blended with peat.
Residents of the nearby dwellings objected to the development, the objection from the farm being supported by the farm’s veterinary surgeon. The farm and dwellings were downwind of the prevailing wind and the objections related to dust blown onto farmland and properties. The council’s environmental health officer submitted photos of significant amounts of dust rising into the air, at times higher than adjacent electricity cables. He stated that it was not a particularly windy day, that it had been raining on the preceding day and that the pollution resulted from the final stages of the process, which the appellant described as the least dusty. The veterinary surgeon drew attention to the proximity of grazing dairy cattle, to dust seen on top of a milk tank and to potential contamination of the milking parlour by fine dust particles.
The appellant proposed to construct a 2m high bank topped with a hedge and trees along three sides of the site with a hedge along the other side. Site operations could be re-ordered away from the farm and dwellings and it was stated that the photos were taken when materials contained impurities and that those now used bound together better and reduced dust levels.
The inspector found that the activities had adversely affected the amenity of local residents and raised serious concerns for the working of the farm. She was doubtful whether a 2m high bank topped with landscaping could prevent airborne dust pollution from 4m high piles. She was also uncertain that re-ordering site operations would make a material difference given that the pollution witnessed by the environmental health officer came from the final stage of the process.
Inspector Jennifer Armstrong; Written representations
