9TH OCTOBER 2014 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s96129/Biffa...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

9TH OCTOBER 2014

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NO. & DATE: 2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – 17th July 2014

PROPOSAL: S73 planning application to vary condition 2 of permission no. 2009/2497/02 (granted on appeal by the Secretary of State – ref. APP/M2460/A/11/2150748) for proposed modifications to the approved design of an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and ancillary facilities.

LOCATION: Land at Newhurst Quarry, south of the A512 close to Junction 23 of the M1.

APPLICANT: Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

MAIN ISSUES: Development Plan, need, traffic and access, geological interest, protected species, emissions, air quality, health impacts, landscape and visual impact, cultural heritage and the ‘fallback’ situation.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application subject to the 41 conditions contained in Appendix A and the prior signing of a revised Unilateral Undertaking.

Circulation Under Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mrs C. Radford CC

Officer to Contact

Peter Bond (Tel: 0116 305 7325) Email: [email protected]

Agenda Item 885

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) - continued

86

2011/1119/02 (2011/C472/02) - continued

87


PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background Planning History

1. Quarrying operations have been undertaken at Newhurst Quarry since the 19th Century, although no extraction operations have taken place since around 2000, with all stock piles, processing equipment and a stand-alone concrete batching plant having been removed from the site.

2. A planning application to landfill Newhurst Quarry with ancillary front-end

recycling facilities on adjacent land was submitted by Biffa in June 2007 (ref. 2007/1987/02) and the Development Control and Regulatory Board at its March 2008 meeting resolved to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement (S106). The S106 was signed in February 2009 and planning permission was issued subsequently. Biffa has stated that, as a company it is moving away from landfill operations and it now has no intention of commencing landfill operations at the site. Notwithstanding this statement, Biffa has implemented this permission, although no substantive operations have taken place. Therefore, this permission forms one of the fall-back positions to be taken into consideration when considering the current proposals.

3. In December 2009, Biffa submitted a planning application for an energy

recovery facility (ERF), a very similar development to that proposed under this application. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement and was subject to public consultation. Objections were received from Charnwood Borough Council, English Heritage and internal advice from the Landscape and the Heritage teams was that the application should be refused. A total of 1545 representations was received, with 1542 objecting to the proposal. Members may recall that, at a special meeting of the Development Control and Regulatory Board on 15th October 2010, it was resolved to refuse the application, in line with the Chief Executive’s recommendation, for the reasons set out in the committee report.

4. At the same time that Biffa applied for planning permission they also applied to

the Environment Agency (EA) for an Environmental Permit. This was also subject to public consultation and was approved and issued by the EA on 8th June 2011.

5. Subsequent to receiving a refusal notice for the proposed incinerator, Biffa

submitted a revised scheme in 2011 (ref. 2011/1119/02) and appealed the refusal to the Secretary of State. Again, the Development Control & Regulatory Board at its October 2011 meeting refused the application. Biffa then proceeded to appeal both the refusals in a joined up appeal, which was subject to a Public Inquiry held in November 2011. The appeal decision was recovered by the Secretary of State who determined to grant permission, subject to conditions and a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) requiring a mitigation scheme for Garendon Park on 28th June 2012. It is this permission, which remains unimplemented, that forms the second fall-back position to be considered.

88

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 6. The County Council adopted the Waste Local Plan (WLP) on 2nd September 2002 and this includes the allocation of Newhurst Quarry void as a new site for

the disposal of household/civic amenity/industrial/commercial wastes. The WLP policy allocating Newhurst Quarry has been ‘saved’, remains extant and therefore a waste operation is allocated at the Newhurst site.

7. In September 2014, Biffa announced an exclusivity agreement with a company

called Multifuel Energy Ltd (MEL), which itself is a joint venture between SSE plc and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. This agreement will see MEL taking over the development of the facility and progress the project forward, while Biffa will supply a proportion of the future fuel to the ERF. MEL and Biffa will then work together to secure the remaining fuel requirements for the plant.

Location of Proposed Development 8. The application site covers an area of 15.5ha and incorporates land to the east

and north east of the Newhurst Quarry void up to the M1 motorway and a section of the A512, on which the applicant proposes some highway improvements. The land under the control of the applicant includes the Newhurst Quarry void and land immediately to the east but does not extend to the east of the M1 and therefore does not include Longcliffe Quarry.

9. The application site lies to the south east of Shepshed, adjacent to the M1

motorway and the A512, which provides access to junction 23 of the motorway. Ingleberry Road (B591) runs to the west, along which several farms and outlying properties are located, these being the nearest residential properties to the site. Other nearby residential properties include those located along the A512. Beyond the A512 to the north are various industrial and commercial uses and the southern edge of the built-up area of Shepshed. An industrial unit and the offices of Hanson Aggregates/Midland Quarry Products lie along the northern site boundary, adjacent to the site entrance.

10. The Newhurst Quarry floor presently extends to a depth of over 80m below

surrounding ground levels in the form of a series of steep, terraced rock faces. The Longcliffe Quarry void is similarly configured. Part of the northern quarry face of Newhurst Quarry is designated as a geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the Quarry is also designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site.

11. The boundary of the site is almost entirely surrounded by mixed (mainly)

deciduous woodland, which in places is still maturing and varies from about 8m to 20m in height. These plantations were established as part of the quarry screening works, and on the northern, western and southern boundaries of the quarry void they are combined with soil bunds. The northern and eastern-most site boundary woodland is known as Brickhill Plantation and is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Within this plantation there are the partial remains of the Charnwood Forest Line canal.

89


Description of Approved Energy Recovery Facility 12. The applicant is seeking planning permission to amend the previously approved

energy recovery facility (ERF) on land adjacent to the Newhurst Quarry void. The approved scheme’s primary purpose is for the disposal of up to 300,000 tonnes of residual commercial and industrial (C&I) non-hazardous waste per annum through thermal treatment by combustion. The whole of the energy recovery process would be housed within a single architecturally designed building. The building would be around 330m long and up to 115m wide (including the area designated for maturation of incinerator bottom ash (IBA)), being approximately ovoid in shape, and occupying a footprint of around 21,700 square metres. The curving roofline would result in the height of the building varying from around 14.5m to a maximum height of 47m. The approved scheme would have two flue stacks 96.5m high (above surrounding ground level), to be located adjacent to each other on the western side of the building and to be coloured matt light grey.

13. The approved ERF building would contain the following waste treatment

facilities: � a waste reception hall and storage bunker, shredder and waste feed system; � boiler hall with grate, combustion chamber and a heat recovery boiler; � turbine hall with steam turbine for generating electricity; � flue gas treatment hall with equipment to clean combustion gases; � facility for discharging and loading air pollution control (APC) residues, silos

and other ancillary equipment; � two flue stacks to discharge the treated flue gases into the atmosphere; � air cooled condensers (ACC) for cooling the recycling steam from the

generating process; and � ancillary areas, control room, central processing unit (CPU) room, storage

areas, electrical room, workshops etc.

14. In addition to the above the approved scheme provides for the following features: � visitor centre; � office and ancillary staff accommodation; � staff and visitor parking area; � electricity sub station; � weighbridges and gatehouse; � crew drop-off shelter; � rainwater attenuation measures; � landscaping and security fencing around the site; and � provision of additional ecological habitats.

15. The northern section of the building would be used solely for the maturation of IBA. This area would be positively drained using concrete hard standing bounded by reinforced concrete push walls and contain an IBA lagoon to be used to store and treat run-off tainted with IBA. As currently approved, the IBA maturation area would be covered with a metal sheet ‘gull wing’ roof, but the walls would be partially open to allow natural ventilation and light in to this part of the building to assist with the maturation process, whilst preventing excessive rain water from entering the IBA lagoon.

90

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 16. Visitor access and parking spaces (cars and bicycles) would be provided close

to the ERF building, using concrete block paving and brindle pigmented tarmac. In addition, 0.5km of multi-user track, using loose bound stone and suitable for disabled access, cycles, and pushchairs would lead from the car park to the lake shoreline once the adjacent quarry has been restored.

17. As part of the development proposals the application site would be accessed

via an upgraded junction on to the A512 Ashby Road East. The junction improvements replicate those approved under the earlier landfill permission and involve minor re-alignment works, new left hand turning lanes and a new set of traffic lights. The new junction has been designed with a system that ensures that if traffic builds up between the site entrance and the M1 junction, then the filter on the lights will change to ‘flush’ stationary traffic through.

18. From the site entrance, an internal roadway would provide access to the site;

this would operate on a one way system with traffic circulating in a clockwise fashion around the site. The roadways would run around the periphery of the building. Approximately 165m from the site entrance would be a roundabout, and although the concrete batching plant has now been removed from the site, the scheme allows for a separate ‘by-pass’ lane for vehicles to access the site of the former concrete batching plant and the underpass under the M1. To the south east of the roundabout would be the gatehouse and associated weighbridges. Entrances to the building would be located within the western façade, whilst egress would be from the eastern façade.

19. The extant ERF permission limits HGV numbers to a maximum of 242 movements per day, while the implemented landfill permission has a higher limit of 286 movements per day.

Electricity Link to National Grid

20. The approved ERF would provide around 21MW electricity for export to the National Grid and a new electricity substation would be required. The extant scheme states that this would be situated to the south west of the main ERF building. Underground cables would run across the site and under the A512, where they would be connected to the main National Grid system. The applicant states that it is not proposed to use overhead pylons.

Proposed Amendments to the Approved Scheme 21. This applicant is seeking permission to amend the above, approved scheme

and wishes to make the following changes: � Replace the approved two process lines with a single process line. With

improvements to the chosen technology, it is possible, and proposed to install a single line capable of processing an increased maximum throughput of 350,000 tonnes per annum rather than the approved maximum of 300,000 tonnes per annum (note: the applicant is not proposing to increase the HGV limit from that currently approved i.e. 242 per day);

� The improved process line would increase the amount of electricity that could be generated from the ERF. It is suggested by the applicant that the proposed changes could increase electricity generation up to 37MW, with around 33MW available for export to the National Grid.

91

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued � The single process line means that only one flue stack is required rather

than the two stacks as approved. This flue stack would be relocated within the building envelope, which would help shroud the continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) platform that is needed part way up the stack;

� House the office and ancillary accommodation within the main building with a footbridge linking the building with the proposed car park;

� Remove the roof from the IBA maturation area (note: this area is where the IBA is stored once it has been processed and no processing of the IBA is proposed except under cover in the main building);

� Minor changes to the internal road layout and location of the sub-station; and

� The provision of additional cooling fans – to be located to the north of the building.

22. In all other respects the proposed scheme would be unaltered from that

approved on appeal in 2012. Environmental Statement

23. An amended Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted in support of the planning application as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. The Environmental statement includes sections on the following matters: alternatives; air quality; landscape and visual impact; highways and transportation; noise; geology and water; ecology; cultural heritage; socio-economic impacts, climate change and cumulative impacts.

24. Alternatives – the amended ES does not consider alternative sites to Newhurst as planning permission has already been granted on the site for an ERF. It does, however, consider the alternatives to not making the proposed changes, which include a reduction in the amount of waste treated and diverted from landfill, larger building footprint, additional flue stack and a reduction in the amount of low carbon energy that could be generated.

25. Air Quality – the ES focuses on the principal emissions to air including Air

Quality Strategy Pollutants from vehicles, Air Quality Strategy and Waste Incineration Directive Pollutants, dust and litter emissions during the construction and operational phases, and odours and bio aerosols arising from the operational phase.

26. The amended ES states that the approved ERF was not found to give rise to

any significant effects upon the environment or amenity of local communities, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and S106 legal agreement. It is noted that the site must also operate in compliance with an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency (EA). As part of the air quality assessment, detailed dispersion modelling of combustion emissions from the ERF has been undertaken for the EA to consider as part of their permitting process as a revised permit will also be required.

27. The impacts from the revised scheme have been compared against those of the

approved scheme and also the background, i.e. ‘no development’ scenario. Where relevant, the assessment has also compared the proposed scheme with

92

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued

the extant integrated waste management facility (the landfill permission) to ensure a holistic approach has been taken.

28. The amended ES concludes that the magnitude of short term impacts at the

location of maximum ground level concentration for all pollutants is negligible. The magnitude of long term impacts is also assessed as negligible, with the exception of nitrogen dioxide and cadmium. The ES concludes that whilst the long term process contributions of nitrogen dioxide and cadmium are not ‘insignificant’, when compared to the approved scheme there is an improvement. The ES considers that this improvement is due to having a single flue, which improves the buoyancy of the exhaust gasses and increases efflux velocity. The ES goes on to state that these improvements may be applied to all other pollutants from the ERF stack, including those previously regarded as ‘not significant’ and therefore there would be lower exposure levels arising from the proposed scheme than those that would arise from the extant scheme.

29. Landscape and Visual Impact – a landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed changes has been completed. The assessment included a baseline study of the existing site and its surroundings, a study of the landscape and visual characteristics of the development and an assessment of the residual landscape and visual impacts likely to be generated after mitigation has been considered and their significance. The ES has considered the proposed changes to the ERF against the appearance of the ERF as though it had been built.

30. The applicant notes the fall-back position of the extant ERF permission and also

that the Secretary of State, in his decision letter dated 28th June 2012, considered that while there would be an impact upon the Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside (APAC) and the Charnwood Forest, these impacts would be quite localised and although there would be some urbanising impact, the development would occupy only a limited percentage of any view.

31. The ES considers that the overall size and scale of the ERF would remain unaltered and any changes to its appearance would be limited. The ES considers that the proposal is industrial in nature and is not in conflict with the character of the application site, on the urban fringe of Shepshed. The ES does accept that the overall effect on the ‘Bradgate and Beacon’ Landscape Character Area would be negligible to slight. However, when compared to the extant ERF scheme, the changes would be barely noticeable.

32. Highways and Transportation – the amended ES assesses the highway

impacts against recognised standards and guidelines issued by the Department for Transport and against the fallback situations which are the extant landfill and ERF permissions. It concludes that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the development proposals would not discernibly or materially worsen the existing operation of the highway network and that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.

33. Noise – the amended ES considered the potential noise and vibration impacts

from both construction and operational phases of the revised scheme. The noise assessment involved measurements of background noise levels at four locations and making a series of noise level predictions based in accordance with British Standards (BS5228: 2009 and BS4142: 1997) and Government

93


guidelines. The ES concludes that predicted noise levels during the construction phase would at worst have a minor, barely perceptible impact on the existing ambient noise climate at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

34. The ES predicts that noise rating levels will be below the prevailing background

noise levels at all of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed during the daytime and night-time. The ES concludes that the cumulative impact of all operations would have no impact on the existing measured ambient noise levels at any of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. Vibration from construction works would not have an impact upon local receptors due to the distances between them and the site.

35. The ES goes on to conclude that the noise emissions would be well below those noise limits previously stated in Condition 26 of the 2012 appeal decision.

36. Geology and Water – the amended ES, which includes a Flood Risk Assessment, has considered the local geology, hydrology and hydrogeology and notes that the existing geological interest in the quarry void would be unaffected by the amended development proposed. The ES notes that, by and large, the scheme to be assessed is the same as that considered to be acceptable by the Secretary of State. However, the ES also notes that the removal of the roof over the IBA maturation area and the removal of the office ‘wing’ have the potential to affect the water environment when compared with the approved ERF scheme.

37. The ES notes that, without mitigation, there is the potential for some limited

impacts on local hydrological interests. However, in line with the approved scheme, subject to the imposition of identical conditions as previous (and the operator complying with the Environmental Permit), then the amended scheme would not have any significant impacts upon the geological or water environments.

38. Ecology – the amended ES contains an updated Ecological Impact

Assessment based on published guidelines which addresses the likely effects upon flora and fauna. The ecological evaluation identified receptors within the application site and the surrounding land within the control of the applicant. Habitats outside these areas were also surveyed where necessary for specific fauna, in accordance with best practice guidelines. Extended Phase 1 habitat surveys have been carried out in March 2009, June 2009 and April 2014.

39. The ES states that no notable flora was noted within the application site or

wider study area. With regard to fauna, no bat roosts have been noted within 1.2km of the site, although limited activity of bats commuting and foraging through the application site and wider study area have been previously recorded. Badger setts have been recorded about 500m from the application site and evidence of badgers in the form of snuffle marks and latrines has been noted on the top of a surrounding bank. A further walkover survey in 2014 found no evidence of badger use within the site.

40. Great crested newts (GCN) have been identified within the Newhurst quarry

void, and the population noted as being of a ‘medium’ size. No amphibians were noted on the development site. Birds of note spotted in and around the site include tawny owl, buzzard and peregrine falcon. The ES considers that these

94


species are most likely making use of habitats in the quarry void and surrounding woodlands and not the application site.

41. Mitigation measures have been devised to minimise the potential impacts upon

habitats, birds and GCN, with specific mitigation and avoidance measures proposed for breeding birds. As with the approved scheme, the implementation of operational good practice with regard to dust suppression, protection of water resources, minimisation of noise and visual disturbance would ensure that there would be no significant adverse effects upon flora and fauna associated with the site. Also, the restoration of the surrounding site, including the Newhurst quarry void, would provide a range of habitats of local biodiversity importance, including forest heath. Overall, the ES considers the proposed amendments to the ERF to be acceptable, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

42. Cultural Heritage – the amended ES includes an assessment of the potential

impact upon cultural heritage features in and around the site. Impacts upon important heritage assets within the Registered Garendon Park, including the White Lodge, Triumphal Arch and the Temple of Venus, formed a key basis for the two refusals by Leicestershire County Council. English Heritage objected originally and only retracted their objection upon the submission of a mitigation scheme that they considered to be acceptable for the ‘partial restoration’ of much of the park.

43. Due to the previous quarrying activities on the site there is little potential for archaeological remains within the application site. The applicant proposes high quality building design and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the development upon sites of cultural heritage importance. The original cultural heritage assessment concluded that, prior to mitigation, the magnitude and significance of impacts would be moderate adverse upon the registered park and the listed buildings and structures and scheduled monument within Garendon Park; low adverse impact for Holywell Farmhouse and minor adverse impact for the hill-forts at Belton and at Beacon Hill. As the proposed amendments are minimal in terms of the scale of the building, it is considered that the above impacts would be almost identical to the amended scheme.

44. The Partial Restoration scheme for the Garendon Park seeks to incorporate

carefully positioned standards to provide screening of the lines of sight from the White Lodge, the Triumphal Arch and the Temple of Venus towards the ERF. The scheme has been designed so as not to directly impact buried archaeological interests within Garendon Park.

45. The ES concludes that the approved scheme would have no greater than

negligible adverse direct effect on the potential archaeological remains within the application site. Effects on Holywell Farmhouse and the Beacon Hill and Belton hill forts would be negligible and minor adverse respectively. Incorporating mitigation, the effects on Garendon Park and the assets within have been determined to be less than substantial.

46. Socio Economic – the amended ES has considered potential socio economic

impacts using a study area with a radius of five kilometres from the application site. The ES states that up to 200 construction workers would be employed at the site during a number of phases. It acknowledges that whilst some local suppliers and workers would be employed, the majority of construction workers

95

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued would require specialist skills and so may only reside in the area for a short period, thus leading to a small temporary increase in the local population in the worst case scenario.

47. The operation of the ERF would require approximately 40 permanent staff and the ES states that a mixture of employment opportunities would be available, with the applicant anticipating that the majority of new staff would be recruited locally. The applicant would encourage workers to car share, use public transport or walk/cycle to work.

48. The revised ES states that, whilst acknowledging the site lies within the National

Forest and the Charnwood Forest, there are no significant visitor attractions in the area, and whilst a number of smaller attractions are present, it is not envisaged that the proposed development would deter visitors from the area.

49. The applicant states that security measures, including CCTV and security staff, would be in place to ensure that the site would not attract crime during the construction phase. Also, the ES concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would result in an increase in ill health in the surrounding area and that the ERF would have only a negligible impact on local air quality.

50. Cumulative Impacts – the amended ES examines the cumulative impacts of

this proposal with other historic, present, and planned developments in the locality and also any inter-relationships between impacts. The ES concludes that there would be no significant impacts arising from cumulative impacts related to the proposed amendments to the approved ERF.

51. Climate Change – the amended ES notes that, in allowing the appeal in 2012,

the Secretary of State acknowledged that the ERF would form an integral component to the management of residual wastes within Leicestershire, reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and generate low carbon energy.

52. The amended ES concludes that the facility would have a negative

environmental footprint, that is an overall reduction in environmental impacts such as global CO2 emissions due to the generation of electricity from waste and the displacement of fossil fuel electricity generation. While carbon emissions would be generated, the ES considers these less harmful than the methane emissions from landfill sites.

53. The site has been designed to attenuate surface water runoff and ensure that

the facility would not give rise to downstream flooding. The ERF would be built CHP ready, so that nearby development could make use of the excess heat arising from the ERF.

54. The ES concludes that the ERF would be unlikely to have a significant impact upon climate change and performs better than landfill and alternative waste management facilities such as MBT. Moreover, the proposed changes improve the efficiency of the site and thus the amount of low carbon energy recovered, increasing further the carbon savings.

96


Planning Policy

Introduction

55. The planning system plays an important role in delivering sustainable waste management, by protecting human health and the environment, encouraging reductions in the production of waste, and increasingly promoting waste as a resource. Waste policy in the UK sits within a wider policy and legislative framework agreed with the European Union (EU). This policy framework is overarched by EU Directives implemented through National Regulations, and also includes the Waste Management Plan for England (2013), Waste Policy Review (2011) and other documents including the UK Renewable Energy Strategy, Low Carbon Transition Plan and National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

European Policy 56. The principal directive controlling waste management throughout the European

Union is the Framework Directive on Waste. A revised Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) was passed on 12th December 2008 and member states are required to bring into force its provisions by 12th December 2010. The Directive provides the basic framework for waste management in member states. It encourages them to take appropriate measures to reduce waste production, recover the useful components of waste and draw up national waste management plans.

57. A key component of the waste framework is the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)

adopted in 1999. The principal objective of this Directive is to prevent, or reduce as far as possible, the negative effects of landfilling waste on the environment and health. It introduces a number of restrictions on the type and quantities of waste that may be landfilled in the future. As a result, alternative management routes will need to be found for waste that can no longer be landfilled. Article 5 progressively limits the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) that can be landfilled, in order to avoid environmental damage.

58. The target dates set by the Directive are summarised below and allow for a

four-year delay for those member states, such as the UK, which at the time landfilled more than 80% of their household and municipal waste:

• By 2010 to reduce the BMW landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995;

• By 2013 to reduce the BMW landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995; and

• By 2020 to reduce the BMW landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995.

59. The Waste Incineration Directive (WID) (2000/76/EC) sets standards and methodologies required by operators who wish to incinerate waste within the European Union. The primary aim of this Directive is to minimise the impact of negative environmental effects on the environment and human health resulting from emissions to air, soil, surface and ground water from the incineration of waste. The WID seeks to achieve this high level of environmental and human health protection by requiring the setting and maintaining of stringent operational conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values for plants incinerating and co-incinerating waste throughout the European Community. This Directive has been implemented in England and Wales by the

97

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Environmental Permitting (EP) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (note: from April 2008 these replaced the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000).

60. Under the EP regulations, a company wishing to erect and operate an

incinerator must have a valid planning permission and an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency (EA). Biffa has previously submitted an application for an Environmental Permit and the EA has approved the application and issued a permit, which sets out the operational and monitoring standards for the incineration process. The EA would act as an independent monitor of the facility’s outputs and, if limits were breached, it has powers to shut down the facility and/or impose fines accordingly.

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

61. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 setting out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It replaces previous government guidance and policy contained in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) but not Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies. The NPPF states that development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved. In terms of applications for renewable or low energy developments local planning authorities should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. As part of the Government’s comprehensive review of planning policy on 6 March 2014 the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) was published resulting in the cancellation of much of the previous guidance.

62. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011) gives advice on the delivery of sustainable waste management by moving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. Annex E lists those factors that planning authorities should consider in testing the suitability of sites. Planning applications for sites that have not been identified, or are not located in an area identified, in a development plan document as suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities should be considered favourably when consistent with the policies of PPS10, and the waste planning authority’s core strategy.

Waste Management Plan for England (December 2013) and draft updated National Waste Planning Policy: Planning for sustainable waste management (July 2013)

63. The Waste Management Plan for England replaces the Waste Strategy for England 2007. The new document is required to ensure compliance with the new Waste Framework Directive is attained; this includes measures for Member States to prepare for re-use or recycle at least 50% by weight of waste from households. The publication states that the Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual waste – of waste that cannot be reused or recycled – to deliver environmental benefits, reduce carbon impact and provide economic benefits. The Government’s aim is to get to the most energy out of waste – not to get the most waste into energy recovery.

98

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 64. The draft updated National Waste Planning Policy is a streamlining of the

current PPS10. The updated policy lays out how the Government sees positive planning delivering sustainable development. The 2008 Waste Framework Directive states that the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste shall be increased to a minimum of 70% by 2020.

65. In February 2014 the Government issued an update to its document “Energy

from waste: a guide to the debate”. It states that the Government sees a long term role for energy from waste both as a waste management tool and as a source of energy. Paragraph 219 sets out the four key principles that underpin Government thinking on energy from waste:

I. Energy from waste must support the management of waste in line with the

waste hierarchy; II. Energy from waste should seek to reduce or mitigate the environmental

impacts of waste management and then seek to maximise the benefits of energy generation;

III. Government support for energy from waste should provide value for money and make a cost effective contribution to UK environmental objectives in the context of overall waste management and energy goals; and

IV. Government will remain technology neutral except where there is a clear market failure preventing a technology competing on a level footing.

66. The document states that energy from waste needs to be based on recovery

and not disposal, and therefore plants should aim to achieve the ‘R1’ status to be considered as recovery.

67. The current energy policy of the United Kingdom is set out in the Energy White Paper of May 2007 entitled ‘Meeting the energy challenge’, which builds on previous work including the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review Report in 2006.

68. It sets out the Government’s desire to ensure the security of the supply of energy through a broader mix of electricity generation including an increase in renewable energy supply and nuclear energy.

69. The White Paper states that the Government is committed to the important role

renewables have to play in helping the UK meet its energy policy goals. As highlighted in the July 2006 Energy Review Report, the UK faces difficult challenges in meeting its energy policy goals. Renewable energy, as a source of low carbon, indigenous electricity generation is central to reducing emissions and maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies at a time when our indigenous reserves of fossil fuels are declining more rapidly than expected. A regulatory environment that enables the development of appropriately sited renewable projects, and allows the UK to realise its extensive renewable resources, is vital if we are to make real progress towards our challenging goals.

70. New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse

99


supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals. These wider benefits are not always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions.

71. The current electricity policy of the United Kingdom is set out in the White Paper

of July 2011 entitled ‘Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity’, which builds on previous work including the 2007 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review Report in 2006.

72. It sets out the Government’s desire to ensure the security of the supply of

energy through a broader mix of electricity generation including an increase in renewable energy supply and nuclear energy and, in time, gas and coal plant that can capture harmful emissions. The White Paper states that the Government is committed to achieving more than one third of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2030.

73. Subsequent to the passing of the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government

issued a white paper entiltled ‘UK Low Carbon Transition Plan - National strategy for climate and energy’ (Transition Plan), which sets out the UK’s first ever comprehensive low carbon transition plan to 2020. This plan seeks to deliver emission cuts of 18% on 2008 levels by 2020 (and over a one third reduction on 1990 levels).

74. This Transition Plan sets out policies to decarbonise the electricity system by

reducing carbon emissions from electricity and heavy industry by 22% on 2008 levels by 2020 through a variety of measures. These include diversifying the electricity generation sector to supply more renewable energy in to the national grid. The Government acknowledges that certain technologies are more commercially viable than others, and so technologies that need more support for effective market deployment will receive it. Energy from Waste facilities that can demonstrate Combined Heat and Power capacity are very expensive to develop and generally require long term contracts to succeed. Therefore, the Government has decided that suppliers of electricity from such facilities are entitled to claim full Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each megawatt of energy supplied to the grid.

75. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 (RES) sets out how the UK will

deliver 15% renewable energy overall by 2020, across electricity, heat and transport. It states that waste-biomass is an under-used resource which could provide a significant contribution to our renewable energy targets and reduce the overall amount of waste that is landfilled.

Development Plan Policies

76. The development plan in this instance consists of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan (saved policies) (September 2002), the adopted Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document (October 2009) and the Charnwood Borough Local Plan (January 2004). The relevant policies and proposals are set out below.

100

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan

77. Saved Policy WLP 7 of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan states that the assessment of all proposals for waste management development will take account (inter alia) of the following factors where appropriate:

(i) the nature of the material to be managed; (ii) the effect on, and relationship to, sensitive nearby land uses by reason

of noise, dust, odour, litter, fumes, or any other potential nuisance, including reference to national and local air quality standards;

(iii) the visual impact on the landscape and the surrounding area; (v) the effect on woodlands and on topographical features; (vi) transportation implications including the nature and volume of traffic

likely to be generated by the proposed operation; (vii) the effect on statutory nature conservation sites and other sites of more

local scientific interest; (viii) the effect on known archaeological features, ancient monuments or

other sites and buildings of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their setting;

(xiv) the contribution that the proposed development makes to the implementation of the waste hierarchy; and

(xv) the land use planning implications of monitoring and managing any leachate generated;

(xviii) the provisions of the development plan and other guidance, being policies and proposals of local planning authorities and any relevant strategies.

(xix) The benefits of the proposal in terms of employment generation, economic benefit and regeneration of disturbed land;

(xxiii) implications for any proven mineral reserves adversely affected by the proposal;

(xxiv) the siting and visual appearance of the buildings, plant, machinery or operations;

(xxvi) the potential energy recovery to which the development will contribute.

78. Saved Policy WLP 15 – Waste Disposal Sites for Household, Civic Amenity, Industrial and Commercial wastes, allocates one new site at Newhurst Quarry. The release of this site is subject to there being a full supporting statement made at submission, and no harm being caused to the interests identified in Policy WLP 8. Whilst the specific site allocation identifies only the quarry void, the preamble to the policy states that ‘it is considered that the adjoining quarry processing area could beneficially accommodate various waste treatment and energy recovery options…’.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document

79. Policy WCS1 states that the strategy for waste management capacity is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to manage the equivalent of the waste arising in the framework area and as a minimum achieve the targets for recycling, composting, reuse and landfill diversion set in the RSS and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy.

80. Policy WCS2 states that the strategy for strategic waste sites is to locate them within the Broad Locations indicated in the Key Diagram, in or around the urban

101


areas of Leicester, Coalville, Shepshed and Loughborough, taking into account the principles set out in Policy WCS4: Waste Location Principles.

81. Policy WCS4 sets out the site-specific strategy for locating waste sites, which should be to locate sites in accordance with the objectives of Policies WCS2 and the following sequential approach:-

(i) priority one will be given to land with an existing waste management use, where transport, operational and environmental benefits can be demonstrated as a consequence of the co-location of waste management facilities;

(ii) thereafter, priority, in no order of preference, will be given to: a) land forming part of new major development proposals; b) existing industrial/employment land; c) other previously-developed land; d) contaminated or derelict land; e) existing mineral workings; f) unused and under-used agricultural and forestry buildings and their

curtilages; (iii) finally, consideration will be given to greenfield sites,

providing that there is no unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

82. Policy WCS6 states that the strategy is to allow anaerobic digestion (AD),

incineration, mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) and other energy/value recovery technologies that would provide for the recovery of energy from waste, provided that: (i) pre-sorting is carried out: (ii) value recovery from by-products of the process is maximised; (iii) energy recovery is maximised; (iv) any residue of the process can be satisfactorily managed and disposed;

and (v) the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or

communities.

83. Policy WCS10 states that the strategy for environmental protection is to protect and enhance the natural and built environment of the framework area by ensuring that: (inter alia) (i) there are no unacceptable adverse impacts from waste developments on:

a) natural resources including water, air and soil; b) the character and quality of the landscape; c) biodiversity, including nationally and internationally important sites and

the key habitats and species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans;

d) historic and cultural features of acknowledged importance; e) sites of geological interest; f) the distinctive character and setting of settlements within the

framework area; and

g) residential amenity;

(ii) the highest standards of operational practice for the management, working, and where appropriate restoration and aftercare of sites are adopted; and

102


(iii) development is designed to a high standard, incorporates sustainable construction principles and includes appropriate landscaping.

84. Policy WCS12 states that the strategy for waste development within or adjacent to the Charnwood Forest is to ensure that: (i) proposals include measures to protect and enhance the character of the

area, including its landscape, ecology, cultural heritage, built heritage and recreational value; and

(ii) the siting, scale, design and materials of the development reflect and complement the character of the surrounding landscape and minimise any harm.

85. Policy WCS14 states that the strategy for the transportation of waste is to locate

new waste management developments (inter alia): (i) in close proximity to arisings in order to minimise the need to transport

waste; or (ii) in close proximity to the County’s lorry route network and where road

traffic generated by the development can avoid residential areas and minor roads in order to minimise the impact of transporting waste by road.

86. Policy WDC1: states that proposals for waste management development will be required to demonstrate that they have been designed to ensure impact on the environment is minimised by appropriate measures to: (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution;

(ii) minimise levels of energy and water consumption; (iv) minimise production of waste during construction and operation; (v) maximise the re-use or recycling of materials; and (vi) protect and contribute positively to the character and quality of an area.

87. Policy WDC2 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste

management development that would have significant adverse effects on sites of national historic importance or on their character, appearance and/or setting of sites of national importance, including: (i) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other nationally importance

archaeological sites; (ii) Historic parks and gardens, battlefields and historic landscapes; and (iii) Listed buildings, unless there are overriding reasons of national importance for development in that location that clearly outweigh the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of interest.


management development which would have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance, ecological, geological or amenity value of Sites of Regional and Local Importance, including: (i) Local Wildlife Sites (LWS); (ii) Local Nature Reserves; (iii) priority habitats or species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action

Plans; (iv) special landscape areas and landscape features of importance; (iv) Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS);

103


(vi) protected woodland areas; (vii) country parks, common land, village greens and other important areas

of open space or green areas within built-up areas; (viii) conservation areas and locally listed buildings (including their setting); (ix) land or buildings in sport, recreational or tourism use; and (x) land that is of regional or local importance for wildlife corridors or for the

conservation of biodiversity, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the

development and any impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, such that there is a net gain or improvement to their condition.


management development within the countryside, unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) the development is such that it cannot be accommodated within the

urban areas; (ii) there is an overriding need for the development; and (iii) the landscape character of the area will not be harmed.


management development which is likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects from noise, dust, vibration, odour, emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the waste management development.


management facilities involving the transport of waste by road where: (i) there is a practicable alternative to road transport which would be

environmentally preferable; (ii) the proposed access arrangements would be unsafe and inappropriate

to the proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree; and

(iii) the highway network is unable to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and have an unacceptable impact on the environment of local residents.


management development which would give rise to new or increased hazards to aviation.

Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (2004)

93. Saved Policy EV/1 states that the Borough Council will seek to ensure a high standard of design in all new developments. Planning permission will be granted for new development which:

(i) respects and enhances the local environment including the scale,

location, character, form and function of existing settlements and the open and undeveloped nature of the countryside;

(ii) is of a design, layout, scale and mass compatible with the locality and any neighbouring buildings and spaces;

104

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued (iii) utilises materials appropriate to the locality; (iv) provides positive and attractive built frontages to existing or proposed

public spaces including roads, footpaths, waterways and areas of public open space;

(v) safeguards important viewpoints, landmarks and skylines; (vi) uses the landform and existing features in and around the site, such as

woodlands, trees, hedges, ponds, important buildings and structures imaginatively as the focus around which the new development is designed;

(vii) safeguards the amenities of adjoining properties, particularly the privacy and light enjoyed by adjoining residential areas;

(viii) meets the needs of all groups, including the disabled; and (ix) minimises the opportunity for crime to create a safe and secure

environment. 94. Saved Policy EV/2 states that planning permission will not be granted for

development which would adversely affect a scheduled ancient monument or other nationally important archaeological site, or its setting.

95. Saved Policy EV/8 states that planning permission for development which

would affect a building of local historic or architectural interest or its setting will be granted provided: (i) the appearance or character of the building and its setting are

safeguarded; or (ii) the development would result in significant local community or

environmental benefits.

96. Saved Policy EV/9 states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse effect on the character or setting of the parks and gardens of historic or landscape significance as shown on the Proposals Map.

97. Saved Policy EV/40 states that planning permission for lighting installations, or

for development requiring or likely to require external lighting, will only be granted where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that: (i) the lighting scheme proposed is the minimum needed for security or

working purposes; (ii) potential pollution from glare and spillage is minimised, particularly to

residential areas, areas of nature conservation and locations in the open countryside or on the edge of existing settlements;

(iii) the lighting proposed would not cause a distraction to drivers using nearby highways;

(iv) the visual impact of proposed lighting installations and structures on the character of the surroundings is minimised.

98. Saved Policy CT/1 states that land lying outside the defined Limits to

Development is variously identified on the Proposals Map as Countryside, Green Wedge and Areas of Local Separation. Development within these areas of generally open land will be strictly controlled. Planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings for uses suitable in scale and nature, and small-scale new built development, where there would not be a significant adverse environmental impact and the proposal would:

105


i) be essential for the efficient long-term operation of agriculture, horticulture or forestry; or

ii) facilitate the diversification of the rural economy; or iii) improve facilities for recreation, or leisure uses; or iv) implement strategically important schemes for mineral related uses,

transport infrastructure, and for public services or utilities. In all cases it should be demonstrated that the proposed development could not

reasonably be located within or adjacent to an existing settlement. 99. Saved Policy CT/2 states that in areas defined as Countryside, development(s)

acceptable in principle will be permitted where it would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and provided it could safeguard its historic, nature conservation, amenity, and other local interest.

100. Saved Policy CT/7 states that within the designated Areas of Particularly

Attractive Countryside planning permission will be granted for uses where the proposal would not detract from the essentially undeveloped rural character of the landscape, damage natural features and landform or diminish the visual amenities afforded by important viewpoints by reason of: (i) the introduction of prominent, visually obtrusive or incongruous

elements by reason of poor siting, design construction and landscaping; or

(ii) the use of materials or designs incompatible with the traditional vernacular or otherwise unsuitable due to their colour or reflective qualities;

(iii) the removal of traditional buildings and structures, or particular elements of them, or other landscape features which contribute to the special character and appearance of the locality.

Where development is acceptable in principle it will be expected to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the landscape.

Proposals by statutory agencies involving the construction of large buildings or structures, including overhead power lines, will be acceptable where they are shown to be essential to operational requirements, and are located to minimise the visual impact on the landscape.

Consultation Responses

Charnwood Borough Council - Planning

101. Raises no objection. Charnwood Borough Council – Environmental Health

102. Subject to the same conditions being imposed on any new permission, the EHO considers that the proposed amended scheme would not generate unacceptable impacts and consequently raises no objection. Shepshed Town Council

103. No objection, but raises the following concerns:

106

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued a) The environmental health impact and well-being of Shepshed residents is

a major concern; b) The removal of the roof; c) Emission of small particulates from the stack which cannot be captured,

therefore, will have an effect on the air quality; d) The noise generated by the fan cooling system; and e) The traffic impact on the already busy A512.

Environment Agency

104. Raise no objection and make the following comments: ‘The [Environmental Permit] variation application will need to include consideration of revised atmospheric dispersion modelling due to the alterations to the stack air emission point, revised noise assessment due to the provision of additional cooling fans and revised impact assessment of IBA containment arrangements for areas no longer proposed to be under cover.’

English Heritage 105. No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and the UU that seek to

mitigate impacts upon heritage assets in the locality.

Highways Agency

106. No objection. Natural England 107. No objection.

Health and Safety Executive

108. No response received at the time this report was published. Central Networks 109. No response received at the time this report was published. Arqiva (responsible for providing the BBC and ITV’s transmission network) 110. No response received at the time this report was published. Severn Trent Water 111. No response received at the time this report was published. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)/Design

Council 112. No response received at the time this report was published.

107

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Civil Aviation Authority 113. No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and advises that East

Midlands Airport and the Ministry of Defence are consulted directly regarding the proposal.

Ministry of Defence – Defence Estates Safeguarding 114. No safeguarding objections.

National Air Traffic Services

115. No objection, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed. East Midlands Airport 116. No objection subject to conditions relating to matters including details of cranes

to be forwarded to the airport in advance of their erection and aviation warning lights for the flue stacks.

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust

117. No response received at the date this report was published. The National Forest Company (NFC) 118. No response received at the time this report was published. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

119. No response received at the time this report was published. Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service

120. No response received at the time this report was published. Public Health England

121. Raises no objection.

Leicestershire County Council – Landscape Advice 122. No objection but raises concerns about the timescales for the landscaping

scheme to be implemented and also how Longcliffe Quarry would be accessed and ultimately restored [outwith the bounds of this application].

Leicestershire County Council – Public Rights of Way

123. No objection. Although the application site itself is not affected by any Public Rights of Way requests that a Public Right of Way be created through the development site. The existing tunnel beneath the M1 motorway at the south-east corner of the site could provide a safe crossing point beneath the M1 for pedestrians. A footpath could then be created running either north to Ashby

108

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Road East through the mature woodland and close to the historic line of footpath K62, or westwards through the development site to join Ingleberry Road. The creation of a Public Footpath through the proposed development site, would necessitate the County Council looking to create a link to the existing footpath K62 to the east of the motorway, but would provide a genuine green infrastructure gain.

Leicestershire County Council – Built Heritage Advice

124. It appears that the proposed variation, which includes a single tall flue instead of

two, will not have a major impact on the external appearance of the waste facility. In my view the changes will not fundamentally alter the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage assets in the area.

Leicestershire County Council – Archaeology Advice

125. No objection but concerned about impacts upon buried archaeological remains

within the Garendon Park that may be disturbed by the proposed mitigation scheme.

Leicestershire County Council – Highway Authority 126. No objection and make the following comments; Paragraph 8.18 of the Transport Chapter states that it is not intended to modify

any of the above conditions as part of this application. The conditions referred to are conditions 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 which are listed in the schedule of conditions attached to the Appeal Decision (APP/M2460/A/11/2150748). Paragraph 8.116 also states that this application does not therefore seek to amend the provisions of Condition 13 of the current ERF permission.

Traffic Impact

Table 8-7 of the Transport Chapter shows a marginal increase in the number of two-way vehicle movements (+6) in the PM peak hour. The increase is such that no highway objection could be made. The highway Authority therefore has no objections to the proposed development.

Leicestershire County Council – Ecological Advice

127. No comment.

Publicity 128. The proposal was advertised in the Loughborough Echo on 25th July 2014.

Several site notices were also posted around the site and in Shepshed on 22nd July 2014.

Representations Received

129. Resulting from the above publicity, four individual letters of representation have been received from members of the public, one from the local action group, Chain, and one from the local MP, Mrs. Nicky Morgan. All six representations object to the proposal.

109

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 130. The key reasons for objecting include:

a. Highway impacts, including additional new developments proposed in and around Shepshed and questions as to how Biffa can increase the throughput without increasing the number of HGV movements;

b. Loss of roof over the IBA maturation area and the potential for this material to be carried by the wind outside the site boundary;

c. Concern that the EA has admitted that it ‘does not have 100% confidence in its classification of IBA as non-hazardous waste.’

d. No improvement to the scheme approved; e. Health risks associated with incinerators; and f. Impacts upon recycling rates and concerns that incineration is not the best

way to manage and treat waste. 131. Nicky Morgan, MP, has objected for the following reasons:

� Unclear where Biffa intends to acquire its feedstock and questions the need for the increase in throughput;

� Facility would be in the National Forest and an APAC; � The plan for not increasing HGV movements means more larger HGVs will

be visiting the site increasing pressure on the roads near Shepshed and the M1; and

� The impact on air quality remains undiminished and unaddressed. Assessment of Proposal Development Plan 132. The starting point for the assessment of this application is the development plan

and other relevant planning policies. In this case the constituent parts of the development plan are detailed in paragraphs 77 - 100 above. Other material considerations also need to be assessed, including the ‘fall back’ positions at the Newhurst Quarry site. It should also be noted that this application does not re-open the question of whether the site is an appropriate location for the ERF facility because that decision has been taken by the Secretary of State.

133. The LLWDF Core Strategy policies relate to objectives for waste management that seek to allocate sufficient provision to meet identified needs to enable self-sufficiency within the plan area, locate provision close to waste arisings; limit impacts on the environment and surrounding land uses and users; reduce the amount of road borne related traffic on unsuitable roads; and supporting the recovery of waste, although no particular technologies are preferred over others.

134. The main strategic policies relating to the site are saved Policy WLP 15 which allocates a site at Newhurst Quarry for the release of land to establish a new waste disposal site for industrial/commercial and household/civic amenity waste and Policies WCS 2 and WCS 4 of the LLWDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document.

135. Policy WLP 15 states that a planning application will only be permitted where a full supporting statement has been submitted and where the operations do not cause environmental harm having regard to Policy WLP 8 (since replaced with Policy WCS10 of LLWDF). It is considered that the planning application and accompanying amended Environmental Statement provide the information necessary to consider fully the likely effects of the development. The

110


supporting text of WLP 15 makes particular mention of the geological interest at the site, the need to improve the site access and for an effective bird exclusion system. It states that the adjoining quarry processing area could beneficially accommodate various waste treatment options.

136. The preamble to Policy WCS 2 of the LLWDF sets out the criteria to be used to define whether a particular proposal is classed as a ‘strategic waste site’. It is considered that this application meets the criteria for a strategic waste site and the locational requirements of Policy WCS 2 are applicable, i.e. the site should be within the Broad Locations indicated in the Key Diagram, which includes the Newhurst Quarry site.

137. Policy WCS 4 then sets out the priorities for the specific types of land use that would be acceptable for waste management facilities. Priority one will be given to land with an existing waste management use, where transport, operational and environmental benefits can be demonstrated as a consequence of the co-location of waste management facilities. There are two extant waste management permissions on the site, one of which has been implemented and it is evident that the site is acceptable for waste uses. The proposed amendments would not lead to an additional use, rather an alternative waste use to those already permitted and, whilst therefore there would not be co-locational benefits, it is considered that this proposal would have environmental and operational benefits. In the light of the above it is considered that the current proposal meets the tests for priority one in this policy.

138. In the light of the above, it is considered that, in principle and in line with the Secretary of State’s appeal decision, the proposed Newhurst Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) meets the locational requirements of the development plan at strategic and local levels. The ERF would assist in achieving self-sufficiency in terms of waste management for the waste plan area and is also well located for the management of significant waste arisings close to source (Loughborough is the largest settlement in the County).

National Waste Policy Considerations

139. PPS10 confirms the overall objective of Government policy on waste and sets out key planning objectives to be achieved through the delivery of planning strategies, and aims to make the management of waste more sustainable by driving it up the waste hierarchy. It also covers decision-making principles, and at paragraph 5 sets out principles which WPAs should adhere to in determining planning applications, i.e. that planning and pollution controls should avoid conflict and complement rather than duplicate each other, ensure effective working with pollution control authorities and have regard to the policies contained in PPS 10.

140. Advice on the approach WPAs should take in determining planning applications is set out in paragraphs 22 – 32, and this expands on the above principles. It states that when proposals are consistent with an up to date development plan, there should be no requirement to demonstrate a quantitative or market need. It also provides that WPAs should not seek to control the processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities but should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity with reference to the criteria set out in Annex E. These are by and large repeated by policies within the WDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document and are discussed below. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it will be relying on the

111

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Environmental Permit to control environmental impacts arising from the operation of the proposed facility.

141. The Waste Management Plan for England puts a greater emphasis on waste prevention and to continue the growth in the recycling of key materials. The plan seeks to prioritise efforts to manage waste in line with the waste hierarchy and reduce the carbon impact of waste. Overall it is considered that national waste policies provide significant in principle support for energy recovery facilities.

Need

142. It is considered that, given the extant planning permission for an ERF on the site, there is limited merit in considering ‘need’. Notwithstanding this, the Secretary of State considered that ‘there is a clear need to provide in excess of 500,000 tonnes per annum of recovery capacity to ensure that waste is treated higher up the hierarchy than landfilling.’ It is considered that this situation remains the case, and is perhaps enhanced by the ongoing uncertainties regarding the longer term ability of the New Albion landfill site to accept waste post-2014. Landscape and Visual Impact

143. The committee report in October 2011 concluded that, ‘After giving full and detailed analysis to the submitted documentation, it is considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on grounds of its scale and intrusive appearance on the edge of, and what is effectively the ‘entrance’ to, the Charnwood and National Forests, contrary to Policy WCS12 of the Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document. Further, the development would introduce a prominent, visually obtrusive and incongruous building which would detract from the essentially undeveloped rural character of the landscape contrary to Policies WCS10 and WDC5 of the Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document and Policies EV/1, CT/1, CT/2 and CT/7 of the Charnwood Local Plan. It is considered that significant weight should be given to this issue.’

144. The Secretary of State (SoS) agreed with his Planning Inspector’s

determination that there would be impacts upon the APAC and Charnwood Forest and some urbanising impact which would conflict with local plan policy CT/7 and Waste Core Strategy policies WCS10 and WDC5. However, the SoS considered the proposal to be underpinned by strong national and local policy support in terms of its potential contribution to achieving climate change and energy objectives, sustainable waste management and economic benefits and that the benefits of the scheme are substantial and compelling and outweigh the impact on the appearance and character of the area, heritage assets and conflict with certain policies of the development plan.

145. The proposed amendments would have no additional impacts upon local

landscape interests, and may actually reduce the overall impact of the permitted scheme by removing one of the flue stacks. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the current proposals would still have an unacceptable impact on the character of the local landscape, contrary to local plan policy CT/7 and

112

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued Waste Core Strategy policies WCS10 and WDC5

Cultural and Heritage Impacts

146. Garendon Park, to the north east of the Newhurst site, is a grade II registered Historic Park and Garden and within the park are numerous listed buildings including the Triumphal Arch (listed grade I) and the Temple of Venus (listed grade II*), both of which are included on the Heritage at Risk register compiled by English Heritage

147. Policy WDC2 of the WDF states that planning permission will not be granted for waste management developments that would have significant adverse effects on historic parks and gardens, historic landscapes and listed buildings, unless there is an overriding reason of national importance for the development in that location which clearly outweighs the impacts it is likely to have on the features of interest.

148. English Heritage (EH) resolved to object to the 2009 application as it considered that there would be unacceptable impacts upon the nationally designated Garendon Park and its associated listed structures therein. The applicant considered EH’s concerns and attempted to allay them with an improved planting scheme for the 2011 proposal, which seeks to partially restore the historic layout of Garendon Park, and an offer of funding (of around £150,000) for the repair of the Temple of Venus and the Triumphal Arch. EH considered this revised mitigation and the ‘fall back’ position and considered that the impacts of the proposed development have lessened from ‘substantial’ to ‘less than substantial’ (in line with PPS5, extant at that time). It therefore removed its objection.

149. Section 66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990(LBA Act) requires local planning authorities to have ‘special regard’. Recent case law has confirmed that local planning authorities should afford “considerable importance and weight” to any harm to the setting of a listed building(s) and to the desirability of preserving that setting without harm and start with a “strong presumption” that harm to the setting of a listed building should lead to a refusal of planning permission.

150. The proposed development would have marginally less impacts on the

Garendon Park and the listed structures therein, however, there would still be harm to the setting of the park and structures. Notwithstanding this, the mitigation scheme to be secured through a UU would help re-establish a significant part of the park back to its historical layout, and a scheme to improve the listed structures also required under the UU would provide some benefits.

151. The County Council refused planning permission in 2011 on two grounds

associated with impacts upon the cultural heritage assets within Garendon Park. The SoS considered the grade 1 and 2* listed buildings to be of the highest significance and to be highly sensitive to direct impact. However, the SoS considered that the mitigation scheme would reduce the impacts to ‘less than substantial’ and that there would then be no conflict with the core strategy policies. The proposed amendments would have no additional impacts upon local heritage assets, and may actually reduce the overall impact of the permitted scheme by removing one of the flue stacks. In the light of the above,

113


and in particular the County Council’s responsibilities under S66 of the LBA Act, it is considered that the mitigation scheme, coupled with the wider benefits associated with the proposed development, outweigh the negative impacts upon the setting of Garendon Park and the listed structures therein.

Renewable Energy 152. The Government states that the electricity from Energy from Waste facilities that

can demonstrate Combined Heat and Power capacity is to be considered as renewable energy, with the producers of the electricity from such facilities now able to claim full Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each megawatt of energy supplied to the grid.

153. The renewable energy from the proposed facility would contribute to the UK

target of delivering 15% of energy from renewable sources overall by 2020. The proposed ERF would therefore meet the intentions of the RES with regard to renewable energy production.

154. The proposed changes in technology would increase the amount of energy that

the plant can produce, increasing the potential for electricity generation for export to the National Grid from 21MW to 33MW. As per the approved scheme, the facility would be built ‘CHP’ ready, which means that heat can be readily exported should a local user be identified and able to take the heat.

155. It is considered that, in terms of those strategic development plan objectives

relating to renewable energy provision, significant weight should be afforded in support of the proposed amended ERF.

Traffic

156. The preamble to Saved Policy WLP 15 identifies a need to improve the site access onto the A512, and the consultation process on the planning application identified traffic levels and congestion on the A512 as being of particular local concern. This proposal does include measures to upgrade the existing priority controlled junction at the site access, and a study of the impact of traffic generated by the proposal on the A512 has been undertaken. The submission has been assessed by the Highway Authority and Highways Agency.

157. The extant and implemented landfill permission, when taking the worst case

scenario, provides for a maximum of 286 HGV movements per day, while the approved ERF has a lower limit of 242 HGV movements per day. This application proposes maintaining the current ERF limit of 242 movements.

158. The applicant states that it is possible to increase the throughput by 50,000

tonnes per annum and maintain the HGV limit at 242 due to a change in how waste management operations are expected to take place. The original ERF scheme, as submitted in 2009, was devised with a high number of refuse collection vehicles (RCV) entering the site directly. However, in the intervening period, general waste management changes have led to many more waste transfer stations being built in order to bulk waste up and reduce HGV movements. The applicant therefore predicts more bulk haulers than RCVs entering the site, although of course the bulk haulers are much larger than an RCV. HGVs would be restricted from Shepshed, unless collecting waste, via a Unilateral Undertaking.

114

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 159. Having considered the impacts of the proposal on the local highway network,

including the issue of queuing traffic on the A512 and new and proposed development in the locality, the Highway Authority and Highways Agency raise no objection, subject to appropriate conditions.

160. In the light of the above it is considered that the applicant has submitted an

acceptable Traffic Assessment which takes account of the relevant issues. The Highways Agency and Highway Authority have considered the submission and, subject to conditions being imposed, raise no objections. In the light of the above and the SoS decision letter of 28th June 2012, it is considered that the development would not create unacceptable impacts on the local highway network and little weight should be given to this matter.

Emissions, Air Quality and Health Impacts 161. The effects of the development on local air quality can be broadly divided into

those which may affect the health of persons working and living around the site, nuisance caused by dust and particulates, and any contribution to global pollution levels. Air quality conditions at and adjoining the site have been re-modelled, and the amended ES concludes that, after taking into account mitigation measures, no significant effects on air quality are anticipated.

162. The ES assesses the potential impacts of a multitude of pollutants and

considers the increase on background levels, the magnitude of change and the significance of such change. The ES works on the ‘worst case’ scenario and concludes that two pollutants, Nitrogen Dioxide and Chromium (VI), may have an adverse impact, the long term impacts of which are classified as ‘minor adverse’.

163. Consultation has taken place with the Environmental Health Department (EHD)

at Charnwood Borough Council, Public Health England and the Environment Agency (EA) and their advice has been fundamental in considering this issue.

164. UK waste incinerators do emit ultrafine particulate matter, but this is less than

0.1% of the UK’s emissions. Other sources such as road traffic, agriculture and household cooking and heating emit much larger amounts of ultrafine particulate matter than waste incinerators. Some of these sources such as road traffic and domestic sources are close to where people live, increasing the potential for exposure of individuals.

165. In terms of air quality impacts on human health, the amended Environmental Statement concludes that all modelled concentrations of emissions are based on the worst-case scenario and fall within the relevant air quality standards and guidelines, and on this basis no significant effects on health in the area are expected. It is anticipated that due to the processes involved, the emissions will be much lower than the maximum permissible levels.

166. In his decision notice of 28th June 2012, the SoS agreed with his inspector that while public concern is understandable, no great weight should be attached to concerns about the possible impacts of the proposal upon health, air quality or perceived anxiety over these matters. The SoS goes on to state that there is no reason to suppose that the facility would operate other than in accordance with planning conditions and the environmental permit.

115


167. The removal of the roof over the IBA maturation area has raised understandable concerns. Statutory consultees have raised no reasons as to why permission for this should be refused, although it is noted that the EA will assess the impacts of doing this through their permitting regime. The area to be made roofless is only where IBA is stored for maturation and all processing of this material would be undertaken internally.

168. The Environment Agency, EHD and Public Health England have all raised no objection to the proposed amended scheme. It is considered that the revised scheme may produce minor improvements on the approved scheme and that there is no justifiable reason to seek to refuse the application on air quality, emissions or public health grounds.

Employment 169. The construction of the ERF would require around 200 employees for the three

year construction period; although the applicant states that the majority of these would be brought in from outside the area. The operational phase would lead to the employment of around 40 full time positions and the applicant states that many of these jobs would be filled locally. Notwithstanding this, the extant landfill permission on the site would employ 20-25 staff once operational and so the net increase for the site is between 15 -20.

170. Mr. Greg Clark in his written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth dated

23rd March 2011states that ‘In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.’

171. In the light of the above it is considered that there would therefore be positive

impacts upon the local economy from the increase in employment and this should be given some weight when the application is determined.

Noise

172. The amended ES contains a revised noise assessment that includes the use of additional cooling fans and no roof on the IBA maturation area when compared to the scheme approved in 2012 by the SoS. At worst, during construction noise would have a minor, barely perceptible impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

173. During the day and night times, the predicted levels are below the prevailing

background noise levels, which are dominated by noise from the M1 motorway. No objection has been raised by any statutory consultee and it is considered that the amended proposal would not have an unacceptable impact by way of noise on local sensitive receptors.

Restoration of the existing quarry areas

174. The extant landfill planning permission will lead to the comprehensive restoration of both Newhurst and Longcliffe Quarries, with Newhurst being restored using MSW landfill with proposals for public access upon completion.

116


175. The application boundary includes neither quarry void, although the Newhurst Quarry void is included as being under the applicant’s control. The approved ERF scheme allows for the restoration of the Newhurst void (through natural recharge by water rather than through landfill as currently permitted) and the surrounding land. With regard to Longcliffe Quarry, this is not part of the application area and the fall back is to the extant landfill permission and the restoration conditions contained therein. Therefore, it is considered that the issue of restoring the wider site area to an acceptable standard is achievable using other means and very little weight should be given to this issue. Ecology and Protected Species

176. Natural England (NE) and the County Ecologist have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. There are protected species on the wider site, including Great Crested Newts (GCN). Measures are proposed to ensure that protected species would not be unacceptably disturbed as a result of the proposed development.

177. Given the European Protected Species (EPS) status of Bats, regard must be

had to the tests that need to be satisfied to allow derogation to be granted from the protection afforded to EPS (as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994)) and as set out in Circular 06/05. The tests are:

• that there should be no satisfactory alternative to the plan or project as a whole or in the way it is implemented;

• that the plan or project must be “in the interests of preserving public health or public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of importance for the environment”; and

• that the favourable conservation status of the species affected must be maintained

178. Bat surveys have been undertaken and the ES concludes that there are no

roosting bats on the site and the likelihood of their presence in the wider area is low. There have been no objections raised regarding potential impacts upon protected species from Natural England or the County Ecologist.

179. There have been several requests to increase the public access to the quarry

area for general recreational purposes and rock climbing. It is considered that increasing public access could impact detrimentally on the GCN population and breeding birds in the quarry, notably a colony of peregrine falcons. Whilst there is in principle support to increase public access following restoration, this must be done in a sensitive manner and it is considered appropriate that should permission be granted, a condition should be imposed regarding the future use of the restored Newhurst Quarry void and the need to ensure that protected species are not put at risk.

180. Subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the protection of protected

species, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on local flora and fauna.

117


Hydrology, Geology and Hydrogeology 181. The amended ES has re-assessed the likely hydrology, geology and

hydrogeological impacts and concludes that, subject to appropriate conditions, there would be no unacceptable impacts arising from the development. The EA, the EHO and Severn Trent Water have been fully consulted and neither has raised an objection on grounds of emissions to local watercourses or on flooding grounds.

182. Subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the above, it is considered that

there would be no unacceptable impacts arising from the development in terms of hydrology, geology and hydrogeology.

Rights of Way 183. The County Council’s Rights of Way team has requested that improvements to

the local rights of way network could be achieved as a result of this development. Unfortunately the whole of the site is in private ownership, and the tunnel link under the M1 is outside the application boundary and the applicant’s control. The applicant has reservations about allowing public access to the potentially hazardous operational site and the quarry area, which is not only dangerous but has important ecological interests. It is considered that this application could not be used to provide a meaningful and joined up improvement to the local rights of way network.

Conclusion 184. The proposed amendments to the scheme approved on appeal by the

Secretary of State in 2012 are considered to be minor and generally positive in nature. The principle of the development at the site has been established and it is important to consider only the proposed changes.

185. The change from two process lines to one means that the site can process

another 50,000 tonnes of residual waste that otherwise may go to landfill. This would mean losing one of the large flue stacks which is a benefit over the existing scheme. The use of larger HGVs to transport the waste means that the overall number of HGV movements would not increase, although it is accepted that the size of vehicle visiting the site would increase.

186. The removal of the roof over the IBA maturation area has raised concerns, although statutory consultees have raised no reasons as to why permission for this should be refused. It is also noted that the EA will assess the impacts of doing this through their permitting regime and the dust and health implications will be considered at that time. It is therefore not considered appropriate to refuse the request to remove the roof from the approved scheme. All the other changes are considered to be very minor and would be barely perceptible from outside the site boundary.

187. It is considered that the amended scheme would still have an unacceptable impact on the character of the landscape of the area and be detrimental to the heritage assets within the nearby Garendon Park. The requirements of S66 of the LBA Act 1990 are noted and the Council has had special regard to the need to preserve the setting of the heritage assets. However, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme, including the production of low carbon energy,

118


minimising waste to landfill and the employment opportunities are considerable. Also, the fall-back positions at the site form a very strong basis for comparing the proposed amended scheme against, in particular the extant ERF permission issued on appeal by the Secretary of State. Overall it is concluded that the amended scheme is acceptable, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A and a Unilateral Undertaking that provides a mitigation scheme for the impacts upon Garendon Park and restricts HGVs from the built up area of Shepshed unless collecting waste in that area.

Recommendation 1. PERMIT application 2014/1440/02 subject to the conditions as set out in

Appendix A and the prior signing of a Unilateral Undertaking covering a mitigation scheme for the impacts upon Garendon Park and HGV routeing.

2. To endorse, as required by The Town and Country Planning (General

Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended), a summary of:

a. How Leicestershire County Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

In dealing with the applications and reaching a decision account has been taken of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

119

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued APPENDIX A

Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 28th June 2015. 2. Unless otherwise required by this permission the development shall be carried

out in accordance with the following details:

a) the planning application reference 2014/1440/02 and accompanying Environmental Statement (ES) dated July 2014;

b) accompanying drawing nos. NH3/1, NH3/2, NH3/3, NH3/5, NH3/6, NH3/7, NH3/8, NH3/9, NH3/10, NH3/12 Landscape Masterplan, NH3/13 and NH3/14.

c) letter dated 28th April 2010 and attached supplementary information including letter dated 23rd April 2010 from SLR addressed to Geoff Wise of the Highways Agency, Additional Supporting Information Relating to the Global Warming Potential (CO2) document.

3. An Ecological and Landscape Management and Mitigation Plan shall be

prepared for the application site and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The Management Plan thereby approved shall specify a strategy to promote biodiversity within the landscaped areas and balancing ponds. The strategy shall also include details of the means of protection to safeguard key ecological and landscape features during the course of construction works and shall include a programme for the implementation and management of the approved works. The Management Plan and strategy shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the agreed programme.

4. A copy of this permission, the plans and documents referred to in condition No.

2 above, including any other plans and documents subsequently approved in accordance with any condition of this permission, shall be kept available on site for the duration of the development.

Materials

5. Prior to the commencement of construction of the ERF building, a schedule of all the materials to be used externally in the construction of the building shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The building shall be erected and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

Site Access Provision and Use

6. The development shall not be brought into use until such time as the existing

priority junction of the site access on to Ashby Road (A512) has been upgraded to a signalised junction (as illustrated on drawing NH 3/13) in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The proposed junction shall incorporate facilities for pedestrians/cyclists to cross from the northern side of Ashby Road into the proposed development and footway/cycleway facilities provided to access the development.

120

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 7. Before works commence on the access alterations, the existing bus stop within

Ashby Road adjacent to the site entrance shall be relocated in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Such details shall include the provision of a footway link from the relocated bus stop back to the site access and any necessary highway alterations such as bus lay-by that may be required.

8. No vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions are to be erected across the access road serving the site, unless the details of them have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

9. Before the development commences, details of the routeing of construction

traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. During the period of construction, all traffic to and from the site shall use the agreed route at all times.

10. For the period of the construction of the development, vehicle parking facilities

shall be provided within the site and all vehicles associated with the development shall be parked within the site.

11. No part of the development shall commence until details of a Green Travel Plan

containing a travel-to-work, car use strategy, contractor-operated mini bus service, and co-ordination of deliveries for the construction phase of the site as a whole has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Green Travel Plan shall be subsequently implemented throughout the course of the construction phase of the development.

12. No part of the development shall be brought into use until details of a Green

Commuter Plan containing a travel-to-work, car use and car parking management strategy for the site as a whole have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Plan shall comprise proposals to reduce car dependence and vehicle emissions and to establish and encourage the use of alternative transport modes for journeys to and from work and during working hours. Details of the proposals shall include measures to secure increases in car sharing, public transport use, cycling and walking, proposals for car parking restrictions and controls and details of on-site facilities to promote alternative modes of travel to the site. The plan shall make provision for relevant surveys, review and monitoring mechanisms, targets, timescales, phasing programmes and on-site management responsibilities. It shall be implemented and subject to regular review in accordance with the above approved details.

13. The total number of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements associated with the site shall not exceed a daily maximum of 242 (a vehicle entering and subsequently leaving the site equates to two movements). Records of such movements shall be maintained on a daily basis and shall be made available to the County Planning Authority within five working days of such a request being made. All records shall be kept on site for at least 12 months.

121

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 14. The car parking shown on the approved plans shall be completed before the

development hereby approved is occupied or brought into operation and thereafter shall be kept free of obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the

highway scheme shown on drawing no. H001 and dated 04/10 accompanying the letter from SLR dated 23rd April 2010 addressed to Geoff Wise Esq. has been fully completed.

Protection of Trees, Shrubs and Hedgerows & Protected Species

16. The development shall not be commenced until hedgerows and trees to be retained and in close proximity to the works are protected in accordance with BS5837:2005. When installed the means of protection shall be maintained in situ until the development hereby approved becomes operational.

17. No works that involve the removal of trees, shrubs, hedgerows, scrub and other

vegetation including habitats used by ground nesting birds and buildings shall be undertaken during the months of March to August inclusive unless the area has first been checked by a qualified ecologist and an action plan agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority.

Protection of the Environment

18. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority: i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

· all previous uses; · potential contaminants associated with those uses; · a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; · potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

19. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not take

place other than with the express written approval of the County Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated, through the submission of a detailed scheme, that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

122

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 20. The development hereby approved shall not begin until a surface water

drainage limitation scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

21. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as

a scheme to ensure that the site is not at flood risk from Shortcliffe Brook has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

22. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the disposal of foul

and surface waters shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter maintained for the life of the development in accordance with the approved details.

23. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuel or liquid chemicals shall be sited on

impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The size of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tanks plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents and sight glasses must be located within the bund. There must be no drain through the bund floor or walls.

24. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Management

Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The plan shall include all construction and construction operative vehicular movements, construction operation hours, all construction vehicular routes to and from site, construction delivery hours, expected number of construction vehicles per day, car parking for contractors, specific measures to be adopted to mitigate construction impacts in pursuance of the Environmental Code of Construction Practice and a scheme to encourage the use of public transport amongst contractors. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.

25. Prior to the commencement of development, details of an air quality monitoring

regime to track any changes in local nitrogen dioxide levels from the construction phase through to six month full operational status of the facility shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The air quality monitoring shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Noise

26. The noise levels arising from the development when measured at any noise sensitive property shall not exceed 55dB(A)LAeq over any one hour (free field) during the hours of 07:00 – 23:00 and 42dB(A)LAeq 1 hour (free field) during the hours of 23:00 – 07:00.

123

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 27. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the operations carried out on the site do

not give rise to noise nuisance or disturbance in the locality. Such measures shall include: a) the effective silencing and maintenance of all engines, exhausts,

machinery, plant and equipment, whether fixed or mobile; b) the location and organisation of on-site operations so as to minimise any

noise impact on nearby properties; c) the minimisation, so far as is practicably and legally possible, of the level

and penetration of noise emissions from reversing warnings fitted to vehicles.

Lighting

28. Prior to the commencement of the development, a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of the location, height, design, sensors, hours of operation, luminance and intensity of light spread of all proposed lighting and a programme for its installation. The lighting shall be designed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage to the locality, and shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.

29. Notwithstanding condition No. 28, no lighting source shall be directly visible (or

visible by reflection) to trunk road users.

Hours of operation

30. No HGV shall enter or exit the site except between the hours of 06:00 to 22:00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive and between the hours of 07:30 and 16:00 on Saturdays. No HGV shall enter or leave the site on any Sunday or Public/Bank holiday.

Complaints

31. Following the receipt of any complaint about operations on site affecting neighbouring land users or the environment, the operator shall, within 24 hours, notify the County Planning Authority of the complaint, details of the investigation and if relevant, any mitigation measures taken.

Miscellaneous

32. The development shall not begin operating unless a route to the boundary of the site capable of accommodating pipework for heat off-take purposes has been identified and has been approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The route shall thereafter be reserved for this purpose.

33. Prior to the commencement of any works on the site a badger survey shall be

carried out by an appropriately licensed ecologist to determine whether a sett has been dug within 30 metres of the site to be developed. If the survey concludes that a sett is present then no works shall commence on the site until an appropriate licence has been granted by Natural England.

124


Reclamation

34. Within six months of the commencement of the development, a detailed scheme for the reclamation of the parts of the site outside the red line but within the blue line on plan No. NH2/2 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The reclamation scheme shall not include floating reed beds and shall be carried out in its entirety within one year of the County Planning Authority’s written approval.

Aftercare

35. Following the reclamation of any part of the site in accordance with the agreed reclamation scheme, the reclaimed land shall be treated and managed over a period of five years in accordance with an aftercare scheme, which has previously been agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall provide a strategy for the five-year aftercare period and shall specify the steps that are to be taken in order to bring the newly restored land to the required standard for the approved biodiversity-led after-use. The scheme shall: a) be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority within

six months of the date of approval of the corresponding reclamation scheme submitted under condition no. 36 above;

b) provide an outline strategy, having regard to the guidance contained in

Mineral Planning Guidance Note 7 (MPG7) (or any superseding Government guidance on the reclamation of mineral sites) for the five-year aftercare period. This shall specify the steps to be taken and the period during which they are to be taken to return the land to beneficial use and shall provide for annual meetings between the operator, the County Planning Authority and other agencies as appropriate in respect of the restored areas of the site; and

c) provide for the annual submission and implementation of a detailed

programme of aftercare works having regard to MPG7 (or any superseding Government guidance on the reclamation of mineral sites) and other relevant guidance regarding biodiversity action plan targets.

Waste Acceptance

36. No waste shall be accepted at the site other than in accordance with a Waste Acceptance scheme approved under the terms of the Environmental Permit issued (or thereafter amended) by the Environment Agency in consultation with the County Planning Authority.

Blasting

37. Every blast shall be designed with a 95% confidence level that ground vibration levels recorded at any vibration sensitive property arising from any blast shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6mm per second measured in any mutually perpendicular plane. No blast shall exceed a peak particle velocity of 12mm per second as measured at any vibration sensitive property.

125

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 38. Prior to the commencement of the development, a blast monitoring scheme

shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of: a) blast monitoring at agreed locations including the use of permanent/fixed

monitors to assess whether the limits specified in condition No. 39 have been complied with;

b) the type of monitoring equipment to be used; c) presentation of blast design and monitoring results, including details of

dates, times, prevailing weather conditions and comments on significant blast results;

d) maintenance and availability of monitoring results; e) procedures to be implemented if blasting exceeds approved levels; and f) a methodology to keep the scheme under regular review subject to written

agreement with the County Solicitor.

39. Except in an emergency no secondary blasting shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the County Planning Authority. In emergency situations, the County Planning Authority shall be notified of operations within 24 hours.

40. Prior to the commencement of blasting operations details of the methods

employed to minimise air overpressure from blasting operations shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval. Each blast shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

41. No blasting shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 10:00

and 16:00. No blasting shall be undertaken on any Saturday, Sunday or Public/Bank Holiday.

Reasons 1. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

3. To minimise the impacts of the development on local amenity and ecological interests and to ensure that the development maximises the biodiversity potential of the site.

4. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the site is carried out in

accordance with the approved conditions.

5. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure that the development has an acceptable external appearance.

6. In the interests of highway safety.

7. In the interests of highway safety and to provide adequate facilities for a new

public bus stop. 8. In the interests of highway safety.

126

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. In the general interests of highway safety and to ensure that adequate off-street

parking facilities are available within the curtilage of the development. 11. In the interests of highway safety.

12. To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice including

a choice in mode of travel to and from the site.

13. In the interests of highway safety. 14. In the interests of highway safety. 15. In the interests of highway safety. 16. To ensure there is adequate protection for existing trees and hedges and their

roots within the site in the interests of the landscape and visual amenities of the area.

17. To ensure that nesting birds are not unacceptably disturbed.

18. To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to minimise the risk of

pollution on of local watercourses and aquifers.

19. To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to minimise potential impacts on local ground water interests.

20. To ensure adequate drainage of the scheme and minimise associated flood risk

beyond the site boundary.

21. To ensure that the development is not at risk from flooding.

22. To prevent pollution of the local water environment.

23. To minimise the risk of pollution on of local watercourses and aquifers. 24. To minimise the impacts upon local communities and in the interests of highway

safety.

25. To enable the County Planning Authority the opportunity to monitor the impacts of the development on local air quality.

26. To minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the

local community and environment.

27. To ensure best practices are undertaken on the site to minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community and environment.

28. To minimise the adverse impact of light generated by the operations on the

local community and environment.

127

2014/1440/02 (2014/VOCEIA/0153/LCC) – continued 29. In the interests of local amenity and highway safety.

30. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure that the development is carried

out as per the submitted details.

31. To ensure that the County Planning Authority is informed of all complaints relating to site operations.

32. To ensure that the development is as sustainable as practicable.

33. To provide adequate protection for badgers, which are a protected species.

34. To ensure acceptable restoration of the peripheral areas of the site and the

Newhurst Quarry void takes place, in the interests of local amenity and to improve local ecological and biodiversity interests.

35. To ensure that the restored areas of the site are brought into a suitable

condition for long term ecological and biodiversity improvements to be made.

36. To ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the submitted details.

37. To minimise the adverse impact of blasting on the local community and

environment.

38. To enable the blasting effects from the development to be adequately monitored during the course of the operations and so that the data acquired can be used in the design of subsequent blasts.

39. In the interests of local amenity.

40. To minimise the adverse effects of air over pressure on the local community.

41. In the interests of local amenity.

128

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD The considerations set out below apply to all the preceding applications. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equality and human rights implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Family Services and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows: Note to Applicant Department Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the Equalities function of the County Council’s Policy and Partnerships Team if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal. COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety. BACKGROUND PAPERS Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files. SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports. The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this

section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

129

130

This page is intentionally left blank

Date post:	12-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

9TH OCTOBER 2014 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s96129/Biffa...

Documents