41 Agenda Item 10

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

24 TH OCTOBER 2013

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP.NO. & DATE: 2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC) – 13 th May 2013

PROPOSAL: Application for the extension to the existing enclosed composting facility.

LOCATION: Gibbet Lane, Shawell ()

APPLICANT: New Earth Solutions Ltd.

MAIN ISSUES: Impact of the proposal upon the amenity of nearby properties, visual impact, impact upon the highway, and the appropriateness of the increased throughput of this operation within the countryside and at this specific location.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE on grounds of:

(i) the failure of the site against the locational policies of the Waste Core Strategy which seeks to locate new waste developments within or around the main urban areas.

Circulation Under the Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mr. G. A. Hart CC.

Officer to Contact

Mr. P. Larter (Tel. 0116 305 7292) Email: [email protected]

42

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Site Location and Planning History

1. The Shawell/Cotesbach quarry and landfill site is located north west of the village of Shawell and south of the village of Cotesbach, near . The mineral extraction and landfill area is located north of Gibbet Lane, a road which links Shawell with the A5/A426 junction to the west of the site. The associated minerals processing plant, a number of silt settlement lagoons, a roof tile works and the site of a (now disused) concrete block works are located to the south of the road. Mineral is transported from the extraction area to the processing plant by means of a conveyor which crosses under Gibbet Lane. An inert waste recovery and recycling facility is also situated south of Gibbet Lane. The nearest designated ecological site at a national level to the site is the Cave’s Inn Pits SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) approximately one kilometre south of the current facility

2. In September 2008, planning permission was granted under reference 2008/0789/03 for what was described as a fully enclosed composting facility for the processing of up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum, and ancillary development (which is in effect a MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) facility). The facility is operated by New Earth Solutions Limited (NES) and, principally, receives household waste from kerbside collections in which is subjected to mechanical and biological treatment. The facility commenced operations on 1 st October 2010.

3. More recently, permission was sought under references (2012/0972/03 and 2012/CSub/0208/LCC) for an increase to the throughput of the facility from 50,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) to 60,000tpa and a commensurate increase to the HGV movements in and out of the site from 240 to 300 a week. The increase to the HGV movements was granted but the increase to the throughput was refused on the ground that the operation of the existing MBT facility gives rise to an unacceptable adverse effect by reason of odour as evidenced by a significant number of odour complaints from residents in Shawell village.

4. The nearest residential properties to the MBT facility are Holme Close Farm and Littledene, about 400 metres east-southeast. Other properties in Shawell are located about 150 metres further to the east and south-east, at distances between 550 and 850 metres from the site boundary. A property known as Greenacres, on Gibbet Lane near the A5/A426 roundabout, is located about 700 metres west of the site. Two semi-detached properties, Keepers Cottage and West Cottage, are situated adjacent to the northern quarry boundary, 950 metres north-east of the MBT facility. The village of Cotesbach lies about 1.3 kilometres to the north, beyond the quarry and landfill operation.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 43

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 44

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

5. A number of Public Rights of Way are located near the MBT facility. The original route of Footpath X26 traverses the consented mineral extraction/landfill area from Cotesbach to the north of the quarry to Gibbet Lane in the south. This footpath is currently the subject of a temporary diversion for the duration of quarrying and landfill operations. The original route of Footpath X26 is to be reinstated following the final restoration of the site. Bridleway X27 also links the unnamed lane to the north of the quarry with Gibbet Lane in the south. The route of this bridleway has been diverted temporarily along the western edge of the quarry and will also be reinstated following site reclamation. Footpath X24 connects Shawell with Gibbet Lane by crossing agricultural land and an area of former quarry workings to the east of the processing plant before linking with Gibbet Lane to the south of the MBT facility.

Existing Facility

6. On arrival at the facility, bags of waste are split open and subjected to a visual inspection. The waste then travels on a conveyor where bio-fines are screened out, followed by density separation, magnetic extraction, eddy current separation and infrared sorting. Any recyclables which are recovered from the waste stream (such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, plastics etc.) are baled and wrapped and taken off site for recycling.

7. The majority of the material not suitable for recycling or composting is turned into a RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel). Whilst the bio-fines are taken into the adjacent composting halls and formed into windrows which are turned regularly to form a Compost Like Output (CLO).

8. The outputs from the site are: recyclables that are taken off-site for recycling; the CLO which is used at sites other than the adjacent landfill; the RDF to the Netherlands; and residues and reject materials to the adjacent Cotesbach Landfill.

Description of proposal

9. The proposal is to extend the existing operations but not to amend the nature of the outputs. The application contains an environmental statement which covers the topics of transport, and air quality. Other information on the proposal is contained in further statements included with the planning application.

10. The proposed extension of the waste management operations is fourfold: 1. an increase of the hours of operation from 07:00 – 17:00 to 07:00 – 19:00 Monday – Friday (to include all bank holidays which is currently prohibited). Operations on Saturdays would remain the same; 2. an increase in HGV movements from 300 a week to 400 a week; 3. an increase in the throughput of the site from 50,000tpa to 75,000tpa; and 4. an extension to the existing buildings on the site.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 45

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

11. The proposed physical development is the erection of two enclosures, one between the composting hall and the screening building and one between the composting hall and the waste reception/sorting building. The two enclosures would collectively cover some 2500m 2. The southern of the two enclosures would be at a height lower than the existing building to which it would adjoin where as the northernmost would be a further 1.2 metres higher (at its peak) than the existing buildings. It is proposed that the enclosures would be clad in dark green (RAL6003) pressed steel cladding. Access doors to the enclosures would also be dark green.

12. The application states that the purpose of the enclosures is to mitigate the increased risk of fugitive odour emissions that would arise from the increased throughput. An increase in throughput would result in a need to transfer waste materials between the buildings more frequently. In effect, the enclosures would fully cover the transfer of waste between the buildings. There would also be a decrease in the number of large external doors for vehicular access from 23 to 12. Those large external doors to the enclosures would be rapid rise reducing the time they are open when they need to be.

13. Other physical changes to the current development contained within the application are an increase in the car parking provision within the site and additional landscaping to the south. It is envisaged by the applicant that an additional three full time permanent jobs would be created by the proposal.

Traffic

14. The transport statement assesses the impact of the additional HGV movements associated with the proposed development. The additional movements required to facilitate a throughput of 75,000tpa would be 369 but 400 HGV movements a week is used for assessing the impacts. It is estimated that the proposal will generate a further 2 HGV movements an hour, assuming a 67 hour week. A junction capacity assessment undertaken at the A5/A426 roundabout showed that the development would have a negligible effect on the overall operation of the junction. However, it did highlight that the A426 ‘arm’ from the south of the roundabout already exhibits traffic levels above the working capacity which leads to traffic flows becoming unstable and queues developing in the PM peak, between 16:30 and 18:30.

Traffic Noise and Exhaust Emissions

15. An assessment of the noise levels attributable from HGV movements along Gibbet Lane to residential properties on Gibbet Lane concluded that the changes from this proposal would be negligible. The report on particulate matter (PM 10 ) particulates and nitrogen dioxide from HGVs to the residential properties on Gibbet Lane shows that with the proposed increase in HGV movements levels are predicted to be below national air quality objectives.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 46

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

Air Quality

16. The assessment of air quality covers the predicted impacts caused by the construction of the proposed extensions and the subsequent operation of the facility. The assessment states that the impacts from the construction phase would be negligible. The assessment contains field survey observations from December 2012 and July/August 2013. The assessment models the current emissions from the facility and the changes to these emissions predicted from the proposed development. The conclusion of this modelling is that the increase in throughput would lead to an increase in emissions but that this would be offset to a greater extent by the benefits accrued by the enclosures so that there would be a net reduction in emissions of 1.25%.

Planning Policy

Waste Framework Directive

17. The revised Waste Framework Directive establishes the principle of ‘proximity‘. This is within the context of the requirement on Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households. The network must enable waste to be disposed of, or be recovered, in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.

18. The Directive also requires that the network shall be designed in such a way as to enable Member States to move towards the aim of self-sufficiency in waste disposal and the recovery of waste. However, Member States must take into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste and the Directive makes it clear that each Member State does not have to possess the full range of final recovery facilities. This principle must be applied when decisions are taken on the location of appropriate waste facilities.

The Waste Strategy for 2007 and the Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011

19. The 2007 Strategy set out the Government’s key objectives for waste, to: • decouple waste growth (in all sectors) from economic growth and put more emphasis on waste prevention and re-use; • meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020; • increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste; • secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management of hazardous waste; and • get the most environmental benefit from that investment, through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 47

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

20. The Review evaluates the waste management policies for England and their delivery to ensure that the policies are fit for purpose. The Review seeks a move to a society which reuses, recycles and recovers waste wherever possible and waste is disposed of as a last resort. The energy impacts of material resource use and the direct greenhouse gas emissions from biodegradable wastes in landfill are significant, meaning that sustainable waste policies are an important part of tackling national and international climate change. The government supports energy from waste as a waste recovery method through a range of technologies, and believes there is potential for the sector to grow further. At present, England cannot prevent, re-use or recycle all of its waste. Energy recovery is an excellent use of many wastes that cannot be recycled and could otherwise go to landfill. It can contribute secure, renewable energy to UK demand for transport, heat, biomethane and electricity and is generally the best source of feedstocks for UK bio-energy needs.

National Planning Policy Framework

21. 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 . At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role.

22. Amongst the core planning principles of the NPPF are: to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development; and to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate.

23. The NPPF states that PPS10 will remain in place until the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMPE) is published. A draft of the NWMPE was published in July 2013. However, a draft update to PPS10 has also been produced (July 2013) which would sit alongside the NWMPE.

24. The NPPF confirms that the planning system is plan-led. The Development Plan remains the starting point for the determination of applications. Whilst the NPPF is a material consideration, it does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision-making. Proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date Development Plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

25. PPS10 provides advice about how the land use planning system should contribute to sustainable waste management through the provision of the required waste management facilities in England. It promotes sustainable development and the waste hierarchy of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery, with disposal as the last option. It explains how the Government sees planning applications for sites, not located in an area

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 48

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

identified in a development plan document as suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, should be considered.

Draft Waste Management Plan for England and draft updated National Waste Planning Policy: Planning for sustainable waste management

26. The draft Waste Management Plan for England, when finalised, would replace 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.

27. 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 such as providing a framework so that the recovery of mixed municipal waste from households can be undertaken in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

Ministerial Statement

28. ‘Planning for Growth’ statement by Greg Clark published on 23 March 2011 stated that “the government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.”

The Development Plan

29. The Development Plan in this instance comprises the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies), the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan and the Harborough Core Strategy. The relevant policies are listed below.

The Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

30. The aim of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework is to facilitate waste management in a sustainable manner which addresses the need to produce less waste, to increase levels of reuse and recycling of the waste that is generated and to move away from reliance on landfill as a means of disposal by increased energy recovery.

31. Policy WCS1 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies sets out the strategy for waste management capacity, which 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 Regional Plan and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 49

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

32. Policy WCS2 sets out the strategy for strategic waste sites, to locate them in or around Leicester, Coalville, Shepshed and Loughborough, taking into account the principles set out in Policy WCS4.

33. Policy WCS3 sets out the strategy for non-strategic waste sites, to locate them in the following areas taking into account the principles set out in Policy WCS4 Waste Location Principles : (i) in the Broad Locations indicated on the Key Diagram; (ii) in or close to the main urban areas of Hinckley or Melton Mowbray; (iii) within sustainable urban extensions; (iv) within or adjacent to an existing waste facility where it can be demonstrated that transport, operational and environmental benefits arise from co- location. Where it can be demonstrated that a more dispersed location outside the above areas is necessary, locations in smaller settlements or rural areas will be considered, subject to the principles set out in Policy WCS4.

34. Policy WCS4 states that the strategy for locating waste sites is to locate waste sites in accordance with the objectives of Policies WCS2 and WCS3 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.

35. Policy WCS5 states that the strategy for re-use, recycling, waste transfer and composting facilities is to allow new waste management development, provided the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

36. Policy WCS6 allows 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.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 50

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

37. Policy WCS10 sets out the strategy for environmental protection, which aims to protect the natural and built environment by ensuring that there are no unacceptable impacts from waste developments on natural resources, the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, historic and cultural features of acknowledged importance, sites of geological interest, the character of settlements, and on residential amenity.

38. Policy WCS14 states that the strategy for the transportation of waste is to locate new waste developments in close proximity to arisings in order to minimise the need to transport waste, in close proximity to the County’s lorry route network, and in locations where rail or water transport could be secured for the movement of waste in order to maximise the potential to use alternative means of transport.

39. Policy WDC1 requires proposals for waste management development 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; (iii) minimise production of waste during construction and operation; (iv) maximise the re-use or recycling of materials; and (v) protect and contribute positively to the character and quality of an area.

40. Policy WDC5 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste 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.

41. Policy WDC8 presumes against waste management development which is likely to generate significant adverse impacts 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.

42. Policy WDC9 presumes against waste management development which would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the environment of an area or on the amenity of a local community, either in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of waste developments occurring either concurrently or successively.

43. Policy WDC10 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste 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

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 51

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

(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.

44. Policy WDC12 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste management development which would: (i) have unacceptable impacts on the quality or flow of groundwater or surface water drainage; or (ii) exacerbate flood risk in areas prone to flooding and elsewhere.

The Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan

45. Policy WLP 7 of the Waste Local Plan lists those factors which will be taken into account in the assessment of proposals for waste management development.

The Harborough District Local Development Framework

46. Policy CS1 of the Harborough Core Strategy sets out the overarching spatial strategy for the district.

47. Policy CS5 states that the majority of future development will be located in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel, where people can gain convenient access to public transport services for longer journeys and where local journeys may be undertaken on foot or by bicycle.

48. Policy CS7 seeks to support employment development within the countryside, beyond towns and villages, only where it contributes to the retention and viability of rural services or land based businesses, aids farm diversification, or promotes the conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitable constructed existing buildings.

49. Policy CS8 seeks to secure a high quality, accessible and multi-functional green infrastructure network, with dismantled railway lines identified as key priorities.

50. Policy CS9 supports development which adapts to climate change and helps to reduce the District’s carbon measures by new development directed towards the most sustainable locations.

51. Policy CS10 directs new development towards areas at the lowest risk of flooding.

52. Policy CS11 seeks new development to respect local character, building materials and distinctiveness, respect the context in which it is taking place, and protect heritage assets.

53. Policy CS17 states that new development in the countryside will be strictly controlled. Only development required for the purposes of agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation, local food initiatives, support visits to the District and renewable energy production will be appropriate in the countryside. Rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 52

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

Consultations

Environment Agency

54. No objection to the application. Because the extension will result in a different way of working a variation to the existing Environment Permit is required. It is noted that paragraph 2.1.3 of the Non Technical Summary of the Environment Statement says that the objective of the proposed extension is to increase the throughput capacity of the facility. Any increase in throughput will also require a variation to the existing Environment Permit.

Environmental Health Officer

55. No comment.

Harborough District Council

56. The principal impacts from the proposed development are likely to relate to the character of the local area and the wider countryside, the setting of Shawell village and its Conservation Area and listed buildings, and the living conditions of residents in the surrounding area. These would need to be balanced against the proposal’s positive economic and potential wider environmental effects.

57. The proposed building would have a very significant visual impact. It is not clear why it needs to be taller than the existing buildings either side – its height should be reduced so that it sits more comfortably (in visual and landscape terms) as part of the overall structure. There would likely be some impact on heritage assets and on the setting of Shawell village, but overall it might be considered that -subject to a reduction in the height of the building- these impacts would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the positive effects of the proposal as outlined above.

58. It is noted from the various figures that there would be marginal changes, some positive, some negative, in respect of the impacts from smells and emissions. Presumably, with the proposal resulting in fewer doors opening and fewer externally facing doors, the noise impact will reduce. In summary, subject to further consideration of the building’s height and form, Harborough District Council would have no objections to the current proposals provided that the other statutory consultees have no objections to the proposals.

Highway Authority

59. The proposal if permitted will increase processing of waste at the site from 50000 tpa to 75000 tpa. The application details state that the existing 50000 tpa is permitted with a limit of 240 two way weekly vehicular trips. The proposed extension seeks to increase that limit to 400 two way weekly vehicular trips (an increase of 160 vehicular trips) which will result on average in an increase in 1 additional trip in and 1 out of the site per hour.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 53

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

60. A robust junction capacity assessment had been carried out at the Gibbet Lane / A5 roundabout junction. There are no junction capacity problems at this roundabout and the very minor increase in peak hour use of Gibbet Lane of 1.44% in the AM peak and 2.36% in the PM peak post development would not have any detrimental impact in safety terms.

61. The Highway Authority (HA) are mindful of local concerns in relation to litter along Gibbet Lane. If the CPA (County Planning Authority) is so minded the HA would support an obligation placed on the applicant to carry out cyclic litter picking of the highway verges, trees, and hedgerows.

Highways Agency

62. The proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A5. Therefore, under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the Highways Agency has no objections to the proposal

Natural England

63. No objection and no conditions requested. This application is within 1 km of Cave’s Inn Pit SSSI. The air quality assessment considers the effect of the potential ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition on Cave’s Inn Pit SSSI and based on the information provided Natural England is satisfied that if the proposed development is carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, it will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified.

Heritage Advice

64. The composting facility incorporates a large building and the slight increase in height of a small section will be barely noticeable from most, if not all, viewpoints. The infilling of a relatively narrow gap between two buildings and an extension at one end will not add appreciably to the mass and scale of the facility. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to have regard to the impact of development on the significance of heritage assets. Whilst the existing facility does not detract from the wider setting of Shawell, the significance of the local designated heritage assets, the Shawell Conservation Area and listed buildings within the village, will not be harmed by the visual impacts of the development currently proposed.

Landscape Advice

65. No landscape objections to the proposal.

Public Rights of Way

66. No comments to make.

Waste Management

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 54

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

67. The County Council has a contract with Lafarge Tarmac Ltd to deliver up to 50,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum to the facility at Shawell. The contract commenced in 2010 and is a rolling contract with no fixed end date. In 2012/13 approximately 46,800 tonnes of residual waste was delivered to the facility under this contract.

Warwickshire County Council

68. No response received.

Cotesbach Parish Council

69. Despite the detailed comments relating to transportation the Council believes that the increase in HGV movements is underestimated in the context of other developments in the area. As Cotesbach sits on the county boundary between Leicestershire and Warwickshire and is close to the boundary with Northamptonshire we are affected by developments and activities in all three counties. NES recognize the increase in heavy traffic generated by their application but account needs to be taken of recent developments.

• At the Magna Park retail centre (a transfer of an Eddie Stobart depot from the DIRFT complex currently near the motorway at Junction 18); • The development of residential complexes alongside the A5 between the Gibbet roundabout and the motorway at junction 18; • The development of a warehouse complex in the same area; • Urban development of Rugby on this side of the town; • At least three wind farms within a ten mile radius (and possibly more in the pipeline).

All of these developments generate increased traffic (HGVs and residential) all focusing on the Gibbet Roundabout at the junction of the A5, the A426 and Shawell Lane

70. Cotesbach residents are reliant totally on turning on to the A426 for access to the wider road networks. This is already problematic at peak periods. In addition, access to the village at the Rugby end requires traffic to slow down and stop, if necessary, and a number of minor shunts have taken place as a result. The danger of these could increase.

71. Two footpaths cross the A426 between the Cotesbach access turns. Used regularly by dog walkers and families seeking exercise, there is an increased risk of accident with increased traffic flow. A new education centre has opened in the village this month and access to environmental resources will require groups of children to cross the A426. Already requiring great care, increased traffic will make this more challenging.

72. Given that the NES traffic will not be the only increase in road usage on the A426 the view that the gaseous pollution from vehicles can be dismissed as negligible is not acceptable. There will be also an increase in traffic noise which is an air pollutant. Easterly winds will carry gases, noise and air borne effluent (bioaerosols, smells and dust) in the direction of the village.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 55

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

73. It is already possible to detect odours in the village and along the small adopted highway to the north of the Lafarge landfill from the current site despite technical assurances. I believe it would be wrong to accept an increase in business until the current problem is solved and shown to be solved not just affirmed in a planning application.

74. Finally, sightings of wild life since recent developments on the site, previously a common occurrence, have diminished. This covers badgers, foxes, muntjac deer and bats. We are also concerned for the potential disruption to the buzzards that nest in the nearby wood.

Shawell Parish Meeting

75. At a Parish Meeting held on 6 June 2013 it was resolved unanimously to object to this application. In particular, the Parish Meeting objects to any increase to the permitted throughput for the Composting Facility and any increase in permitted vehicle movements. The Meeting also objects to the request to permit working on Bank Holidays.

76. When the planning application for the initial construction of this facility was made in 2008, it was described as a “ Fully enclosed” facility and the Parish Meeting was assured that there would be no noise, dust or smell nuisances emanating from it. However, when operations started it became apparent that the plant was frequently causing a strong and objectionable smell nuisance. This affected travel on Gibbet Lane and also impacted on residents within Shawell village when the wind was blowing in an easterly direction. It definitely did not live up to the description “ Fully enclosed ”.

77. During 2011 the residents of Shawell frequently complained about the smell to New Earth Solutions through the company’s local management and in spite of many assurances that the problem would be fixed there was little real improvement. Towards the end of 2011 and throughout 2012 residents regularly brought the smell nuisance to the attention of the Environment Agency and through their involvement we began to get New Earth Solutions to take the smell problem seriously.

78. In May 2012 the company submitted a planning application to increase the permitted throughput from 50,000tpa to 60,000tpa. This application was refused.

79. In May 2012 the company attended a Parish Meeting with the Environment Agency. County Councillor G Hart was also present. The company agreed that the situation was unacceptable and said that they would address the failures of the plants design and also improve their operating procedures. The company suggested a number of improvements that they would explore including the idea that covered links over certain open areas might be possible. The company attended a further Parish Meeting in April 2013 to explain what they had achieved and what they further proposed. They agreed with Shawell residents that while there had been an improvement in the smell nuisance it was not yet solved and that there was still more to be done.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 56

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

80. Now before they have solved the problem of smell from the current operations, New Earth Solutions are seeking planning permission to increase the throughput to 75,000tpa with implied “assurances” that two covered links will eliminate the smell nuisance. While we agree that the covered links appear to be essential to solving the current smell problem, the construction of them may well not be sufficient to eliminate it. There are other sources of smell (e.g. biofilter, leachate and operating procedures) that are involved. We have no confidence that these other sources of smell will be eliminated. They have not yet been reduced sufficiently to satisfy Shawell residents. Indeed New Earth Solutions submission concedes (para 6.12.4) that an increase to 75,000tpa could increase bio-filter odours by 3.07%. The submission also states (para 6.12.3) that the covered links would lead to only a likely benefit in terms of odour.

81. Before New Earth Solutions are permitted to increase their throughput they should conclusively demonstrate over an appropriate period of time that they are able to operate the current facility properly at its currently permitted capacity and to do so without distress to local residents. They are not yet able to do this. If the company is convinced that with the covered links constructed it can eliminate the smell nuisance then it should be prepared to take the commercial risk to demonstrate this before seeking any increase to their throughput. We raise no objection to the construction of the covered links. Indeed their construction should be a requirement for the continued operation of the facility at its current capacity by ensuring that it is truly a “ Fully enclosed Facility ”.

82. The condition of Gibbet Lane is quite disgusting. The road and hedges are heavily covered in mud and shards of plastic hang in the trees. The companies whose operations give rise to the debris are willing to accept their responsibilities but recent health and safety directives prevent them from cleaning the road with their own resources. Harborough District Council are currently not able to fund regular cleaning. County Councillor G. Hart is trying to broker a solution to this problem. We accept that New Earth Solutions are not the only company that contributes to this problem and note that recently it was given permission to increase the permitted vehicle movements from 240 to 300 movements per week. We strongly urge the Council not to authorise a further increase to 400 movements per week until the facility is operating successfully at its currently permitted throughput. Hopefully we will by then have resolved the cleanliness issue.

83. The Quarry, Landfill and Tile Works on Gibbet Lane are all prohibited from working on bank holidays. This is a time for local residents to enjoy their gardens and local rural amenity and certainly not a time to suffer any smell or other nuisance. New Earth Solutions do not set out any valid reasons why they should be permitted to operate on bank holidays. We urge the Council to reject this request.

Publicity

84. Notices published in a local paper, a site notice, and individual neighbour letters have advertised the proposal since 20 th May 2013. A further notice in the local paper has advertised further information received.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 57

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

Representations

85. A total of 13 representations have been received from residents in Shawell. All 13 object to the proposal and raise concerns covering the following broad issues: i. the current operation is a source of odour (and pest) nuisance and no increase to the throughput should be allowed until the current situation is remedied (through the erection of the enclosures); ii. Gibbet Lane is dirty with litter and debris.

Assessment of Proposal

86. The application should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues for consideration of this application relate to effects upon air quality, ecology, economy, hydrology and flood risk, landscape, litter, noise, traffic and site access, as well as the acceptability of the location and the need for the development.

General Location and Policy

87. One of the aims of the Waste Core Strategy is to direct new waste developments to specific areas of the County and to suitable priority locations. This proposal is to extend the throughput of the permitted operation from 50,000tpa to 75,000tpa. The recent application to increase the throughput to 60,000tpa determined that the facility was one which met the characteristics of a non strategic waste site. However, this proposal is for a larger increase to the throughput, to 75,000tpa. Your officer’s opinion is that this proposal now meets the criteria of a ‘strategic’ site and, therefore, Policy WCS2 is the starting point for assessing its suitability in terms of location. The policy requires such strategic facilities to be located in or around Leicester, Coalville, Shepshed and Loughborough. The site is not in or around any of these locations and does not accord with the requirements of Policy WCS2.

88. This application contends that the site is not a strategic site and that it is a non- strategic site and Policy WCS3 applies. Your officers do not agree with this stance but to ensure a robust assessment of the proposal’s merits is undertaken the proposal is assessed against Policy WCS3. The site does not meet the criteria of (i) to (iii) of policy WCS3 so only (iv) could be met – within or adjacent to an existing waste facility where it can be demonstrated that transport, operational and environmental benefits arise from co-location.

89. The facility was first permitted in September 2008 (reference 2008/0789/03) on the basis that there were traffic and operational benefits to locating the facility adjacent to the operational landfill. One benefit of the facility’s location was that the principal output of the facility (the compost) would be used in restoring the adjacent landfill and that any rejected material would also go into the adjacent landfill. These movements would take place without any HGVs entering the highway network; the only movements of outputs on the highway network would

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 58

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

be one HGV lorry a day exporting recyclables. The other benefit was that the facility would take waste that otherwise would go into the landfill and that there would be no additional vehicular movements associated with the importation of waste.

90. The recent application for the throughput extension (to 60,000tpa) stated that the compost like output was not going to the adjacent landfill but it expected it would in the future. However, the benefits as set out above have not materialised. This new proposal makes clear that the compost (or as it is now described the compost like output) has never been used at the adjacent landfill and under the current restoration scheme could not be. Currently, only 10% of the output from the facility is sent to the landfill rather than the 85% originally envisaged in the 2008 application.

91. As to the HGV movements, although it is accepted that the municipal waste the MBT currently accepts might otherwise go into the adjacent landfill the HGV movements for the two sites are divorced from each other and the HGV movements into the facility are above and beyond those into the landfill, i.e. it is not correct to take the MBT vehicle movements as merely a diversion of movements that would otherwise go in to the adjacent landfill. Indeed, the transport statement supplied assesses the facility’s current and proposed HGV movements and the landfill/mineral extraction HGV movements in isolation. Thus, the opinion in 2008 that there would be no additional vehicular movements associated with the importation of waste is not proven. Furthermore, there is unlikely to be sufficient municipal waste to take up the proposed 25,000tpa throughput increase and, in the main, it is likely that greater levels of C&I wastes will be imported into the site. The source of these wastes is diverse and potentially widespread with less certainty that the waste would otherwise go into the adjacent landfill, thereby the benefit that waste would already be going to this destination cannot be confidently met from C&I sources.

92. The emphasis of the facility is changed to such an extent that there is now 100% imported into the site and 90% exported on the highway network. So, the benefit of this location and the site is that just 10% of the outputs do not re-enter the highway network. This small percentage of rejected waste that enters the adjacent landfill is insufficient to demonstrate sufficient benefits arise from co- location that would outweigh the direction the Waste Core Strategy gives to locating waste facilities in close proximity to the main urban areas. Consequently, this criterion of Policy WCS3 is also not met. Similarly, given the current waste sources and the output destinations there is no justification for this dispersed rural location to be necessary. Therefore, it is considered that the site does not accord with the requirements of either Policy WCS3 or Policy WCS2.

93. Policy WCS4 is only utilised if the terms of Policies WCS2 and WCS3 have been met (which it is considered they have not). Notwithstanding this in respect of Policy WCS4 the site could be classed as both an existing employment site (albeit temporary) and a greenfield site, the latter which would meet the lowest priority for consideration. The NPPF defines what previously developed land is and makes clear that land that has been previously developed for minerals

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 59

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made is excluded from this definition. This site has been worked of sand & gravel and landfilled and is covered by development control procedures for restoration. Therefore, the site is more appropriately considered as greenfield. This does not mean that a greenfield site in the countryside cannot be considered, but that it has the lowest priority.

94. Given the site’s location in the countryside the proposal must also be considered against Policy WDC5: Countryside. This sets out three criteria to be demonstrated; that the development cannot be accommodated within the urban area, there is an overriding need and the landscape character is not harmed. The landscape impact is assessed below as acceptable and this criterion is met. No reasons have been demonstrated why the development cannot be accommodated in the urban area and there is no overriding need for the development in this rural location. Therefore, the criteria of Policy WDC5 are not met by this proposal.

95. The NPPF requires planning to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The Waste Core Strategy spatial strategy is up-to-date and was drawn up with the principle of locating waste sites in a sustainable pattern of development, i.e. near to arisings. This proposal does not meet the locational principles of the Waste Core Strategy and it is considered an unsustainable rural location unsuitable for further expansion (in terms of throughput). Policies CS5 and CS9 of the Harborough Core Strategy seek the majority of new developments to be in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel and in the most sustainable locations. The applicant’s own analysis of current employee travel patterns and the lack of availability to access the site by sustainable transport options highlights the unsustainable nature of this locale.

Environmental Considerations

Air Quality and Odour

96. Potential sources of changes to the air quality of the area from the operation of the site are from the extra HGV movements, the biofilter and the opening and closing of the doors on the main waste management buildings. Modelling the effect of a further 100 HGV movements a week on the background air quality levels of Gibbet Lane shows that the nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM 10 ) concentrations along Gibbet Lane would be within national air quality objectives.

97. Modelling of the effects of the current operation and the proposed extension (an increase in throughput and its associated enclosures) shows that the proposal would elicit a decrease in fugitive emissions related to door openings of about 4.32% at sensitive receptors but an increase of 3.07% in emissions from the biofilter at sensitive receptors. This would result in an overall average predicted reduction of 1.25% of odour concentrations at sensitive receptors. Data used in the production of the modelling for the biofilter and door openings were based on the worst case scenario and represent the situation prior to a number of

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 60

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

improvements which have been undertaken to reduce the likelihood of detectable off-site odour. The modelling shows that sensitive receptors (residential properties) would not be subject to odour concentrations that would exceed the benchmark set for average odour concentrations.

98. Alongside the modelling a field odour survey was undertaken December 2012- January 2013 to ascertain the off-site odours at locations around the site. A further field survey was undertaken July-August 2013 to ascertain the changes to odour emissions since the first survey was undertaken. The applicant states that the difference between the two surveys demonstrates a significant decrease in detectable odour.

99. The application made towards the end of 2012 (reference 2012/CSub/0208/LCC) to increase the throughput of the site was refused on the basis that an increase of 10,000tpa was unacceptable because the current operation was causing a nuisance through odour emissions and the increase in waste managed had the potential to further this nuisance. However, this application offered no mitigation and was prior to the majority of the improvement works taking place - sealing of the main buildings, use of mobile odour suppression unit and use of a ultraviolet system. The applicant believes this present application shows that there has been a marked improvement to the situation and that the works proposed would alleviate the potential odour impacts due to the increase to the throughput.

100. Based on the applicant’s own data, the physical extension (enclosures) to the facility is required, not to resolve the existing situation, but to mitigate the impacts of the proposed increase in the throughput of the site. Representations received have suggested that the enclosures are required to mitigate the current throughput and operations and that this should be approved without the increase to the throughput. Neither the Environment Agency nor the Environmental Health Officer has raised the need for the enclosures to mitigate the current operations; these regulatory bodies have also not objected to the proposal. An application to vary the permit has been made to the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is now in a position to determine those controls that may be necessary to mitigate the odour from the current operations and/or the increase in throughput. On the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant and the advice of the statutory consultees on this application it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effect on air quality and meets policies WCS10 WDC8 and WDC9.

Ecology

101. No protected species have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the site and the physical works would be undertaken on areas of concrete hardstanding. Therefore, there is little opportunity for protected species to be present. There are no sites designated at national, international or local level for their ecological importance within the site. The nearest designated site at a national level to the site is the Cave’s Inn Pits SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) approximately one kilometre south of the current facility. The site was notified as a SSSI because it contains some of the best remaining areas of neutral

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 61

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

marsh in Leicestershire. Therefore, its status is afforded due to the interest that has colonised land with low nutrient levels. Natural England is satisfied that the proposal would not damage or destroy the Cave’s Inn Pits SSSI. Thus, the proposal would not have a negative effect on biodiversity and meets the requirements of Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity. Similarly, the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 have been met. On this basis the proposal is acceptable in terms of ecology and meets policy WCS10,

Economy

102. If permitted, there would be some construction work created to erect the enclosures. The application envisages a further three full time jobs being created at the facility if this proposal was granted. This would be of benefit to the local economy and needs to be given some weight in the context of other sustainability issues. The extra employment opportunities offered by the proposal would meet the intent of policy CS7: to enable employment and business development. However, the policy itself sets out the district’s spatial strategy for employment development and is not considered a key policy in this determination; there are more relevant policies relating to the spatial strategy for waste facilities in the Waste Core Strategy.

Hours of Operation

103. The facility is currently permitted to operate between 07:30 and 17:00 Monday to Friday and between 07:30 and 14:00 on Saturdays. No operations are allowed on Sundays or public/bank holidays (with the exception of Good Friday). The proposed change to the hours is to operate earlier and later Monday to Friday (between 07:00-19:00) and on all public/bank holidays. The adjacent landfill/mineral extraction and related processing operations run by Lafarge-Tarmac are permitted to operate between 07:00 and 19:00 Monday to Friday but not public/bank holidays (with the exception of Good Friday).

104. The proposed change in the hours of operation on Monday to Friday would reflect the consented hours at adjacent operations. However, bank/public holidays (beyond Good Friday) are not permitted at the adjacent Lafarge- Tarmac operations. In effect, the applicant is seeking to operate on a further seven days a year, including Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day Bank Holidays. The working of these bank/public holidays would introduce a new source of noise, HGV traffic (and potentially odour) on these days. It is felt that given no overriding case for needing to work public/bank holidays the residents of Gibbet Lane and Shawell village should be protected from an expansion of operations outside of existing working hours at the Shawell quarry/landfill site and that consent to operate on further public/bank holidays is not appropriate. Therefore, the proposed extended hours between Monday to Friday of 07:00 and 19:00 is considered acceptable but on further bank/public holidays is not.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 62

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

Hydrology/Flood Risk

105. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is land with less than a 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding. There is no concern that this proposal would exacerbate the risk of this land flooding and drainage from the new buildings would be routed into the existing drainage system. On this basis, in terms of the sequential test for flooding, the proposal is acceptable and accords with policies WCS10, WDC12 and CS10.

Landscape and Heritage Assets

106. This application seeks to introduce two building extensions of some considerable size (a combined footprint of some 2,500m 2 and a maximum height of 12 metres) within a greenfield, countryside location. However, the current waste management buildings on the site occupy some 11,300 m2 and are 10.8 metres high at their maximum. Shawell village lies some 600 metres to the east of the current facility. The entire village has been designated as a conservation area by Harborough District Council. Harborough District Council has objected to the proposal on the grounds of the height and form of the proposed building extensions having an impact on the landscape and heritage assets. The County’s Historic Buildings and Landscape Officers’ views are that the proposal is acceptable.

107. Of the two building extensions it is the one between the two existing buildings which would be greater in height than those currently erected. The extra height is required to incorporate the biofilter pipework which is in itself needed to facilitate a sloped roof. The materials and colours would match the existing buildings.

108. The buildings would not be readily visible from Shawell and with the further landscaping proposed, given time, would be screened to a greater extent than currently. Given the screening (current and proposed) and the distance between the proposal and Shawell village there would not be a detrimental effect on the conservation area from this proposal. Similarly, given the context of the proposed building extensions alongside the existing there would be no further significant harm to the landscape caused by this proposal. Therefore, on this basis the proposal is acceptable in terms of its potential effects on the landscape and the Shawell village conservation area and would accord with policies WCS10, WDC1, WDC8, WDC9, CS1 and CS11.

Litter

109. Some representations received have made comment on the untidiness of Gibbet Lane. The Highway Authority has stated that they would support an obligation for the applicant to undertake litter picking of Gibbet Lane. The applicant has stated that this would be unreasonable because they are not the only cause of litter on the Lane. It is considered that requiring an obligation upon this applicant in isolation would not be proportional to their potential contribution to litter on the lane (either currently or with an increased

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 63

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

throughput). It would be unreasonable to find the development unacceptable in terms of its effect on litter. However, the issue of litter on Gibbet Lane is being addressed separately with Lafarge-Tarmac and the applicant to find an equable solution.

Noise

110. The existing operations have not elicited any complaint on noise and no concern has been raised in any comment received by the Waste Planning Authority with regard to noise from the operations. The proposal does not include any new noise sources. The assessment of the predicted increase in noise from HGV traffic along Gibbet Lane showed that there would have be a negligible adverse effect on residential amenity. On this basis, the proposal is acceptable in terms of noise and accords with policies WCS10, WDC8 and WDC9 in this respect.

Traffic and Site Access

111. Access to the site would be made via the existing access off Gibbet Lane which is shared with Lafarge-Tarmac to access the landfill and mineral extraction area. Continued and increased use of this access would not result in any issues with regard to safety or capacity at this access.

112. The inputs into the site are proposed to increase to 75,000 tonnes per annum of municipal and commercial and industrial wastes. These inputs, in the main, would also be exported from the site via the highway network by HGV. The extant planning permission for the site (reference 2012/0972/03) allows 300 HGV movements a week. The applicant has assessed the importation and exportation of these materials using HGVs and calculated that it would result in an extra 69 movements a week (so, 369) but for a robust assessment has assumed 100 HGV movements a week resulting in a total of 400 HGV movements a week. Using the applicant’s proposed hours (67) per week this would result in a total average of 6 HGV movements an hour, so, 3 HGVs in and 3 HGVs out each hour of the 67 hours the site would be operational each week. Of the 6 HGV movements an hour 2 HGV movements would be attributable to the proposed extension. Using the applicant’s measured background traffic flows of March 2012 and equating one HGV movement as 2 PCUs (Passenger Car Unit) the extra HGV movements proposed would result in an increase of 1.44% and 2.36% in the morning and evening peak hour traffic flows on Gibbet Lane, respectively.

113. The junction capacity assessment of the A5/A426/Gibbet Lane roundabout shows that, principally, the roundabout is operating at a level below capacity and would continue to do so with the proposed increase to HGV movements. The exception is the arm of the roundabout of the A426 from the south which reaches its working capacity during the evening peak (16:30-18:30) and queues develop. The further HGV movements will increase this but the impact will be negligible. The Highways Agency and Highway Authority are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable. However, should permission be granted a condition

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 64

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

should be attached limiting the HGV movements to the 400 used in the assessment. Also, the provision of further car parking within the site is acceptable. On the basis of this, the proposal is acceptable in terms of the effect on the highway and accords with policies WDC8, WDC9 and WDC10.

Waste Hierarchy and Need

114. The application states that there is an immediate need for this proposal to divert waste from landfill and move waste up the hierarchy, away from disposal. The two waste streams that this proposal could accept are MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) and C&I (Commercial & industrial). Assuming that the facility operated at the maximum extra throughput sought (i.e. 25,000tpa) and the current landfill diversion (90%) can be achieved as a minimum then the proposal would enable a further 22,500 tonnes of waste to be recovered or recycled. The Waste Core Strategy and government policy seeks the diversion of waste from landfill to be increased from current levels. This proposal would assist in achieving this. There would also be commensurate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the extra 22,500 tonnes being diverted from landfill and, therefore, a climate change benefit.

115. The facility would accept both MSW and C&I waste and, therefore, both waste streams should be assessed in terms of a quantitative need. The starting point of the need for the proposal is the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The applicant states that the extra 25,000tpa would provide additional capacity to meet immediate needs (my emphasis). Therefore, this needs to be tested by assessing the need for the proposal against current C&I and MSW arisings.

116. C&I waste arisings for the framework area are estimated to be some 250,000tpa below that predicted in the Waste Core Strategy. The figures of the Waste Core Strategy were always indicative and the key principals are that sufficient capacity is available to manage the waste arising and to meet the targets for recycling. The intent of the Waste Core Strategy was to provide sufficient capacity to allow the recycling, as a minimum, of some 42% of the C&I waste arising. The most recent data produced by the County Council showed that there is sufficient recycling capacity operating to recycle at least 42% of the C&I waste arising in the framework area (Leicestershire and Leicester).

117. The most recent Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets a target for Member States to achieve a minimum recycling rate of 50% (by weight) of waste from households and waste streams which are similar to households by 2020. Some C&I can be of a similar composition to household waste, such as that from offices. The most recent national study of C&I waste management in 2009 reported a national recycling rate of 52% of C&I waste.

118. There are no specific targets for the recovery of C&I waste in the Waste Core Strategy. However, the amount of waste which goes in to landfill should be considered a maximum and this proposal would move waste away from final disposal.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 65

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

119. In terms of MSW, the Waste Core Strategy sets a target to deliver facilities to allow the diversion from landfill of 79% of MSW arising by 2019/20. A large element of this diversion target would be achieved through recycling and composting with the remainder met with some form of recovery. The minimum target for the recycling and composting of MSW is 58% by 2019/20. The first MSW recycling and landfill diversion targets set by the Waste Core Strategy were for 2009/10 and these have been met. The interim targets for MSW landfill diversion and recycling/composting is to achieve 73% and 53%, respectively, by 2014/15.

120. The targets set in the Waste Core Strategy were derived from the Regional Waste Strategy for the and were produced in a period of economic growth. So for 2009/10 the assumption was that 425,150 tonnes of MSW would be produced in Leicestershire whilst only 352,847 tonnes were actually produced in 2009/10. The latest MSW figures (2012/13) show the achievement of a recycling/composting rate of 51% and an overall landfill diversion rate of 68.5%. The most recent data on recycling capacity showed that there is sufficient capacity available in the framework area to achieve, at least, the 2014/15 target for the recycling of MSW. Although recycling levels of MSW have not reached the target set for 2014/15 there is movement towards it (only a further 2% is needed). Similarly, MSW sent to landfill only accounts for 31.5% of the total arising (with the next target (2014/15) requiring a further 5% to be diverted of which 2% is recycled). In 2009/10 the landfill diversion rate for MSW was 47.32%, the increase has been achieved through the County Council, in part, making use of the facility to which this proposal relates.

121. Some 47,000-50,000 tonnes of Leicestershire’s MSW waste goes into this facility each year. If this proposal was permitted then, at present, there is some 55,000 tonnes of Leicestershire’s residual MSW which could go to this facility, so, potentially a further 8,000 tonnes. Assuming that only 47,000 tonnes of MSW goes into the facility this year and the landfill diversion and recycling rates of the facility stay the same then this proposal could divert a further 7,200 tonnes of MSW from landfill of which 560 tonnes would be recycled (assuming that this 8,000 tonnes is not already being recovered at another facility). Also, assuming that Leicestershire’s MSW arisings remain as at present then this proposal could recycle a further 0.002% of MSW waste and divert a further 0.02% of MSW waste immediately (as a percentage of the total current Leicestershire MSW arisings). If Leicestershire’s MSW arisings increased then more waste could go to this facility and its contribution to the MSW targets increase.

122. Given the current situation in terms of waste arisings in Leicestershire the vast majority of the extra capacity sought by this proposal would be utilised for the management of C&I wastes. This proposal would help to divert more C&I waste from landfill. The proposal would also move some further MSW away from landfill and assist in a small way to meeting the MSW targets for landfill diversion and recycling. The situation is not overriding. Therefore, given the achievement of the minimum C&I recycling targets and the small scale shortfall in capacity for the MSW targets there is no overriding and immediate need for this proposal.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 66

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

Conclusion

123. The planning application and accompanying Environmental Statement, together with further information that has been submitted, provide the information necessary to assess the likely environmental effects of the development fully.

124. This proposal is seeking to extend the current facility in four ways: to extend the hours of operation; to increase the weekly HGV movements; to increase the throughput of the site; and to extend the extent of the buildings on the site. In terms of the hours of operation it is considered acceptable for these to be amended to mirror those allowed on the adjacent landfill site but not to go beyond this and allow bank/public holiday working beyond Good Friday. The increase in HGV movements from the permitted 300 a week to 400 is acceptable in terms of the impact on the air quality of and noise levels on Gibbet Lane and on the capacity and safety of the local highway network. The erection of further buildings has been assessed as not having a significant impact on the landscape or heritage assets of the area and their erection is acceptable. There are no substantive reasons to resist these elements on grounds of the impacts on air quality, ecology, hydrology, litter, noise or traffic.

125. The applicant makes clear that the extensions to the buildings are only necessary to mitigate the air quality issues which would arise from the increase to the throughput of the waste handled by the facility. Concern has been raised from local residents that this facility is already the source of nuisance through fugitive malodorous emissions and that the building extensions should be permitted without the increase to the throughput. There is insufficient evidence from the responses to this application from statutory consultees whose remit is odour control that the MBT facility is the source of the odour nuisance and the Planning Authority is not in a position to require the building extension alone.

126. The acceptability or not of the increase in throughput of the facility from 50,000tpa to 75,000tpa is assessed, principally, against the relevant spatial policies of the Waste Core Strategy. In the context of the relevant locational policies, the extended site would meet the criteria to be a strategic site but is not located in or around the Broad Locations sought by Policy WCS2. Instead, the site is located in a greenfield, countryside location, albeit within a quarry complex. The benefits of co-location with the adjacent landfill site that were described in the original application, in the main, have not been borne out and diminish with the greater recovery rates achieved. The site is an unsustainable location poorly served by sustainable transport choices. There is no immediate overriding need for this facility in a rural countryside location and thus the proposed increase in throughput to the facility is not acceptable.

127. The proposal would offer benefits in terms of the diversion of some 22,500 tonnes of waste from landfill and the commensurate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions helping move towards a low carbon future. There is a small economic benefit from the construction phase of the development and the potential creation of a further three full time jobs at the site. This would accord with the Planning for Growth statement and the NPPF to help achieve economic growth and provide employment benefits. The proposal also offers a small

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 67

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

benefit in that some 2,500tpa would go into the adjacent landfill without entering the highway network. These benefits weigh in favour of the proposal. However, in the planning balance these benefits are not sufficient to overcome the conflict with the locational policies of the Waste Core Strategy and the proposal should be refused.

Recommendation

A. To refuse the proposed development, for the reasons set out in Appendix A.

B. To endorse as required by the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended) a summary of the:

(i) Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant Circulars, together with the relevant development plan policies, including the following, and those referred to under the specific conditions as set out in the appendix:-

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document.

Policy WCS1: Waste Management Capacity; Policy WCS2: Strategic Waste Sites; Policy WCS3: Non Strategic Waste Sites; Policy WCS4: Locating Waste Sites; Policy WCS5: Reuse, Recycling, Waste Transfer and Composting Facilities; Policy WCS6: Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Incineration, Mechanical- Biological Treatment (MBT), and Other Energy/Value Recovery Technologies; Policy WCS10: Environmental Protection; Policy WCS14: Transportation of Waste; Policy WDC1: Sustainable Design; Policy WDC5: Countryside; Policy WDC8: Health and Amenity; Policy WDC9: Cumulative Impact; Policy WDC10: Transportation of Waste; and Policy WDC12: The Water Environment.

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan

Policy WLP 7 – Assessment of Proposals.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 68

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC – continued

Harborough Core Strategy

Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy for Harborough; Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport; Policy CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development; Policy CS8: Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure; Policy CS9: Addressing Climate Change; Policy CS10: Addressing Flood Risk; Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage; and Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 69

2013/0809/03 (2013/CM/0120/LCC - continued

Appendix A

REFUSE , for the following reasons:

1. Extension of the waste facility’s throughput would result in a strategic facility on a greenfield site in the countryside in a location not supported by the Waste Core Strategy’s Policy WCS2. Therefore, the site is poorly located to waste arisings and to sustainable transport choices. The benefits of this location for siting the existing waste facility were related to the deposit of the majority of the outputs into the adjacent landfill and that the operation would not lead to any increase (beyond one HGV a day) to the HGV traffic already moving in the area. This proposal offers no benefits in relation to the latter and negligible to the former and thus, it is an unsustainable and inappropriate location for a waste management facility as now proposed and explained in the planning application. There is no overriding need for the extended throughput and no reasons have been demonstrated why the facility could not be located in the urban areas. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies WCS2, WCS14 and WDC5 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document and CS5 and CS9 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013 70

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to the preceding application.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Young People's Service 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 County Council’s Human Resources Department 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.

DC®. BOARD 24/10/2013