A COUNCIL decision to deny retrospective planning permission which would have doubled the capacity of a waste operation near a wildlife haven and treble HGV movements per hour has been upheld following an appeal.
Eric Lidster, who runs West Green Recycling in Monk Bretton, submitted an application in December 2023 but it was thrown out by Barnsley Council’s planning board in January.
The retrospective bid was rejected after inspectors found a prior agreement - which allowed the business to operate from 2001 - was of a ‘significantly larger scale’ than permitted.
The business currently holds an Environment Agency ‘standard rules permit’ for the processing of 75,000 tonnes of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste but sought permission for a host of already-completed work which fell foul of planning regulations.
Having installed the plant, the firm still has an operating capacity of 75,000 tonnes per annum but could operate at a capacity to process 150,000 tonnes of waste material per annum if approval was granted.
As well as this, the firm’s two-per-hour HGV movements could have trebled to six.
It neighbours Carlton Marsh - a nature reserve recently granted site of special scientific interest (SSSI) status due to its rare species - which was also raised during the application’s public consultation process.
However, Mr Lidster’s renewed his bid for permission, having submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which has the power to overrule the council’s decision if it’s deemed unjust.
A hearing took place following a site visit, but the Chronicle can reveal that the government inspector sided with the council due to the extended operation giving ‘unacceptable harm’ to the area’s appearance.
A report, compiled by inspector Andrew Owen, said: “The recycling business has been in situ for many years and the most recent planning permission relating to this operation was granted in 2001 which related to the screening, crushing and processing of inert waste.
“The land on which the operation currently operates is larger than that shown on the plans permitted by the 2001 planning permission.
“The subject of this appeal therefore mostly relates to the installation of additional plant and ancillary works at the site.
“I recognise West Green Way may not be a popular walking route, but being close to dwellings and commercial properties means it is likely it is fairly well used by pedestrians.
“Also it most likely catches the eye of many motorists using this busy road, largely due to the length of road along which the development is prominent.
“As such, even if I were to agree that the sensitivity of the views from West Green Way was low due to its use as a transport corridor rather than a residential or recreational receptor, the change to the view resulting from the development is, in my view, substantial and the development harmfully contrasts with its setting.
“As such, the appeal is dismissed.”
