AGENDA ITEM ..5......
DR/12/11
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 March 2011
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Continuation of use of land for composting 50,000 tpa of green waste on a permanent basis, with retention of office/restroom, weighbridge, shredder, trammel, plant for transportation of material around site, bunding and hardstanding. Location: Heatherland Composting, Stondon Hall Farm, Stondon Massey, Essex, CM15 0LD Ref: ESS/46/10/BRW
Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Paul Calder Tel: 01245 437585
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602 DR/12/11 1
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602 DR/12/11 2
1. BACKGROUND
Planning permission ESS/13/96/BRW for green waste composting at Stondon Hall Farm was sought on a permanent basis but restricted to a period of 10 years when condition 2 of that permission required composting operations to cease and all fixtures, fittings and hard surfaces to be removed and broken up on or before 30th September 2006. The site was required to be restored to a condition fit for agricultural use by 30th September 2007 in accordance with a restoration scheme to be agreed beforehand, also under condition 2. This restoration scheme was not agreed. The reason temporary permission was granted was to help to ensure that the site would return to a state fit for agriculture use in the future.
In July 1998, planning permission ESS/87/97/BRW was granted to extend the area of green waste composting site. This too was granted on a temporary basis and condition 3 contained the same end date and restoration timetable as condition 2 of planning permission ESS/13/96/BRW.
In 1997, planning permissions were also granted to allow the operation of a shredder on the site (ref: ESS/89/97/BRW), and to increase the vehicles movements permitted under condition 6 of the original permission (ref: ESS/17/97/BRW). Planning permission ESS/61/98/BRW removed the requirement to reduce vehicle movements after 30th June 2006. the vehicle movements permitted at the site therefore remained at 20 loads of green waste to be imported to the site each full working day (10 loads on Saturdays) and 5, 20 tonne lorry loads of bagged compost to leave the site each full working day ( 2 on Saturdays).
In 1996, Brentwood Borough Council permitted a hard surface access road linking the site via Stondon Hall Farm to Ongar Road (ref: BRW/847/96). This permission was granted on a permanent basis, but restricted to purposes ancillary to the agricultural use of the land and for transportation of green waste/compost.
In September 2006, an application was submitted to continue the use of the land for green waste composting on a permanent basis (ref: ESS/23/05/BRW). The application sought the:
‘Removal of time limits to allow the continued use of land for green waste composting on a permanent basis by: continuation of the use of the land for green waste composting without compliance with time limit conditions 2,6 and 7 of planning permission ESS/13/96/BRW (as modified by permissions ESS/17/97/BRW, ESS/89/97/BRW and ESS/61/98/BRW) and time limit conditions 3 and 13 of planning permission ESS/87/97/BRW (as modified by permission ESS/61/98/BRW). „
This application was refused on 31st October 2005 for the following reasons:
1. ‘The proposed permanent use of the site for green waste composting would, by reason of its industrial nature, represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, for which the applicant has not demonstrated very special circumstances which would justify granting planning permission. The proposal would, therefore be contrary to Adopted Essex and Southend on Sea Structure Plan Policy C2, Policy W7B in the Adopted Essex and Southend Waste Local
DR/12/11 3
Plan, and Policies GB2 and GB19 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan, and;
2. The use causes harm to local amenity which cannot be adequately overcome by planning conditions. therefore, the development would be contrary to the Adopted Essex and Southend on Sea Structure Plan Policy WM3 and Policy W10E in the Adopted Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan.’
The applicant appealed against this decision, and after a 3 day Public Inquiry the above mentioned reasons for refusal were overturned by the Planning Inspector (ref: APP/Z1585/A/05/1196752) who considered that:
‘I consider that there is a need for this facility in the short term, but that a long term need has not been demonstrated. Previously I have found that the openness of the Green Belt would be harmed by permanent retention of the facility but not by a temporary one, and the (limited) harm to living conditions would endure only as long as the use continues so the harm from a temporary period would be less than from a permanent use.’
In February 2009, following the Planning Inspectors approval, retrospective planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary weighbridge at the site, along with an office/restroom, to 31st December 2010 (ref: ESS/49/08/BRW).
2. SITE
The application site is situated to the south-east of the Stondon Hall and located adjacent to a complex of buildings at Stondon Hall Farm, some of which are in commercial/industrial use. The site is located in open countryside 1 kilometre north- west of a number of residential dwellings which make up the Stondon Green area of Stondon Massey. It is 1.7 kilometres south of the village of High Ongar and 1.8 kilometres south-east of Marden Ash which is part of an area Known as Chipping Ongar. In addition to Stondon Hall Farmhouse itself, which is approximately 180 metres at its closest point to the north of the site, the nearest residential dwellings are four properties known as Stondon Hall Bungalows, which stand on the private unclassified road linking the farm to Ongar Road, which it joins adjacent to Stondon Massey church. The nearest of the Stondon Hall Bungalows is 100 metres from the composting site and 50 metres from the site access roadway.
The composting site and the estate are served by a private roadway which is nearly 1 kilometre long. This follows a route from the site to the north-west and then turns south to join Ongar Road over 620 metres west of the site. The road then joins Ongar Road, opposite a residential property, “Little Myles” which is a Grade II listed building. The private roadway is for use of vehicles associated with the agricultural use of the land and for movement of green waste/compost to or from the site only, as approved (ref: ESS/23/05/BRW).
From the roadway access point, Ongar Road runs north-west to its junction with the estate road of the Hallsford Bridge Industrial Estate, where the applicant has a waste transfer station. Beyond Hallsford Bridge, Ongar Road becomes Stondon Road, running west to its junction with the A128 Brentwood to Chipping Ongar Road at Marden Ash. Green waste vehicles from the County Council‟s civic amenity and
DR/12/11 4
recycling sites are required by consent to access Stondon Hall Farm from the direction of the A128, which is to the west.
3. PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking planning permission for the continuation of use of land for green waste composting on a permanent basis.
The development would comprise: retention of the weighbridge; retention of the office/restroom (2.75 metres at its optimum height and 7.4 metres in length creating a floor space area of 38m2); retention of bonding, and; Retention of hardstanding.
The site is divided into two sections by a clay bund with the areas for reception and storage of waste, the shredding of waste located towards the south of the site, the windrows to the south of the site, area for the storage of the compost product located in south east of the site and a storage area for fine grade compost, screened soil, compost rejects, compost maturing for 12mm screen and crushed concrete for site repairs are all located in the northern section of the site separate for the processing area.
A leachate pond is currently located to within the northern half of the site adjacent to the south eastern bund, adjacent to the hardstanding and this is also proposed to be retained.
The plant located permanently on site would be: 2x Trammel Screens; 1x excavator with grab; 2x excavators; 2x loading shovels, and; 2x shredders.
Shredders are permanently located on site. Once material is shredded, it would be formed into windrows within the southern section of the site, being between approximately 3 metres high and 10 metres in length. The composting process would take approximately 15 weeks, during which time the windrows would be turned using a wheeled loader. The compost would then be screened; any non compostable materials would be stored in the northern section of the site, and large lumps of compostable material would go through the process once again. The resulting compost product would be used on the surrounding farmland and would not be taken from the site via public highways.
The process would result in leachate released due to the moisture in the green waste. Hardstanding cover of an impermeable material (e.g. asphalt/tar macadam) already exists on site ensuring that the site is sealed minimising the risk of pollution to the local water environment. The site surface is designed to drain towards the lagoon to the north of the application site.
DR/12/11 5
Two Public Rights of Way (PROW) footpaths 1 and 3 cross the access road to the site. Footpath 1 crosses the hall road to the north west and footpath 3 cross the adjacent to the site access to the west. Signage warning drivers of public footpath users and drivers is also proposed.
The applicant has indicated in the submission that typically 75% of green waste brought to the application site is from Essex County Councils Waste Municipal Authority sourced from kerbside green waste collections and civic amenity sites in Chelmsford and Brentwood. It is stated that the remaining waste comes from nearby civic amenity sites in Hertfordshire and occasionally London Waste in Edmonton.
The application details indicate that up to 50,000 tonnes of green waste would be brought on to site.
The applicant has indicated that the vehicles movements permitted would remain the same as previously approved under permission ESS/23/05/BRW granted on appeal. The movements would be 20 loads of green waste to be imported to the site each full working day (10 loads on Saturdays) and 5, 20 tonne lorry loads of bagged compost to leave the site each full working day ( 2 on Saturdays).
It is proposed in the submitted details that the site would be open and receiving/managing waste during the following times:
Monday – Friday: 07:00 – 18:30 Saturday: 07:00 – 13:00 and at no other times Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS, adopted May 2008), Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan (WLP, adopted September 2001) and Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (BRLP, adopted August 2005) provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
RSS WLP BRLP
Waste Management Objectives WM1 Landscape Conservation ENV2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity ENV3 Quality in the Built Environment ENV7 Flood Risk WAT4 Principles of Development W3A Flood Control W4A Water Pollution W4B Highways W4C Indoor Waste Composting W7A Outdoor Waste Composting W7B Preferred Sites (Waste Management Facilities) W8A Non preferred Sites W8B
DR/12/11 6
Development Control Criteria W10E Hours of Operation W10F Public Rights of Way W10G General Development Criteria CP1 Transport Assessments CP3 New Development GB1 Development Criteria GB2 Special Landscape Areas C8 Development within the Vicinity of a Listed Building C16 New Development and Highway Considerations T2 Areas Allocated for General Employment E1 Sites for Additional Employment E4
5. CONSULTATIONS
BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL – Objects to the application for the following reason:
The permanent use of the site would be inappropriate development that would also detract from the openness of the Green Belt. It would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and the living conditions of nearby residents by reason of noise and disturbance and unpleasant smells. No “very special circumstances” exist and the proposal would conflict with Policies CP1, GB1 and GB2 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection subject to the following conditions being imposed;
No storage of materials or composting of waste within 8 metres of the Stondon Hall Brook, and;
Submission of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection
ENGLISH HERITAGE – The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY – No objection
HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY (PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY) – Makes the following observations;
Footpaths 1 and 3 Stondon Massey is close to the site area and cross the access road. At these crossing points, are there signs warning footpath users and HGV drivers; The applicant has made an effort to shield the site from public footpaths by a 3 metre high bund and trees, and;
DR/12/11 7
Apart from the visual impact of the site there is also the issue of noise.
ESSEX COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE – Access for fire service purposes has been considered in accordance with the Essex Act 1987 – Section 13.
HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY – Has indicated that they wish to submit comments however, will not be submitted for the committee agenda deadline therefore, should comments arrive prior to the meeting they will be reported to the meeting.
BRENTWOOD DISTRICT RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – Any comments received will be reported.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL‟S EMERGENCY PLANNING – No objection subject to a condition requiring resubmission of the Flood Action Plan.
COUNTY COUNCIL‟S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection
BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Landscape and Historic Buildings) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – Makes the following comments;
The composting site is on relatively low land with attractive hilly surrounding land providing some views down onto the site. The applicant has in the past created some screening with bunding and planting around the periphery of the site;
The site is in close proximity to a Grade II Listed Building, Stondon Hall and would affect the setting of the building, and;
In view of the adverse impact of the proposal on both the landscape and the listed building, a landscape plan is required, showing additional planting and details of the management of the planting for five years. The planting should increase the screening while fitting in with the surrounding vegetation. The existing landscape consist of oak, hawthorn, blackthorn and ash, and incorporation of these species into the new planting would help screen the development and blend it into the landscape.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Urban Design) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No comment
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL MAJOR PROGRAMMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE – No objection for the following reasons;
The Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) for Essex states an aspiration to achieve 60% recycling of household waste by 2020; this will in part be achieved through the composting of green garden waste generated by Essex households. The Waste Disposal Authority currently has a framework contract in place until late 2013 with a number of composting operators;
DR/12/11 8
including the facility at Stondon Hall Farm;
The preference of the WDA is for suitable compost operations to be sited in various localities around the County. A geographical spread of facilities improves operational efficiency, provides service stability and minimises transport requirements. The ability of the WDA to delivery the Proximity Principle required under the Waste Framework Directive would be limited if the existing Stondon site, or an alternative site in the near vicinity with the capability to handle circa 10kt p.a of Essex green garden waste was not available, and;
The WDA supports this application as it would ensure the availability of a composting facility in close proximity to the waste source; whilst contributing to the total green garden waste treatment capacity required within the County.
STONDON MASSEY PARISH COUNCIL – objects to the application for the following reasons;
Two open meetings solely relating to this application have been held with attendances of 42 and 34 parishioners respectively who raised many objections concerning health issues, smells, traffic, noise and a general lack of good management of the current operation. The level of attendance is most exceptional for Parish Council meetings which reflects the general local concern;
A recent national report has stated that „growing numbers of people living near (such) sites are reporting health issues;
The last three years was only granted on appeal on the basis that there was a „short term requirement‟ but that „a long term requirement was not demonstrated‟;
It is understood that there are now alternative sites locally which would render this site unnecessary;
The end product spread on the local fields has contained a high percentage of plastics. There have been numerous complaints of smells and damaged roadside verges caused during local road transport;
A number of houses are located within the distance recommended by health and Safety guidelines and additionally there is concern locally that the pollutants emanating from this site could find its way into the food chain with possible long term health effects;
The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is only 150 metres from a Grade I listed building and very near two further Grade II buildings which makes this whole area a particularly sensitive location, and;
The site is totally unacceptable to the expected quality of life for the local residents, is poorly managed and the health issues now being revealed as a
DR/12/11 9
result of the dust and general pollution are simply of too much concern to all parishioners.
HIGH ONGAR PARISH COUNCIL – objects to the application for the following reasons;
The ancient footpaths should be protected at all costs from being destroyed or moved;
Located within the Green Belt, in an area designated as a Special Landscape Area of the Roding Valley, and;
Has been a long established right of way for local people and visitors to the Parishes of both Stondon Massey and High Ongar for nearly 130 years.
LOCAL MEMBER – BRENTWOOD – Brentwood Rural – No comments received
6. REPRESENTATIONS
10 properties were directly notified of the application. 164 letters of representation have been received. The comments raised by representees are summarised in Appendix A, however, the main issues of concern relate to:
Impact upon the green belt; the need for the development; the impact of the development on the countryside; not a preferred site; landscape impact; potential flood risk impact; pollution/odour impact; visual impact; impact upon the listed building; traffic impact, and; noise and dust impact.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Impact upon the Green Belt; B. Very Special Circumstances; C. Impact upon the setting of a Listed Building D. Ecology, and; E. Impact on Amenity.
A IMPACT UPON THE GREEN BELT
The proposal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined within the adopted
DR/12/11 10
Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Adopted 2005 (BRLP) proposals map. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2 – Green Belts) indicates there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. PPG2 goes on to state that inappropriate development is by definition harmful in the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states that:-
‘The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.’
Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, which are:
to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and; to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict or other urban land.
The application seeks the retention of an operational hardstanding of 1600m². Site infrastructure would consist of a modular building weighbridge and „portakabin‟ style office and staff welfare facilities. Plant and equipment would be stationed on site to process the imported green waste, which would include a shredder, trommel screen as well as plant to move and load materials. Stockpiles of green waste would be formed in a reception area within the site following which such material would be processed and set in windrows typically 10 metres long by 3m high. Currently earth bunds contain all sides of the site being 3 metres in height. Vehicles would either import the green waste or remove the compost, with a large proportion of these vehicles being heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight. Retention of the proposal would accordingly have a greater impact on the openness of the surrounding area than when it was an agricultural field.
The site is in a rural location and is relatively well screened by exiting plantings to the east, west and south. The site currently has 3m high landscaping bunds to further assist in screening the site from external view.
Therefore, although the site is relatively well screened, it is considered that the retention of hardstandings, structures, plant and the use of the site, including the impact of lorries importing and exporting material, would not assist in maintaining the openness of the Green Belt in this location, even if further planting is undertaken.
As previously stated, the primary purpose of the proposed composting facility is to improve the quality of the agricultural land (with the added benefit of treating greenwaste). Whilst partially ancillary to the existing agricultural operation, the scale and nature of the proposed facility make it a commercial waste management
DR/12/11 11
enterprise with materials imported and a product exported.
Viewed in isolation, the industrial nature of the larger scale activity would encroach on the countryside. As such the proposed development cannot be said to maintain openness or contribute to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Therefore, the application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
B VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness, or any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In addition, Policy GB1 (New Development) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan states „Within the green belt, as defined on the proposals map, planning permission will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for changes of use of land or the construction of new buildings or extension of existing buildings, for purposes other than those appropriate to a green belt, or for the re-use of existing buildings that do not comply with the criteria set out in Policies GB15 and GB16.
All proposals will additionally, where they apply, be judged against the other policies in this Plan’.
As such, very special circumstances need to be demonstrated to warrant a departure from Green Belt policy. This is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Need & Principle
The National Waste Strategy is a document that reflects Central Government‟s position in relation to future waste management for England. It sets out the Government‟s key objectives, which include the need to meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste. It also sets a target for reducing the amount of household waste not re-used, recycled or composted, and a separate target for the recycling and composting of household waste.
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) sets out the Government‟s approach to delivering sustainable waste management. PPS10 goes on to state that the key objective for the Government is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and using it as a resource where possible. In order to achieve this, the Government encourages the movement up the waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing of as a last resort.
WLP policy W3A (Principles of Development) encourages the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to promote the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy, as well as ensuring that proposals have regard to the goals and principles of sustainable development.
Essex County Council and Southend Borough Council‟s Waste Development Document (WDD) Issues and Options report, has recently been on consultation. The
DR/12/11 12
Waste Planning Authority (WPA) is currently in the process of registering each response and summarising them. The next stage of the WDD process will be the preferred approach which is due out for public consultation later this year. The WDD Capacity Gap Compilation Report, published September 2010, is a key document providing the evidence for the emerging WDD. In relation to composting, the conclusion within the report states that there is sufficient capacity for recycling and composting sites within the plan area, but also notes that circumstances may change in the future and indicates the importance of future monitoring. It does note that there is significantly greater recycling capacity than composting and that, in particular, further composting capacity could be required within the plan area in the future. It goes on to identify the possibility of additional capacity in northern Braintree, southern Brentwood and Basildon.
Although the existing site is located within northern Brentwood, it would be serving ECC waste framework contract which the applicant states makes up 70% of the waste brought to site mainly originating from Chelmsford and Brentwood kerbside collections. The remaining waste coming from Hertfordshire which means that the site would not necessarily accept waste from Basildon which the Capacity Gap Compilation Report states as needing extra capacity. It has also been highlighted by the applicant‟s agent (email dated 13th January 2011) that no waste from London Waste in Edmonton would be accepted at site.
The figures noted above were confirmed by the applicant via email dated 13th January 2011. However, these figures are different from those stated within the applicants Planning Statement as section 3.4.1 of that statement states „ typically 75% of the green waste brought to the application site is from Essex‟s kerbside green waste collections and civic amenity sites in Chelmsford and Brentwood. The remaining waste comes from nearby civic amenity sites in Hertfordshire and occasionally from London Waste in Edmonton.
There is a conflict in the information submitted by the applicant which places an element of ambiguity on where the waste arising originates from. The applicant clarified that they are “2 years into a framework contract to take ECC waste, which has a further 3 years (including the current year) to run. Where the amounts taken under these contracts were previously fairly fixed so Heatherland could indicate accurately how much waste he would be taking each year, now they are subject to significant fluctuation. Therefore, essentially the applicant is seeking to manage up to 50,000tpa of green waste (of which an estimated 35,000tpa would be from ECC, and 15,000 from HCC), but obviously this is a maximum which may not be achieved in all (or any) years”.
The applicant has referred to the need for retention of the site to come forward identified in a previous report (2007, updated in 2009) which states that there could be insufficient capacity for recycling and composting beyond 2011.
The applicant also highlights that should permission be granted, the application site would continue to compost 50,000tpa of municipal green waste allowing the County to just meet its requirements under „best case scenario‟. With the proposed opening of Courtauld Road in 2014, there may, as a „best case scenario‟ be some over provision.
DR/12/11 13
However, should permission not be granted it is considered that although there may be a short term shortage of capacity for green waste composting, the prposed Courtauld Road facility in Basildon would introduce additional capacity and allow the WPA to meet its targets.
The principle of composting is supported by ECC, as it would support the aims and objectives of the National Waste Strategy, PPS10, and WLP policy W3A. Therefore, although it could be argued that there is a continued need for the facility on a temporary basis (until 2014), a case for a need for the retention of the site on a permanent basis has not been made.
Even then, the need for facilities to manage green waste in Essex is only one consideration of a very special circumstance. The question of location (to answer why this site remains appropriate) and harms to the locality still have to be taken into account.
Principle of Site Location
PPS 10 states that, where applications are received for sites that have not been identified in a development plan document, they should be considered favourably when they are consistent with PPS10 policies and the WPA‟s Core Strategy, provided they do not undermine the movement of waste up the hierarchy. The WPA has not yet adopted a Core Strategy, and therefore the most relevant policies to use are those featuring in the WLP and the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan.
PPS 10 go further by stating that „ in searching for sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider:
- Opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises; - A broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities.’
The proposed development is not located within an existing or proposed industrial site and there is no extant planning permission for the treatment of waste by composting on the site. Conditions attached to ESS/23/05/BRW required cessation of the use and removal of all hard surfaces from the site. Therefore, the application should be considered a fresh and not as an existing waste use located within open countryside.
The development which is proposed would involve a change of use of the subject field from agricultural to a commercial activity, akin to an industrial use.
The proposed development falls outside the designated employment zones which are outlined in Policy E1 (Areas Allocated for General Employment) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan. In addition it is not within the areas defined on the inset maps, namely the rural business sites at Hallsford Bridge. In addition Policy E4 (Sites for Additional Employment Land) states „Additional employment land is allocated on the proposals map at the following locations:
i. Land adjacent to the Council highway depot, Warley (see Policy E5); ii. Hallsford Bridge industrial estate, Stondon Massey;
DR/12/11 14
iii. Land at Childerditch Industrial Park (see Policy E6), and; iv. Land at West Horndon Industrial estate‟.
The application site is located within a Special Landscape Area forming part of the open countryside contrary to Policy C8 (Special Landscape Areas) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan which states, inter-alia, that „special landscape area, where they are defined in this Local Plan, will be taken to identify areas where, in the interim, conservation or restoration of existing characters should be given high priority’.
The area although currently developed would have had a landscape character of open countryside consistent with its location in a rural area. The proposed development together with associated activity and paraphernalia, e.g. shedder and trommel and other ancillary equipment, would erode the character and appearance of the countryside.
WLP Policy W7A (Indoor Waste Composting) states „Proposals for indoor waste composting facilities will be supported at the following locations:
The waste management locations identified in Schedule 1 (subject to policy W8A); Other locations (subject to policies W8B and W8C), or; In association with other waste management development.
Provided the development complies with other relevant policies of this Plan‟.
Having assessed the proposal in light of Policy W7A it is considered that;
The proposal is not located within an area identified within Schedule 1 of the Waste Local Plan; Section below appraises W8B and W8C, and; Is not located in association with another waste management facility/development.
Moreover, it should be noted that the proposal is not for indoor waste composting in any case and therefore WLP Policy W7B (Outdoor Waste Composting) is the main policy for consideration for this proposal which states:
„Proposals for outdoor waste composting facilities will be supported, in addition to the locations complying with Policy W7A (Indoor Waste Comporting), at sites within the rural area at the following locations:
Existing areas of hardstanding; In association with other waste management development; At sewage treatment works; Where the compost is to be used as part of a reclamation process on adjoining land; Current mineral working and landfill sites, provided the use ceases prior to the permitted completion date of the site (unless an extension of time to retain such facilities is permitted); Despoiled and previously developed land.
DR/12/11 15
Provided, in all cases, the development complies with other relevant policies of this plan and in particular is not detrimental to the amenity of any nearby residential area or harmful to the character of the rural area‟.
Despite the Policy relating to indoor composting facilities (which the proposal is not in respect of) the applicant has carried out an assessment of the Schedule 1 sites as referred to in Policy W7A and has made the following comments;
WM1 (Rivenhall Airfield, Silver End) has a resolution to grant planning permission (ref: ECC/37/08/BTE) for Integrated Waste Management Facility processing mixed waste therefore, is unavailable and east of the County; WM2 (Land east of Warren Lane, Stanway, Colchester) has planning permission (ref: ECC/63/06/COL) for Mechanical Biological Treatment/Anaerobic Digestion therefore, unavailable and east of County; WM3 (Whitehall Road Extension, Colchester) industrial/employment site, in close proximity to residential properties therefore, unsuitable and east of the County; WM4 (North Weald Airfield, Epping) boundary of site within 250 metres of workplaces and residential properties, potential bird strike at adjacent airfield therefore, unsuitable and west of the County; WM5 (Courtauld Road, Basildon) has a resolution to grant planning permission (ref: ESS/04/07/BAS) for Integrated waste Management Facility therefore, unavailable and south of the County, and; WM6 (Sandon, Chelmsford) has an existing temporary permission for composting until 2013 (ref: ESS/59/09/CHL) and is located close to residential properties therefore, unavailable due to temporary consent and unsuitable located east of the County.
The consideration of potential alternative locations noted above does not cover all the potential locations set out in Policy W7B.
To complete analysis of Policy W7A, then the other parts of the policy need to be explored. In this respect, Policy W8B (Non-Preferred Sites) of the WLP specifies that waste management facilities will be permitted at locations other than those identified in the plan and as long as they are located in an existing general industrial area, areas allocated for general industrial use in an adopted Local Plan or an employment areas not falling into the above categories ,or existing waste management sites, or areas of degraded, contaminated or derelict land where it is shown that the proposed facility would not be detrimental to the amenity of any nearby residential area.
The supporting text to WLP Policy W8B specifies that this is the general policy for such proposals generally with a capacity of 25,000 – 50,000tpa. The text goes further by highlighting that proposals will also be required to comply with the criteria of Policy W8A, and in the case of large-scale proposals (above 50,000tpa), developers will have to show why the identified locations would be less suitable or not available for their proposal. The application proposes the treatment of 50,000tpa of green waste therefore, policies W8A and W8B are of relevance to the determination of this application.
The applicant, as part of the application, has appraised WLP Policy W8B stating that
DR/12/11 16
the Policy supports sites on existing or proposed industrial estates, further explaining that this is not considered an appropriate location for windrow composting given the close proximity to other businesses and likely „sensitive receptors‟. This approach is supported by Policy W7B of the WLP which promotes open composting sites in „rural locations‟. This is considered one of the main reasons industrial sites are not an appropriate location for this application.
The applicant goes on further to state that taking the previous paragraph into account it is concluded that the application site represents the optimal choice for a green waste composting operation of the type currently proposed. Other sites identified in the WLP have been demonstrated to be either unavailable or unsuitable, and the use of industrial estates has been shown to be inappropriate.
Having assessed the proposal in light of Policy W8B it is considered that;
The proposal is not located within an existing general industrial area;;
Is not located in an area allocated for general industrial use in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan proposals map;
Is not located within an employment area not falling into the above categories;
Is not located within an existing waste management site as for the reason explained above there is no extant planning permission for the treatment of waste at this site, and;
In addition the proposal is not located on land which is degraded, contaminated or derelict land.
Having assessed the proposal in light of Policy W7B (outdoor composting which the proposal is seeking permission) it is considered that:
The site would not be located on an area of existing hardstanding; The proposal would not work in association with other waste management development; Is not located within a sewage treatment works; Although the finished compost is proposed to be used within 5 miles of the site on surrounding agricultural fields to aid in crop production, the Inspector noted that he did not consider this part of a reclamation process as required by the Policy; The site is not a current mineral working or landfill site, and; Is not a despoiled or previously developed land (because the current permission is for a temporary facility).
Therefore, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that all the locations within the Borough of Brentwood have been investigated, given Brentwood Borough Council‟s comments, alternative sites may exist for the proposed development within the Borough of Brentwood and within the South of the County as a whole. The application site is not the only possible site for this type of facility in the South of Essex and very special circumstances have not been put forward for its
DR/12/11 17
retention in this respect.
It is considered that this would be a waste related development within the countryside which would not conserve the existing character of the surrounding area. In addition the development is eroding the character of the countryside and Green Belt on a temporary basis, should permission be granted this would occur on a permanent basis. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to Waste Local Plan policies W7B, W8A and W8B of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (Adopted September 2001), and Policies CP1 and C8 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan as the proposal would represent over intensification of an inappropriate use within the countryside.
Furthermore, the site is not allocated within Local Plan Policies as being appropriate for development and although located adjacent to a complex of former farm buildings which the applicant highlights as now being used for commercial purposes, it is not considered that the proposed development would enhance the local character of the area, nor would it sustain the local rural community. In addition, while it could be considered that windrow composting would be an appropriate use within a rural area, the location of the site on the edge of the Stondon Hall Farm complex means that the impacts of the development do erode and intrude upon the openness of the Countryside and Green Belt. It is also considered that the operations of the site do harm the openness and character of the area. It is not considered that the development harmonises with the local character and surrounding natural environment due to its scale, nature and siting within this area of Stondon Massey, as described above. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to policies CP1 and C8 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan.
BRLP Policy GB2 (Development Criteria) states „When considering proposals for development in the Green Belt, the Local Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that they do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and do not harm the openness of the Green Belt. The precedent created by allowing even an individually innocuous or well-merited proposal which cumulatively would undermine Green belt objectives will be taken into account. Account will also be taken of the following:
i) the effect of proposals on public rights of way; ii) the need to preserve or enhance existing landscape features; iii) any building must be satisfactorily located in respect of the surrounding landscape and any adjoining building’.
In summary the very special circumstances in the context of what PPG2 requires put forward by the applicant are as follows:
The most suitable location for green waste composting is in the countryside; There is a need for a green waste facility in this part of Essex which is enveloped in Green Belt. It is therefore, unavoidable that a green waste composting site is in the Green Belt. The rural location of the site allows the resulting compost product to be applied locally, minimising the transport impacts of the operation; The site is well located in proximity to the sources of the waste processed at
DR/12/11 18
the site, again minimising the transport impacts of the proposal; Primarily because of its location at a lower level than the surrounding countryside, with mature screening, the use of the site has little impact on the openness of the Green Belt, or on the purposes of the Green Belt, and There is a demonstrated need fro the continued green waste composting capacity in Essex that this permission would provide, particularly in the south- western corner of the County. There is no alternative site which is appropriate, including a non-Green Belt site.
The applicant notes that the Planning Inspector in his decision on the 2005 application noted at paragraph 16:
‘taking openness first, the composting is an outdoor use. I accept that the landform and intervening vegetation here are such that the site is only glimpsed from the road, with views across the valley from it being largely unaffected by the bunds and windows on the site. a public footpath runs close to the site and from it the views are more pronounced through they are largely confined to the bunds and boundary planting …(continuing at paragraph 19)..in my view the existing facility has some adverse impact on openness, though this is mitigated to some extant by the proximity of the nearby substantial group of farm buildings…Regard must also be had to the fact that the bunds, windrows and stockpiles are not dissimilar in form and appearance to features commonly found on agricultural land.’
However, the Planning Inspector also noted at the end of paragraph 19 that:
‘In any event, PPG2 stresses that the essential characteristics of Green Belts is their permanence. With than in mind, it seems to me that a temporary use of this site does not, and would not have a permanent effect on the openness but permanent use for the purpose would do so…(continuing at paragraph 21)…. I consider that the purpose would only be prejudiced by a permanent permission for same reasons as I have indicated above in relation to the effect on the openness’.
The Inspector concluded at paragraph 22 that:
‘I consider therefore, that by virtue of the effect on the openness, the permanent use of this site for composting would also represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of PPG2, though temporary use would not do so.’
Brentwood Borough Council has pointed out that the circumstances, and in particular the guidance of PPG2, have not changed since that time.
Objections have been received stating that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape character of the area, is located within a special landscape area, plant, stock piling if material and hardstanding are an eyesore, introducing industrial features within the landscape and retention of the bunding within this area would have a detrimental impact on the open character of the countryside.
DR/12/11 19
Adopted RSS policy ENV2 (Landscape Conservation) seeks to conserve and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of landscape by, inter-alia, ensuring that development is located sensitively so that it respects and enhances landscape character.
Adopted RSS policy ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment), seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality and that it complements the character and qualities of the local area
WLP policy W10E (Development Control Criteria) seeks to ensure appropriate provision is made for impacts on landscape and countryside.
As mentioned within the Need section above there is no extant planning permission for this site. The applicant is seeking planning permission for the use of the site for green waste composting on a permanent basis. It is considered that the proposal‟s encroachment on the countryside and the Green Belt are as the previous Inspector indicated if carried out on a permanent basis, contrary to the aims of PPG2.
Furthermore, the use of land within the Green Belt has the purpose of retaining and enhancing attractive landscapes near to where people live (PPG2 para 1.6). It is considered that the establishment of a permanent composting facility together with associated bunding, hardstanding and plant coupled with the level of activity itself (50,000tpa) would not fulfil this purpose, in that the intrinsic nature of the countryside, its inherent ambience, and openness would be prejudiced by this proposal.
The fundamental aim of national policy is to maintain the openness of the Green Belt. Given that the proposal would both reduce the openness of the site and conflict with one of the purposes of including land in the Metropolitan Green Belt, the proposal is considered contrary to National and Local Plan Policies for which it is considered no very special circumstances have been put forward demonstrated to override the policy presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
B IMPACT UPON THE SETTING OF THE LISTED BUILDING
Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 indicates that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. PPG15 indicates that the setting is often an essential part of the buildings character, which may suffer, robbing the building of much of its interest and of the contribution it makes to the countryside. Furthermore, the setting need not be limited to land which is obviously ancillary to the building.
The proposed development lies adjacent to Stondon Hall which is a 16th Century house with Grade II Listed Building status. The building is timber framed, brick rendered with a peg-tiled roof. The house in its listing states that it had been re-styled in the 17th Century with later additions of the windows and doors being added in the 20th Century.
DR/12/11 20
BRLP Policy C16 (Development within the vicinity of a Listed Building) states „Proposals for development in the vicinity of a Listed Building will not be permitted where the proposals would be likely to detract from its character or setting‟.
Concern has been raised by the Council‟s Historic Building advisor that the setting of the Grade II Listed Building would be affected by the proposal due to its close proximity to the operational area of the site and haul road.
The features of the Listed Building have already been compromised via the intensification of the use of neighbouring farm buildings to a more commercial activity. It is considered that further development and retention of the composting site would only tend to intensify the adverse impact upon the setting of the Listed Building.
Policy HE11.1 of the Draft Planning Policy Statement 15 for the Historic Environment emphasises that “when considering applications for development within the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that enhance the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not this, local planning authorities should weigh any loss of enhancement of the asset against the wider benefit of the application…..The greater the negative impact on the significant of the asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.” Policy HE11.2 seeks that LPA take into account desirability of enhancing or better revealing the listed building through high quality design.
The proposed development does not fall within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Building (Stondon Hall Farm). There is a distance of 140m from the operation area and 50 metres from the Haul Road to the Listed Building.
The setting is considered to extend further than the boundaries of the listed property due to its countryside siting and proximity to the farm buildings now being used for commercial purposes to the east, which over the years has enclosed the Listed Building. The proposed development would form a substantial permanent industrial feature and would not provide enhancement of the listed building due to the proposed scale, size and associated traffic movements of the development along the haul road. Little justification has been provided for the development in respect of the impact upon the setting of the listed building. It is considered that the proposal would further enclose the Listed Building affecting its setting therefore, on balance the proposal is contrary to the principles of National Policy Guidance and Brentwood Replacement Local Plan Policy C16.
C ECOLOGY
A number of concerns have been raised by members of the public in relation to the site having a negative impact on eth ecology of the surrounding area and that Ragwort is being treated on site and mixed into the compost material.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation states that ‘The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied
DR/12/11 21
that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm.’
Adopted RSS policy ENV3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) seeks to ensure proposals are appraised in respect to its effects on conservation of habitats and species protected by law. The policy goes on to seek protection and enhancement of key resources and environmental value.
There are no statutorily designated sites within 2 km of the site. The closest is The Coppice, Kelvedon Hatch SSSI which is just over 2 km to the south. Natural England has raised no objection to the proposals highlighting that it is improbable that there would be adverse impacts on such sites from this proposal, as there are no discernable impact pathways.
The nearest non-statutory site is a Local wildlife Site (Church Wood) which lies 250 metres to the southwest. Again Natural England has stated that there appear to be no mechanisms within the proposals, which would give rise to adverse effects on Church Wood.
It is not considered that the development would lead to a significant loss of habitat of ecological value as the site is located on an existing hardstanding. Furthermore, the ECC Ecology officer does not object to the proposals.
A letter of representation received raises concerns that there could be contamination of the land in the area due to the farmer allegedly burning on the site. The Waste Planning Authority has no evidence of this and it would in any case be a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate under their licensing regimes, as such it should not alter the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development.
It is considered the proposal is considered to comply with Policy ENV3 of the RSS. On this basis the proposal is consistent with the aims of PPS9.
D IMPACT ON AMENITY
As mentioned in the section above, Waste Local Plan Policy W10E sets out the criteria for the control of waste management developments. The relevant criteria in this case are:
Effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from noise, smell, dust and other potential pollutants; Effects of the development on landscape and countryside, and; Impact of road traffic generated by the development on the highway network
Letters were received in relation to the application objecting to the proposal in general terms as a result of potential impacts to amenity, including concerns that the impacts could be experienced over quite a large area and beyond the nearest residential dwellings. Impacts on amenity by various means are discussed below, and these are considered for all those that could be affected within the area.
Brentwood Borough Council have also objected on amenity grounds stating „In
DR/12/11 22
addition to the identified Green Belt and Countryside harm permanent use of the site would also unacceptably impact on the living conditions of nearby occupiers due to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance and exposure to unpleasant smells. This view is supported by the Inspector‟s comments that harm to living conditions would be more pronounced by using the site on a permanent basis (Paragraph 61).
Since the determination of the appeal the Environment Agency (in 2009) has adopted an Executive Policy position on composting and the potential human health effects of exposure to bio-aerosols generated from composting. This places a limitation on the location of composting facilities to prevent, where possible, the siting of composting activity within 250 metres of a workplace or boundary of a dwelling, unless justified by a site-specific risk assessment that shows the risks to be acceptable. In this case the nearest dwelling(s) are circa 100m from the application site‟.
Furthermore, Brentwood Borough Council highlighted that the Environment Agency indicated that site had been served with a number of breaches for non-compliance, warnings and prosecutions while a large number of complaints had been received from residents in the immediate vicinity of the application site in relation to smells and health issues. This serves as an indication that a facility of this nature in close proximity to residential properties has an unacceptable impact on the amenities of these residents contrary to Policy CP1 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan‟.
Dust
The shredding of green waste can lead to the creation of dust. The Dust Management Plan submitted as part of the application details a number of methods which would be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions which would be sheeting vehicles, dampening access road and site during dry/windy conditions, limiting vehicle speeds, maintenance of earth banks and planting and regularly seeping the hard-standing. Notwithstanding this, it is also considered appropriate that the applicant should have a bowser available on site to dampen down both haul road and shredded material during dry/windy times to minimise the risk of dust affecting the amenity of both nearby residents and passers by. If permission is granted for the development, it is considered that a bowser should be required to be on site by the imposition of an appropriately worded condition.
Letters received during the consultation raised concerns with the risk of dust at the site. As above, it is considered that dust could be controlled at the site by means of damping down and therefore that there would be no significant detrimental impacts by means of dust pollution.
Noise
Concerns have been raised by local residents and the Parish Council that retention of the site would result in significant noise, and vibrations, produced by both the plant and associated vehicle movements at the site and past nearby residential properties in the villages in addition to those existing levels, and that not enough detail has been provided to the levels of noise or potential mitigation of the noise produced.
The Noise Impact Assessment report submitted as part of the application specifies
DR/12/11 23
that noise monitoring was undertaken on Thursday 12th August 2010 at two locations adjacent to the closest noise sensitive property and at the southwest site boundary.
Essex County Council‟s Noise Consultant stated that the survey was undertaken in appropriate weather conditions, the equipment was calibrated, extraneous sources were documented and continuous 15 minute durations were recorded between the hours of 9:15 to 14:45 both during and in the absence of onsite composting activities.
The findings of the survey showed that the existing operation complied with condition 6 of the existing Planning Permission (ref: ESS/23/05/BRW).
Local residents have complained of lorries carrying waste to Stondon Hall Farm, sometimes as early as 4am, causing noise and vibration disturbance to residents. However, Section 4.2 of the AMEC Noise report details that green waste recycling traffic on the Ongar Road at the location concerned makes up 2.4% of the total traffic and 21% of HGV movements.
A qualitative assessment of the potential road traffic noise and vibration impacts from HGV‟s visiting the site was also conducted. It concluded that the HGV movements are likely to be occasionally audible from the Little Myles residence, however, due to the magnitude and timings of the events, the impact was considered to be negligible.
Essex County Council‟s Noise Consultant raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition being imposed should permission be granted for the restriction of vehicle movements and permitted entry to the site which would encourage delivery and collection drivers to visit the site during operational hours and carrying forward condition 6 attached to the temporary consent (ref: ESS/23/05/BRW).
Odour, Bioaerosol‟s and Health Consideration
Potential for odour was a concern raised in many of the letters of representation received by ECC in relation to the application. In particular, reference was made to previous experiences of odour generated from the site while undertaken composting and the impacts of the activities.
The nearest residential properties are located 100 metres to the north west of the site, known as Stondon Hall Cottages. The application details indicate prevailing wind at the site is south westerly. Open files lie to the north east of the site, the closest sensitive receptor being 1 km away. The applicant has indicated that odours would have dispersed over this distance and that there would be no issue for local residents.
In line with Environment Agency requirements, the applicant would be required to carry out a Bioaerosol Risk Assessment in order to gain a permit for the site. The Environment Agency in their letter of the 1st March 2011 stated that:
„All new permits within 250metres of sensitive receptors (i.e. a home or a work place) would need a Site Specific Bioaerosol Risk Assessment (SSBRA) to support their application. We would need to be satisfied that the bioaerosols can and will be maintained below acceptable levels. Subject to the SSBRA, the quantity of waste handled at any one time would be limited to 500 tonnes until it can be demonstrated
DR/12/11 24
that the sensitive receptors are not at risk of high bioaerosols concentrations.
We are currently reviewing our existing permits that are less than 250m from sensitive receptors to ensure that they have adequate bioaerosol monitoring. Heatherlands has been highlighted as a priority site for this review. The results of this monitoring will allow us to consider if additional measures are necessary to control bioaerosols (such as negative aeration and enclosure). We are also seeking to vary their permit to reflect best practice‟.
Impact upon human health from Bioaerosol‟s is a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate under their licensing regimes, as such it should not alter the acceptability or other use of the proposed development. This said the EA has indicated that the Stondon Hall Farm site is a priority for review.
Litter
Another concern raised by letters of representation related to the risk of litter at the site. As the material handled at the site would be green waste, it is not considered that there would be significant litter apart from leaves that could blow out of the site, which would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity or appearance of the local area. Again this is a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate under their licensing regimes, as such it should not alter the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development.
Highways Impact
As mentioned above concerns have been raised in relation to vehicles entering and leaving the site, vibrations from the vehicles, associated noise and increased impact of the vehicles on a permanent basis on the surrounding highway network should permission be granted.
BRLP Policy T2 (New Development and Highway Considerations) states „Planning Permission will not be granted for proposals where:
i. An assessment of the proposal indicates an unacceptable detrimental impact on the transport system which cannot be resolved by agreed mitigation measures; ii. It does not comply with the current County Highway Authority‟s guidance as set down in the following publications: a) The Essex Design Guide for Residential and Mixed Use Areas, and; b) The Highway aspects of Development Control‟.
The application purposes that there would be an average of 20 loads Monday to Friday (40 movements a day 20 in and 20 out) and 10 loads on Saturday (5 in and 5 out). It is also proposed that no more than five 20 tonne loads of bagged compost would be moved from the site Monday to Friday and two loads on Saturdays.
The Transport Statement submitted as part of the application highlights that the impact of the traffic associated with the site is neither considered significant nor detrimental to highway safety. It goes on by stating that the adjoining main highway
DR/12/11 25
network has a substantial reserve capacity and is appropriate for the level and type of development traffic.
The export of recycled material takes place over a short seasonal period to local farms within a two-mile radius reducing the need for unnecessary vehicle movements on the wider highway network.
The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on highway grounds given the location and information submitted in the Planning and Transport Statements.
On the basis of the information provided within the application and the fact that the vehicular movements associated with the proposal are proposed to remain the same as those granted under the temporary planning permission, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact upon the existing highway network. It is considered therefore that the application complies with WLP Policy W10E.
Amenity Summary
As a result of the above discussions, it is not considered that the proposed development would have significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of nearby residents by means of dust, noise or litter.
It is considered that there would be a risk of odours from the site, which could have a detrimental impact on users of the footpaths in the local area and Stondon Hall Cottages 100 metres to the north west of the site, depending on strength and direction of wind, temperature, materials on site etc. It is considered that odour impacts on nearby residential properties would be addressed within the Bioaerosol Risk Assessment, which would be required for submission prior to a permit being granted by the Environment Agency.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would be in line with the aims and objectives of WLP policy W10E (Impacts of Development) in relation to residential amenity and the release of odours/Bioaerosol‟s is a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate under their licensing regimes.
E FLOOD RISK
Concerns have been raised that should permission be granted the proposal would increase flooding within the local area and is located within close proximity of Stondon Hall Brook which in turn would increase flooding and potential pollution.
WLP policy W4A (Surface Water Management) seeks to control development where there would be an unacceptable risk of flooding on site or elsewhere, or where there would be an adverse effect on water environment as a result of surface water run off. Policy W4B (Surface/Groundwater) restricts development where there would be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwater or of impediment to groundwater flow.
The site is bordered to the northeast by the Stondon Hall brook which flows into the
DR/12/11 26
River Roding a little more than 1km to the west. The Roding is in the Thames catchment. To the south east the site is bounded by a ditch which flows north east into the Brook.
All surface water and leachate from the site would drain to a clay lined lagoon from the site. There is no outlet from the lagoon to the ditch on the south east boundary. The application details that should the pond overflow it would be pumped out and the water recycled onto the compost area. The applicant has confirmed that since the original temporary permission was granted in 1996 there has been no need to pump out water from the lagoon.
The EA was consulted on the application details and does not object to the application, reliant on no storage of materials or composting waste within 8 metres of the Stondon Hall Brook, and a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water. If permission is granted, it is considered that it would be appropriate to impose appropriately worded conditions relating to these.
It is considered that all runoff from the site would be managed within the site and that the proposed development would not lead to a risk of pollution to the water environment or flood risk and therefore, considered that the proposed development would be in compliance with WLP policy W4A (Surface Water Management) and W4B (Surface/Groundwater).
8. CONCLUSION
As stated within the Green Belt section of this report the proposed development cannot be said to maintain openness or contribute to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Therefore, the application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
As such, very special circumstances need to be demonstrated to warrant a departure from Green Belt Policy.
It is considered whilst there might be a temporary need for composting green waste facilities in this part of Essex and that the impacts on residential amenity in the local area are capable of being mitigated against by means of the imposition of appropriate conditions should planning permission be granted, these circumstances do not out weigh the fact that:
The proposed development would bring about significant changes to the existing landscape as well as introduce development of an industrial nature thereby not protecting the countryside from encroachment nor assisting in maintaining the openness of the Green Belt;
The applicant is seeking planning permission for the use of the site for green waste composting on a permanent basis. It is considered that the proposals would create further encroachment on the countryside and the Green Belt, which as the previous Inspector indicated, is contrary to the aims of PPG2.
DR/12/11 27
Although the applicant has undertaken an assessment of Schedule 1 sites and undertaken a limited alternative site selection process, the site does still not comply with the site criteria of WLP Policy W7B and no thorough investigations of alternative sites that would comply with that Policy has been undertaken. In particular the assessment of non-preferred sites is inadequate as it has not been demonstrated that all the industrial locations within the Borough of Brentwood have been investigated, given Brentwood Borough Council‟s comments, and therefore alternative sites may exist for the proposed development within the Borough of Brentwood and within the South of the County as a whole, and;
The proposal would further enclose and compromise a Listed Building affecting its setting which has not been addressed adequately in the design and layout of the proposal.
As such it is considered that the development would be inappropriate and very special circumstances have not been put forward; the development would be contrary to Green Belt Policy, polices of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan and Brentwood Borough Replacement Local Plan and the would represent an unsustainable and harmful form of development.
9. RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would comprise inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt and would bring about significant changes to the existing landscape as well as introduce development of an industrial nature thereby not protecting the countryside from encroachment nor assisting in maintaining the openness of the Green Belt and for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated and be contrary to the objectives of PPG2 (Green Belts) and Policies GB1 and GB2 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005;
2. The site is located within an area of countryside beyond any area identified for development within the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 and is subject to rural policies of restraint. The proposed development, by reason of its nature, scale and location, would be inappropriate development in the countryside and Green Belt and be contrary to Policies GB1, GB2 and C8 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005 and Policy W10E of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001;
3. The proposed development would create an industrial development by virtue of the plant, hardstandings and bunding within an unsuitable location outside the urban area of Brentwood which would adversely affect the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development would not be located within a suitable location as identified in the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001 and be contrary to Policies W7B, W8A and W8B of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001, and;
DR/12/11 28
4. The proposed development would erode the setting of a Listed Building which would have a detrimental impact upon its historic value. The development would be a discordant feature in the landscape more akin to an industrial activity projecting into the countryside adjacent to a Listed Building having an unacceptable impact upon its setting and be contrary to Policy C16 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DC/Paul Calder/ESS/46/10/BRW
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
BRENTWOOD – Brentwood Rural
DR/12/11 29
Appendix A
Observation Comment
Odour In February 2007 appeal court directed The applicant is seeking to retain the site to remove all hard standing & use of the site and associated convert entire area back to original hardstandings on a permanent basis. farm status by end of 2010. See appraisal.
Understood permanent permission was The original application was granted on refused by Brentwood BC, ECC & appeal subject to a condition limiting limited to end of 2010 by an appeal in the operational life of the site until 31st 2007 December 2010. This application has been submitted to retain the use of the site for green waste composting on a permanent basis.
Understood site was to be completely See above. closed down and returned to original farmland state
Granting of temporary licence in 2007 Licences for the site are issued by the stipulated site should not have Environment Agency (EA) however, as permanent licence status and should noted above planning permission was close by end of 2010, ground grassed granted for the site on appeal and returned to farmland. restricting the operational life of the site until 31st December 2010.
Inspector at planning appeal in 2007 See appraisal. stated temporary planning permission approved then would definitely be the last and site would close at end of 2010 and land returned to arable fields. This ruling should be adhered to
Beyond belief that despite complaints See appraisal. regarding terrible stench application being considered again.
Regular pervading stench from site The EA is the correct Authority for every summer. Awful smell often ruins measuring odours and this is monitored beautiful village life in the summer. through there licensing agreements with the EA. Residents unable to open windows & See above. See appraisal. doors during summer and unable to use garden because of smell coming from site
Lived with unpleasant smell for years The original application was granted on
DR/12/11 30 without complaining because believed appeal subject to a condition limiting it was temporary arrangement and the operational life of the site until 31st would end in near future December 2010. This application has been submitted to retain the use of the site for green waste composting on a permanent basis. The applicant is entitled to submit an application to retain the use of the site under the provisions of eth Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
If I can smell this site then must be in The Waste Planning Authority is not air I breathe. Suffer from constant eye the appropriate Authority to comment infections. on the connection between odours and eye infections. Try not to leave the house due to See appraisal. odours.
Foul odour that already emits from There is no proposed expansion of existing site is overwhelming – any composting on site. The applicant is expansion of composting will damage seeking to retain the composting facility local environment. on a permanent basis.
Regular smell that comes from waste Affects of odours on the human site has negative impact on lives population is monitored by the EA and Health Protection Agency who are the appropriate authority to comment on the application.
After visiting my husband‟s grave at Noted. Please see above. Stondon Church the smell from site leaves me feeling unwell.
Extremely pungent chemical smell very See above. unpleasant. Affects our chests & causes breathing difficulties and nausea
Stondon Massey Church beautiful and See above. people attending services should not be subjected to horrendous smell from composting site
Complained to Council on several Since approval of the last meeting occasions about foul noxious smells coming from site.
Smell from site reaches our property See appraisal. approximately ¾ mile away
DR/12/11 31
Impossible to use many public See appraisal. footpaths and bridleways in village due to dreadful stench and smoke which emanates from Heatherlands
Smell from large tractors with large The existing consent ESS/23/05/BRW trailers transporting waste to farms granted on appeal allows for the comes through air system in car transportation of compost onto the surrounding agricultural fields.
Some of giant lorries carry animal The current planning permission waste products which leave revolting (ESS/23/05/BRW, granted on appeal) smell that lingers after lorries have restricts the waste type to green waste passed. only.
Shall use Environment Agency Noted. Freephone when smell of sufficient nuisance to interfere with right to enjoy garden in future
Sometimes unable to go outside as Affects of odours on the human smell makes me feel sick and unwell. If population is monitored by the EA and able to go outside can‟t stay outside for Health Protection Agency who are the long appropriate authority to comment on odours affecting human health.
Human Health
Concerned for health of family and Affects of odours on the human friends who visit home. Family suffering population is monitored by the EA and from unexplained health problems Health Protection Agency who are the since moving to current address appropriate authority to comment on odours affecting human health.
Too many instances of health problems See above. with villagers since moving to village to be considered as mere coincidence
New residents to area experiencing See above. health problems not presented before their move
We and our animals are suffering from See above. health problems which I believe are related to site. My horses suffering from various complaints which are not normal. When tied in with other problems with local animals and people a worrying trend is developing
DR/12/11 32
Application should be refused on health See appraisal. grounds
Who knows what sprays/chemicals See appraisal. have been used on the waste being composted or what happens to the leachate produced by composting?
Ragwort is being brought into the site See appraisal. and being treated with general green waste. Needs to be incinerated to kill the seeds. New ragwort plants appearing in field in front of site and is poisonous to horses if ingested. Offence as stated by DEFRA to have ragwort growing on land
Litter not separated from waste before See appraisal. going through the shredder so litter blows across our land
Countryside Views over site “uncountryside like”. See appraisal. Been no attempt to screen site from view.
Once beautiful landscape being ruined.
Site in designated Special Landscape Area.
Site in middle of countryside and amazing that it can be considered for heavy industrial activity.
Must recognise severe adverse impact facility would have on countryside which is designated Special Landscape Area
Recently landscaped former landfill site at Hallsford Bridge is intended to be country park for local community. Will it attract much use if composting site remains?
Listed Building
Industrial site should not be allowed See appraisal. near to listed buildings.
DR/12/11 33
House at centre of site Grade II Listed Building and site is detrimental to Listed Building
Green Belt
Entirely inappropriate activity in Green See appraisal. Belt area.
Deterioration of countryside which is designated Special Landscape Area and Green Belt becoming intolerable
Site with Metropolitan Green Belt and See appraisal. requires very special circumstances to allow continuation
Serious consideration should be given See appraisal. to granting licence away from Green Belt land where it would not impact and blight anyone‟s quality of life
No appropriate use of special See appraisal. landscape areas and precious Green belt
Unbelievable if permanent permission See appraisal. is granted for site in Green Belt when residents can‟t get permission for extensions to properties
Permanent use of site for green waste See appraisal. composting would represent inappropriate development within Green Belt owing to industrial nature
Development doesn‟t accord with See appraisal Brentwood Local Plan
Granting permanent permission would See appraisal. open floodgates for other landowners to seek similar change of usage for other commercial interests for land in the area in the future
70% of waste entering site not from See appraisal. Essex but London
Only reason business was allowed to See appraisal.
DR/12/11 34 continue from planned closure in 2007 was because ECC had nowhere else to compost green waste.
There are at least 5 other sites in See appraisal. Essex better equipped for this business which should be looked at in more favourable light than this site
Number of more appropriately located See appraisal. sites in County
Now many green compost sites up and See appraisal. running in Essex in far more suitable locations no longer any need for composting at Stondon Hall
Understood temporary permission was See appraisal. influenced by fact no other sites were not up and running. No longer the case so why are huge vehicles bringing in London waste?
Site should have stopped trading 2 See appraisal. years ago but this did not happen
With landfill site and green waste site See appraisal. Stondon Massey has played its part in waste disposal process for Essex & London and should come to end for sake of health & quality of life for my family, animals and inhabitants of Stondon Massey
Highways Impact
Understand public footpath has been See appraisal. shut. Should not be allowed to do this if company have nothing to hide. If for issues of safety site shouldn‟t be there
Footpath 3 has been illegally closed See appraisal. and diverted
Footpath 1 long established right of See appraisal. way used by parishioners and visitors
Planning application for permanent See appraisal. compost site must not be allowed to interfere with precious footpaths
DR/12/11 35
Rights of way across the site appear to See appraisal. be blocked
Roads through Stondon Massey See appraisal. extremely narrow and not built for heavy traffic
Tractors on the public highway are a Tractors are allowed to use the public nuisance. They cut into grass verges. highway provided they are taxed otherwise not allowed to travel further then 3 miles from there holdings.
Heatherlands fleet of lorries permanent See appraisal. feature on narrow roads not designed to cope with such of weight of traffic
Appears to be no restriction of vehicle See appraisal. movement and separate access road done little to reduce lorry movement
Increase in lorry traffic will cause See appraisal. damage to parked cars and danger to pedestrians who use unpaved roads around the village
Final access to site via narrow twisting See appraisal. country lanes inadequate for size of lorries which visit site.
Many lorries carrying material to the See appraisal. site pass through centre of Ongar which is already congested
Export of materials from site through See appraisal. narrow country lanes unsuitable for amount of traffic generated
Concerned re large number of HGVs See appraisal. that will be attracted to the area and increase in traffic.
Roads covered in compost, transferring See appraisal. on to cars which require cleaning and also onto cyclists which is unpleasant and unhygienic
Huge container lorries already pass my See appraisal. home early in the morning and throughout day
DR/12/11 36
Stondon Road is minor C road and See appraisal. completely unsuitable for large vehicles
Undoubtedly be an increase in traffic See appraisal. along narrow and winding roads not built for large lorries and waste containers
School Road has continual on-going See appraisal. problems with through traffic which will get inevitably worse if application approved
Have enough traffic going through See appraisal. Ongar especially when M25 and M11 are at a standstill
Vehicles emanate from Essex but also See appraisal. London Boroughs and are not limited in number or restricted in an way
Road dangerous when school bus is See appraisal. waiting near junction with A128 and parents sit in cars on other side of junction adding to congestion
Number of lorries on road bad enough See appraisal. without those bringing waste from Greater London
Roads not suitable for number of large See appraisal. vehicles which use them
Local roads in Marden Ash are small See appraisal. and have no public footpaths in areas. However there is local nursery for pre school children
School children attending local See appraisal. secondary schools use road and increase in heavy HGV traffic would be dangerous and could potentially lead to accidents. Road unlit and very dark
Since moving to a Brentwood Parish See above. have seen more road accidents in surrounding narrow country roads that ever witnessed in suburban Hutton
DR/12/11 37
Permanent site will damage character See appraisal. of Stondon Massey
General deterioration of very pleasant See appraisal. green belt residential area
Permanent site would have negative See appraisal. impact on village and residents‟ quality of life
Adverse affect on property prices and See appraisal. environment in general
Approval of application would result in See appraisal. further deterioration of living conditions in Stondon Massey
Currently enjoy tranquillity of area and See appraisal. wish to keep it this way.
House prices would be affected as See appraisal. nobody would want to move to place where permanent smell ruining air environment
If proposal goes ahead will have See appraisal. significant detrimental effects on the environment and local community
Use of site causes great harm to local See appraisal. amenity which cannot be overcome by conditions
If planning permission granted would See appraisal. no longer attract visitors to village
Permanent permission would entail See appraisal. permanent foul stench around my house, heavy traffic along country lanes and Stondon Massey becoming undesirable place to live
Would encourage deterioration of See appraisal. countryside
Endured many years of heavy traffic, See appraisal. noise and bad odours, damage to local roads caused by LECA site. Do not want to experience this again
DR/12/11 38
Should consider serious and See appraisal. unpleasant implications for residents if site is allowed to continue on permanent basis
Once permission given site will be able See appraisal. to expand without any restriction
Proposed use would be planning and See appraisal. economic blight on surrounding area
If permanent approval given would See appraisal. permanently blight the area in complete contrast to what 100% of Ongar and surrounding villages want
Site operator dumping large loads of See appraisal. recycled waste in surrounding areas
Have been several illegal businesses This is a matter for the Police and carrying on at site which Brentwood BC Environment Agency to Investigate and and ECC have been notified about and falls outside of Planning Control. acted upon. No guarantee other illegal operations would not continue at site in future
Often column of black smoke from The Environment Agency is large bonfire on site investigating fires at the site.
End product spread on fields contains See appraisal. high percentage of plastics
Site contravenes Environment Agency See appraisal. Green Waste planning regulations which states green waste sites should not be within 250 of residential properties
Current recommended distance of See appraisal. these sites from residential habitation is 250 yards. Our property is 180 yards and many of our neighbours are even closer
Government guidelines state waste See appraisal. sites shouldn‟t be situated within 250 metres of houses
Substantial opposition from local Noted. residents
DR/12/11 39
In a position where money and profit Monetary gain is not a consideration are worth more than people‟s health that can be taken into account when and quality of life which is determining planning applications. fundamentally wrong
While number of properties affected is See appraisal. limited for the occupiers the effect is 100%
Ongar, Marden Ash and High Ongar See appraisal. rural in character with picturesque houses; area around Ongar pleasant countryside and attractive to walkers and others. Permanent waste composting facility in these surroundings completely inappropriate
Site too close to villages of Ongar, See appraisal. Marden Ash and High Ongar which have been adversely affected by operation of road, are inadequate and too narrow for movement of waste and composted material
DR/12/11 40