Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 4
04 March 2014
Waste Planning Application (County Matter)
Restoration of mineral working with inert material.
Boxgrove Quarry, Tinwood Lane, Boxgrove, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 0LH
Application No: WSCC/109/13/BX
Report by Strategic Planning Manager
Local Member: Jeremy Hunt District: Chichester
Executive Summary
This report concerns an application to restore Boxgrove Quarry, located on the A285 near Halnaker, using some 555,000 tonnes of imported inert material over a period of five years. Recycling plant would be located within the quarry to produce fill material for lower layers, and restoration soils for upper, planted layers. Existing bunds on the site would also be cleared for use in its restoration.
The development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day (20 HGVs entering and leaving the site). The site would operate between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, and between 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays.
The application follows the Planning Committee’s refusal in November 2011 of a previous application for restoration with inert materials, and the operation of a recycling facility outside the quarry (ref. WSCC/029/11/BX). The refusal was appealed by the applicant, but the Inspector upheld the County Council’s decision. This application seeks to overcome the reasons given for the previous refusal and bring forward an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site.
The report provides a generalised description of the site and a detailed account of the proposed development, and appraises it against the relevant policy framework from national to local level along with other material considerations.
No objections have been raised by statutory consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions. Boxgrove Parish Council has objected to the proposal as they consider there is no need, it is unviable, and it would result in dangers to the highway, and noise pollution. Objections have also been received from 31 third parties relating to the danger associated with increased HGVs, lack of need, impact on existing wildlife at the site, noise and dust impacts, lack of financial viability, and inappropriateness of site.
Consideration of Key Issues
The main material planning considerations are whether the proposal: • Meets an identified need; Agenda Item No. 4
• Is acceptable in relation to highway capacity and road safety; • Is acceptable in terms of impact on the landscape; • Is acceptable in terms of impact on ecology; and • Is acceptable in terms of impact on local amenity and recreation.
Need for the Development It is proposed to deposit 555,000 tonnes of inert waste to land over a five year period in order to bring forward the restoration of Boxgrove Quarry. The proposal is considered to be ‘recovery’ rather than ‘deposit’ as, among other things, it would create a landform in keeping with the surrounding landscape, with appropriate material. In doing so it would help to move the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’, away from disposal, in accordance with national planning policy.
Highway Capacity and Road Safety The proposed development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day (20 HGVs entering and leaving the site), a 3% increase in HGVs travelling on the A285. The Inspector did not consider that the previous, appealed application, which had more than twice the HGV movements, would result in significant highway impacts, and no objection has been raised to the present application by WSCC Highways Officers. The proposal is not therefore considered to result in a significant impact on highway capacity or safety and is considered acceptable in highways terms.
Impact on the Landscape The proposed development would have temporary impacts on the landscape through HGVs travelling across open countryside to and from the site, and through exposing the internal quarry operations when bunds are removed. However, these adverse impacts are considered to be outweighed by the long term benefits of the site restoration which would remove the alien bund features and provide a landform more in keeping with the rolling countryside surrounding the site. South Downs National Park Authority considers that the development would not be contrary to their purposes and principles, and the short term adverse impacts would be outweighed by the long term benefits. Overall, therefore, the development is considered to be beneficial in landscape terms.
Impact on Ecology The development would result in the loss of ecological features on the quarry site which have emerged as it has naturally regenerated. However, it is considered that the inclusion of woodland, wetland and other habitat in the proposed restoration scheme would help to off-set any impacts, and the imposition of conditions controlling construction would mitigate adverse impacts during the restoration. Overall therefore it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of potential ecological impact.
Impact on Local Amenity and Recreation The development has the potential to adversely affect residents and Public Right of Way users during the construction phase as a result of dust and noise emissions. There is a dwelling within 50 metres of the quarry, and Tinwood Lane and a Public Right of Way extending along the southern boundary of the quarry. However, it is considered that the potential for significant dust impacts is limited, and can be adequately controlled through good site management, required by condition. Noise impacts have the potential to be significant, so it is proposed to add conditions Agenda Item No. 4 setting maximum noise levels, and other measures including requiring the use of silencing measures on plant, and allowing only broadband reversing alarms. Subject to these controls it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of its potential impact on local amenity and recreation.
Financial Viability The NPPF Technical Guidance requires applicants to demonstrate that there is financial provision for restoration. The applicant has reassured the Council that it is in their interests to complete the work, and that they have demonstrated their commitment to date through investment in the land and in the planning process. Further, it is in their interest to complete the work so that they can hand the site back to the owner. On balance, it is considered that the applicant’s investment in the process to date indicates it is financially viable, and that there are sufficient mechanisms through the planning process so ensure that restoration is completed, to an agreed standard.
Conclusion The proposed development proposes to restore Boxgrove Quarry using imported inert waste, and seeks to address the issues set out in the appeal decision relating to a previous restoration proposal. It is considered that the proposal would deliver a recovery, rather than disposal, project for the deposit of inert waste, thereby moving the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’. It would bring forward a site restoration which would improve the appearance of the site and surrounding area by creating a feature in keeping with the rolling countryside, rather than existing steep- sided bunds. It would use the minimum amount of waste required for the development by using material already on site.
While there would be a loss of regenerated habitat within the quarry, it is considered that on balance this would be outweighed by the benefits to the landscape of the area, as well as the provision of habitat on site. The development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day, but this is not considered to result in impacts on highway safety or capacity, or to result in a significant loss of residential amenity. Potential impacts on residential amenity and the amenity of PROW users could be satisfactorily controlled through the imposition of conditions.
In determining the application the County Council has, through consultation with the appropriate statutory bodies and having regard to the Development plan, emerging waste policies and all other material considerations, considered the objectives of protection of human health and the environment and the principles of self- sufficiency and proximity as required by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to: a) the conditions and informatives in Appendix 1; and b) a S106 legal agreement to secure planting beyond the site boundary.
1. Introduction
1.1 This report relates to an application by Inert Recycling (UK) Limited to restore Boxgrove Quarry, located on the A285 near Halnaker, using some 555,000 tonnes of imported inert material over a period of five years. Agenda Item No. 4
1.2 The application follows the Planning Committee’s refusal in November 2011 of a previous application for restoration with inert materials, and the operation of a recycling facility outside the quarry (ref. WSCC/029/11/BX). The refusal was appealed by the applicant, but the Inspector upheld the County Council’s decision (Planning Inspectorate ref. APP/P3800/A/12/2173626; see Appendix 2 – Appeal Decision).
1.3 This application seeks to overcome the reasons given for the previous refusal and bring forward an acceptable scheme for the restoration of the site.
1.4 The key differences between that application and the present application are: • The location of all processing activities within the quarry rather than in a separate location 640 metres to the east; • Exclusion of recycling operation: all imported material would be used on site for restoration. • Access to quarry taken via shortest route from access road - from eastern boundary rather than in south-eastern corner; • Importation of 555,000 tonnes of material rather than 944,000 tonnes; • Average daily HGV movements of 40 per weekday (20 HGVs entering and leaving the site) compared with 84 per weekday (42 HGVs entering and leaving the site); and • Removal of existing topsoil bunds around site and their use in the site’s restoration.
2. Site and Description
2.1 The application site is located in Chichester District, some 400 metres east of the village of Halnaker and some 970m north-east of Boxgrove, in Chichester District (see Appendix 3 – Site Location Plan). The area is characterised by a mix of open fields including some restored mineral workings, equine activity and broadleaf woodland.
2.2 The site extends to some 18.8 hectares comprising the former Boxgrove Quarry, along with an access road extending south from the A285, then west into the quarry (see Appendix 4 – Site Boundary Plan). The development would make use of an existing access road used by Ounces Barn, an equine business. This would be extended just south of Ounces Barn to link west into the quarry.
2.3 The quarry had been used for gravel extraction since the 1960s, but has remained unused since around 2004. Since that date it has become overgrown with scrub, buddleia and beech, and has been accessed for off-roading and similar unofficial uses.
2.4 The quarry is enclosed with bunds formed from topsoils stored as part of the quarrying operations. There are mature trees outside of the bunds to the west and south of the site and to a lesser extent to the south-east. To the east, where the quarry is closest to Ounces Barn, there are few trees beyond the bunds. Beyond the bunds and trees the quarry is largely surrounded by agricultural/equine uses. Eartham Quarry was located to the east and north- Agenda Item No. 4 east of Boxgrove Quarry and has now been restored, through the importation of inert waste, to farmland.
2.5 The topography of the quarry and surrounding land falls gently from north to south so the quarry sits at a slightly lower elevation than the A285. This opens the site and area up to views from higher points on the South Downs including Halnaker Windmill to the west and Long Down to the north.
2.6 The nearest residential properties to the site are at Tinwood House (50 metres west), Keepers’ Cottage (180 metres south) and ‘the Folly’ (260 metres south- west). Tinwood Lane, a ‘G’ class road which turns into a Public Right of Way, forms the south east and south west boundaries to the quarry.
2.7 The site is surrounded by, but not within, a number of sensitive environmental designations. The northern boundary of the quarry abuts the Devils Ditch Scheduled Ancient Monument. South Downs National Park is on the opposite side of the A285 from the proposed site access. Halnaker Conservation Area is some 360 metres north-west of the site.
2.8 There are a number of public rights of way in the vicinity of the site including Footpath 369/1 some 170 metres to the north-west and Footpath 368 which connects to Tinwood Lane south-west of the quarry.
3. Relevant Planning History
3.1 As already noted, the site has been used as a quarry since the 1960s with a ‘review’ planning permission consolidating existing planning permissions in 1997 (WSCC ref. BX/2624/97 consolidating planning permissions BX/8/57B for the extraction of hoggin ballast (as amended by BX/40/85) and BX/34/90 for the restoration of the site by controlled tipping of waste materials).
3.2 This was followed a planning permission granted in 2001 (WSCC ref. BX/122/01) for the “continued extraction of hoggin ballast and restoration without complying with Condition 1 on BX/2514/98”, with quarrying to finish in December 2002, and restoration to native woodland by 31 December 2004. An application was submitted in December 2004 to extend this date (ref. BS/195/05), but the operator subsequently withdrew this as they considered the scheme was not realistic. The County Council attempted to contact the operator after this date to progress the site’s restoration, but the site remained dormant, then changed hands on several occasions. It was sold to the present applicant in 2009 at which point pre-application discussions began, leading to an ultimately-refused application in 2010.
3.3 This application sought the restoration of the quarry with imported material and the operation of a recycling facility (ref. WSCC/027/10/BA. For key differences between that application and the present application see paragraph 1.3). It was refused by the Planning Committee in November 2011.
3.4 The reasons given for refusal were: “(a) there is no demonstrable need for the development contrary to the following policies: PPS10 – Paragraph 21 (i); W3, W5, W6, and W7 of the South East Plan Policy; and N1 and G5 of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan; and Agenda Item No. 4 (b) the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape and environment of the area, contrary to the following policies: PPS7 – Key Principle (vi); PPS10 – Paragraph 21 (i); RE1, RE4, and RE12 of Chichester District Local Plan; C2 of the South East Plan; 21 of the West Sussex Minerals Local Plan; and G2 and U9 of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan.”
3.5 This decision was appealed, and the decision of the County Council upheld with the Inspector refusing the appeal (Planning Inspectorate ref. APP/P3800/A/12/2173626 – see Appendix 2). The Inspector concluded that, in summary: • The development would harm the character and appearance of the area, and the setting of the South Downs National Park; • The development would move the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’, away from disposal; • There is an identified need for inert waste management facilities; but • The proposal with its separate recycling area, haul roads and HGV movements would be an intrusive operation in terms of landscape and visual impact. The development does not amount to good design or, in its current form, sustainable development.
3.6 The Inspector concluded that: “On balance, while I have accepted some benefits would arise from the proposal, notably in terms of responding to a need for inert waste management capacity, I consider that this does not outweigh the harm…”.
4. The Proposal
4.1 Planning permission is sought to restore Boxgrove Quarry to a mix of woodland, wetland, and open pasture using 640,000 tonnes of inert waste, including 82,500 tonnes of material already in the quarry.
4.2 The applicant is therefore proposing to import 555,000 tonnes of inert construction and demolition waste to the quarry over a period of five years. Recycling plant would be located within the quarry to produce fill material for lower layers, and restoration soils for upper, planted layers. Existing bunds on the site would also be cleared for use in its restoration. These bunds, formed from topsoil stripped during quarry operations, are estimated to contain some 82,500 tonnes of soil.
4.3 The restoration would be carried out in three phases, starting in the north heading south, then from the western corner heading east, with the final phase starting in the south-eastern corner heading east, ultimately towards the quarry entrance/exit (see Appendix 5 – Phasing Plan).
4.4 It is proposed to create a landform which slopes gently upwards from around 36 metres above ordnance datum (AOD) in the south to 44 metres AOD in the north. These levels reflect those of the surrounding landscape, and those approved in the 2001 restoration scheme.
4.5 The refused 2010 scheme proposed higher final levels, creating a mounded feature which was considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding Agenda Item No. 4 landscape. It also proposed to retain the ‘bunds’ which enclose the quarry, an approach which was considered inappropriate as they are an alien feature in the landscape, and making use of them will reduce the need to import restoration material.
4.6 The proposed final restoration of the site (see Appendix 6: Restoration Strategy) is to woodland along the western perimeter, with woodland, scrub and rough grassland in the northern third of the site. There would be pasture grassland in the southern, central two-thirds of the site, edged with wetland leading to ponds in the western and southern corners. A bare sand area would be retained in the north-eastern corner to provide reptile habitat.
4.7 Woodland would also be planted beyond the quarry along a strip south of Ounces Barn and an area east of the access road. These areas are beyond the application boundary, so their implementation will need to be secured by legal agreement.
4.8 The proposed haul road extension linking the quarry to the existing access road would be restored to improved grassland.
4.9 The slope of the site would allow water to run-off to drainage channels around the perimeter of the site leading to balancing ponds in the western and southern corners of the quarry which, as noted above, would be retained for wildlife.
4.10 It is proposed to access the quarry from an existing internal road linking Ounces Barn to the southern side of the A285. Site offices and a weighbridge would be added alongside Ounces Barn, and the road would be extended to access the quarry from its south-eastern boundary.
4.11 The extension to the road would measure some 245 metres in length, and would be formed of crushed road material on top of ‘geogrid’ (synthetic soil reinforcement) and engineering fill, with appropriate drainage underneath.
4.12 A modular building would be sited close to Ounces Barn to house staff offices and facilities, with a wheelwash in a similar location to minimise the risk of mud entering the highway. A belt of trees would be planted, at an early stage in the project, east of the proposed weighbridge and offices, and between the offices and Ounces Barn.
4.13 The applicant is seeking a temporary permission for a period of five years, resulting in an average of 40 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements each day (20 HGVs entering and 20 leaving the site).
4.14 The hours of operation sought for the development are 0700 – 1800 Monday to Friday, and 0700 – 1300 on Saturdays, with no operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
5. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
5.1 The proposal falls within Part 11(b) ‘Installations for the disposal of waste’’, (b) where the area of development exceeds 0.5 hectare and (c) the installation is to be sited within 100m of any controlled waters’, of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. The proposed Agenda Item No. 4 development is a Schedule 2 development and is capable of having a significant environmental effect on the environment. A Screening Opinion was issued in response to the 2010 application indicating that the proposal was EIA development. No such opinion was sought in relation to the present application, but it is likewise considered EIA development, and has been accompanied by an EIA.
6. Policy
Statutory Development Plan
6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the statutory ‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as confirmed in paragraph 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). For the purposes of this application the development plan comprises the West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (2003)(Saved Policies 2007), and the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999).
6.2 Although the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (submission draft as modified, November 2013) is not part of the statutory development plan, it is a material consideration. The draft Waste Local Plan (WLP) has emerged and been subject to Examination since the appeal decision was made in relation to the 2010 application.
6.3 The key policies in the development plan, which are material to the determination of the application, are summarised below. In addition, the relevant policies of the draft WLP and the NPPF are considered.
West Sussex Minerals Local Plan – 2003
6.4 Saved Policy 21 supports reclamation proposals for mineral sites which offer opportunities for habitat creation, new or improved fisheries, recreation provision, landscape enhancement or improved water resource provision in appropriate locations.
Chichester District Local Plan - (1999)
6.5 The key policies in the Chichester District Local Plan are Policy RE1 (Development in the Rural Area Generally), RE4 (AONB – Sussex Downs, Protection of Landscape and Character), RE12 (Rural Diversification), and R4 (Public Rights of Way and Other Paths).
Other Policy
West Sussex Waste Local Plan – Submission Draft as modified, November 2013
6.6 The draft Waste Local Plan (WLP) as modified, although not yet part of the statutory development plan, was approved by County Council in October 2013 for development management purposes. Accordingly, it can be afforded weight as it is up-to-date, it has gone through a public consultation process and it has been shown to accord with the NPPF. As a result of the Examination process, Agenda Item No. 4 the Inspector has recommended that Policy W1(e), related to inert recovery, is deleted. It is therefore afforded little weight in relation to this application.
6.7 Policy W4 relates to inert waste recycling, supporting proposals which accord with the built waste policy (policy W3) or (in summary) where they can be accommodated at mineral workings where the duration of operations is tied to that of the primary operation, and they are well related to the Lorry Route Network.
6.8 Policy W9 relates to ‘recovery operations involving the deposit of inert waste to land’ so is key to consideration of this application. It states: Proposals for recovery operations involving the depositing of inert waste to land (including for the continuation in duration, or the physical extension of, existing operations) will be permitted provided that: (a) the proposal results in clear benefits for the site and, where possible, the wider area; (b) the material to be used is only residual waste following recycling and/or recovery or it is a waste that cannot be recycled or treated; (c) there is a genuine need to use the waste material as a substitute for a non-waste material that would otherwise have to be used; (d) the material to be reused is suitable for its intended use; (e) the amount of waste material to be used is no more than is necessary to deliver the benefits identified under (a); (f) there would be no unacceptable impact on natural resources and other environmental constraints; (g) they would accord with Policy W13 (Protected Landscapes); (h) any temporary harm as a result of the operations would be outweighed by the long-term benefits of the proposed after-use, (i) any important mineral reserves would not be sterilised; and (j) restoration of the site to a high quality standard would take place in accordance with Policy W20.”
6.9 Policies W11 to W19 set out the ‘development management’ policies for waste development, including avoiding unacceptable impact on character (Policy W11), supporting high quality development (Policy W12), protecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and the National Park (Policy W13), biodiversity (Policy W14), the historic environment (Policy W15), air, soil and water (Policy W16), mitigating flood risk (Policy W17), and minimising impact on public health and amenity (Policy W19).
6.10 Policy W18 requires waste development to have adequate transport links, with minimal use of local roads, and to not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or capacity.
6.11 Policy W20 relates to restoration and aftercare through ‘temporary waste development’ which it notes will be permitted where accompanied by comprehensive schemes which: “(a) make provision for high quality and practicable restoration, management, and aftercare; Agenda Item No. 4 (b) are appropriate for their locations, maximising benefits taking into account local landscape character, the historic environment, biodiversity, and wider environmental objectives; (c) where appropriate, maximise public amenity benefits including appropriate re-instatement of, and where possible, improvement of public rights of way; (d) provide for the removal of all buildings, machinery and plant when they are no longer required in connection with the principal use; and (e) ensure that that land is restored at the earliest opportunity including, where appropriate, phased, or progressive restoration.
Finally, Policy W21 requires that the cumulative impact of waste development and “waste management and other sites operating simultaneously and/or successively” be considered.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
6.12 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out Government’s planning polices for England and how these are expected to be applied. It helps guide the decision-making process in terms of matters which are material to the determination of the application. The relevant paragraphs in the NPPF are set out below: General decision-making: Paragraph 14 (approving development that accords with the development plan), 17 (core planning principles), 28 (supporting a prosperous rural economy), 186 (positive decision making to deliver sustainable development), 196 (determining applications in accordance with the development plan), 197 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), 203 (use of planning conditions to make development acceptable) and 206 (imposition of planning conditions). Development management: Paragraph 32 (development resulting in significant transport movements), 103 (minimising flood risk), 109 (conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment), 115 and 116 (great weight given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs and National Parks), 118 (conserve and enhance biodiversity), 120 (land instability and pollution), 123 (minimising noise impacts), 124 (air quality impacts), 125 (light pollution), 128 - 136 (impact on heritage features), Mineral site restoration: Paragraph 144 (sustainable use of minerals, particularly bullet 6 relating to restoration).
6.13 The NPPF Technical Guidance is also relevant as it sets out the government’s minerals policy including what information should accompany an application for (or including) restoration. Paragraphs 44 – 48 of the Guidance relates to aftercare schemes which it notes should cover, in outline, a five year aftercare period (i.e. after restoration is complete), with a detailed programme for the forthcoming year. Paragraphs 49 – 51 relate to financial guarantees, noting that applicants should demonstrate the budgets for restoration, aftercare and Agenda Item No. 4 after-use and their ability to make provision for this. Only in exceptional cases should financial guarantees be required.
EC Waste Directives
6.14 By virtue of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 when determining any application for planning permission that relates to waste management (Article 18), the Planning Authority is required to take into account the Council Directives 2008/98EC (the Waste Framework Directive) and 1999/31EC (the Landfill Directive). The Local Planning Authority (LPA) must take into account the protection of human health and the environment (article 13 2008/98EC) and principles of self-sufficiency and proximity (first paragraph of Article 16 (1), Article 16 (2) and (3)). Case law has confirmed that these are objectives at which to aim and be kept in mind whilst assessing the application.
Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2005, as amended 2011)
6.15 PPS10 promotes, wherever possible, the use of waste as a resource and the movement of waste management up the ‘waste hierarchy’ away from landfill. It also sets out the approach waste authorities should take to determining applications for development on unallocated sites, namely:
“(i) assess their suitability for development against each of the following criteria: - the extent to which they support the policies in this PPS; - the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses; - the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; - the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.
(ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages.” (PPS10 paragraph 21, as referred to in paragraph 24).
7. Consultations
7.1 Chichester District Council: No objection to revised application which they note addresses a number of the Inspector’s concerns. Seek conditions including relating to noise, dust, working hours, recycling only in the quarry, phasing, HGV routing, and landscaping scheme.
7.2 Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions requiring submission and approval of a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment and a surface water drainage scheme.
Agenda Item No. 4 7.3 English Heritage: No objection subject to consultation with WSCC Archaeologist. Consider short term disruption may be outweighed by long term benefits for setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument.
7.4 Natural England: No objection subject to conditions to protect species and habitat.
7.5 WSCC Landscape: No objection subject to conditions.
7.6 WSCC Drainage: No objection subject to condition requiring submission and approval of surface water drainage scheme.
7.7 WSCC Archaeology: No objection subject to conditions to ensure any excavation below ground level, particularly in vicinity of the Scheduled Ancient Monument, are monitored and findings recorded.
7.8 WSCC Highways: No objection subject to conditions securing single point of access, modification of access, Construction Management Plan and parking and turning on site, as well as informatives regarding need for a S278 agreement to secure any works which may be required in the highway, and signage.
7.9 WSCC Ecology: No objection subject to conditions relating to reptile mitigation, bat mitigation and checking for nesting birds before operations commence, and an informative relating to Natural England licencing requirements.
7.10 Boxgrove Parish Council: Objection raised. Contrary to purposes of National Park, no need for site, potentially adverse environmental impact not adequately demonstrated in submission, HGVs will exacerbate dangerous highway, mud on highway, economic sustainability of proposal, and noise pollution. If approved, have provided conditions they would wish to see imposed.
7.11 South Downs National Park Authority: Raises no objection as consider that the short term landscape and visual harm would be outweighed by the benefits of achieving an appropriate restoration of the site.
8. Representations
8.1 The application was publicised in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (England) 2010). In response to the erection of seven site notices located around the application site, an advertisement in the local newspaper, and 63 notification letters, 29 representations from members of the public/interested third parties were received, all of which opposed the application.
8.2 The main issues raised through objections were: • Increased HGVs on already dangerous road with few footpaths; • No need for restoration; • Impact on existing wildlife at site; • Impact of noise and dust; • Impact of HGVs on capacity of highway; • Doubts over financial feasibility of project; • Inappropriate in a countryside location; and • More appropriate sites for waste activities elsewhere. Agenda Item No. 4
8.3 In addition to the above, the Chichester Society raised no objections, noting that the benefits to the landscape would be greater than the short term disturbance suffered.
9. Consideration of Key Issues
The main material planning considerations are whether the proposal: • Meets an identified need; • Is acceptable in relation to highway capacity and road safety; • Is acceptable in terms of impact on the landscape; • Is acceptable in terms of impact on ecology; • Is acceptable in terms of impact on local amenity and recreation; and • Is economically sustainable.
Need for the Development
9.1 The application proposes the deposit of 555,000 tonnes of inert waste to land to restore Boxgrove Quarry. National planning policy, as set out in PPS10, supports the use of waste as a resource wherever possible, and promotes the movement of waste ‘up the hierarchy’, away from disposal.
9.2 There is, therefore, a need to establish whether the principle of the development is acceptable and would drive the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’, away from disposal, in accordance with PPS 10. The devleopmetn could be considered ‘recovery’ or ‘disposal’ as the deposit of inert waste can be considered both in different circumstances. WLP Policy W9 sets out five criteria against which development is judged to demonstrate whether it is a genuine proposal for the beneficial reuse of inert material and therefore recovery rather than disposal1. If it is recovery, it is considered more favourably both in terms of national planning policy and the WLP. Criteria (a) – (e) of WLP Policy W9 are: “(a) the proposal results in clear benefits for the site and, where possible, the wider area; (b) the material to be used is only residual waste following recycling and/or recovery or it is a waste that cannot be recycled or treated; (c) there is a genuine need to use the waste material as a substitute for a non-waste material that would otherwise have to be used; (d) the material to be reused is suitable for its intended use; (e) the amount of waste material to be used is no more than is necessary to deliver the benefits identified under (a).”
9.3 Considering each criterion in turn, the development is considered to result in clear benefits for the site (criterion (a)) as it would bring forward its
1 Paragraph 6.10.4 of the WLP states: “In considering a proposal for the depositing of inert waste to land, an important consideration is whether the proposal amounts to a ‘recovery’ operation or to a ‘disposal’ operation. Given that recovery is higher up the waste hierarchy, genuine proposals for the beneficial reuse of inert material would, in principle, be considered favourably. Accordingly, proposals for the depositing of inert waste to land will be judged against criterion (a)-(e) in Policy W9 to determine whether they are recovery operations. If a proposal is determined by the Authorities not to be a genuine recovery operation, it will be assessed as a disposal operation against Policy W8.” Agenda Item No. 4 restoration, as well as long term habitat and agricultural use. It would also have wider benefits through the creation of a feature more in keeping with the surrounding landscape than the current ‘alien’ bund feature. The bunds are generally steep sided, and up to five metres in height in an otherwise rolling landscape. Their replacement with a restored feature continuing the contours either side of the quarry is considered to have significant benefits.
9.4 This conclusion accords with the Inspector’s approach set out in the appeal decision regarding the 2010 application (ref. WSCC/029/10/BA - ‘the appeal’) in which he stated:
“The removal of the bund would, in my view, have a short term impact, but would have a significant long term benefit in reintegrating the quarry into the surrounding landscape. With it retained there is no visual benefit and indeed from many aspects of the footpath it is a visible, hard edged, man-made feature that detracts from the character of this landscape.” (paragraph 24 of the decision report – see Appendix 2).
9.5 This is also considered to indicate a genuine need for the development to come forward, regardless of whether the material used was waste or ‘virgin’ aggregate, thereby meeting criterion (c).
9.6 The applicant has indicated that the material to be used would be residual waste in accordance with criteria (b) and (d). It is considered that there is sufficient economic incentive to ensure that this is the case as more money could be made by the operator from selling product on than from using it for site restoration. A condition is proposed to ensure that the restoration material used is wholly inert and uncontaminated. This would be echoed in the Environmental Permitting requirements.
9.7 Finally, it is considered that the amount of material to be used is no more than is necessary to deliver the benefits the restoration would bring (criterion (e)). The proposed landform would make use of existing material on site, reducing the amount of waste required for restoration. It would continue the contours either side of the quarry, creating a feature which is in keeping with its surroundings.
9.8 It is proposed to deposit 555,000 tonnes of inert waste to land over a five year period in order to bring forward the restoration of Boxgrove Quarry. The proposal is considered to be ‘recovery’ rather than ‘deposit’ as, among other things, it would create a landform in keeping with the surrounding landscape, with appropriate material. In doing so it would help to move the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’, away from disposal, in accordance with national planning policy.
Highway Capacity and Road Safety
9.9 The development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day (20 HGVs entering and 20 HGVs leaving the site) over a period of five years.
9.10 A Transport Assessment submitted with the application indicates that this represents an increase in HGVs on the A285 of less than 3%, and in overall traffic of less than 1%. All of these HGVs would travel along the A285, primarily Agenda Item No. 4 to the south-west towards the A27, though it is estimated that 20% would travel north-east from the site. No HGVs are permitted to travel along ‘The Street’ through Balcombe as it is subject to a 7.5 tonne weight limit.
9.11 The increase in HGV movements has been the subject of most of the third party objections to the application, as was the case with the previous, appealed application. In considering the impact it is worth noting that the present scheme proposes fewer HGVs (40 average daily movements instead of 84) so the impact would be significantly less than that considered in the appeal.
9.12 In the appeal decision the Inspector concluded that the access to the site could be established without significant impact on highway safety; that while the A285 through Halnaker did not meet modern safety standards it has traffic management measures in place to address speed; and that while local residents’ concerns regarding increased HGVs were noted, and the increase was likely to be noticeable, on balance there was not likely to be a significant impact on highway safety or a significantly degraded experience for pedestrians (paragraphs 69 and 70 of Appeal Decision (see Appendix 2).
9.13 WSCC’s Highways Officers consider that the development is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on highway capacity or road safety, and have not objected to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions and a S278 agreement.
9.14 It is therefore considered that the HGVs associated with the proposed development would not result in significant impact on highway capacity or safety, and, particularly taking into account the conclusions of the appeal, are not significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.
9.15 In addition to HGVs, three full-time and one part-time employee would travel to and from the site each day, most likely in private cars, although the site is accessible by cycle and public transport. It is considered that this would have negligible impact on the highway network.
9.16 The proposed development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day (20 HGVs entering and leaving the site), a 3% increase in HGVs travelling on the A285. The Inspector did not consider that the previous, appealed application, which had more than twice the HGV movements, would result in significant highway impacts, and no objection has been raised to the present application by WSCC Highways Officers. The proposal is not therefore considered to result in a significant impact on highway capacity or safety and is considered acceptable in highways terms.
Impact on the Landscape
9.17 The development is located in the countryside outside of Chichester. It is not within an area designated for its landscape value, but the site access is immediately opposite the southern extent of South Downs National Park. The development therefore has the potential to impact on the setting of the National Park, as well as the wider countryside, as a result of the final landform and during both the construction phase.
9.18 In terms of the landform, as previously noted, it is considered that the long term impact would be positive as the restored site would be more in keeping with the topography of the surrounding area. It would also have additional Agenda Item No. 4 landscape benefits in terms of woodland planting and the provision of wildlife areas.
9.19 There would be temporary landscape impacts during the construction period, primarily through HGVs travelling across open countryside. However, this has been reduced in the present scheme, over the appealed scheme, as the haulage road has been reduced in length to take a more direct route into the quarry, and the separate recycling site removed from the proposal. The internal part of the quarry, including the waste processing operations, would be exposed during the development as the bunds are removed, but the impact of this would be minimised through a number of measures including prolonging bund retention until the end of the phased works, advance tree planting, and retention of existing vegetation outside the quarry bunds.
9.20 A legal agreement is proposed to secure planting proposed outside of the red line boundary, east of the proposed weighbridge and office, and north of the haul road (see ‘woodland planted at start of development’, shown on Appendix 6: Restoration Strategy).
9.21 The South Downs National Park Authority, as a neighbouring authority, agrees that the short term construction impacts on the Park would be outweighed by the long term benefits of achieving an appropriate restoration of the site.
9.22 It is considered that overall, the development would have a positive impact on the landscape, including South Downs National Park, and that the long term benefits of the proposal would outweigh the temporary impacts during the five year infilling operation.
9.23 The proposed development would have temporary impacts on the landscape through HGVs travelling across open countryside to and from the site, and through exposing the internal quarry operations when bunds are removed. However, these adverse impacts are considered to be outweighed by the long term benefits of the site restoration which would remove the alien bund features and provide a landform more in keeping with the rolling countryside surrounding the site. Further, advance planting is proposed to help screen the impact of the HGVs in the open countryside. South Downs National Park Authority considers that the development would not be contrary to their purposes and principles, and the short term adverse impacts would be outweighed by the long term benefits. Overall, therefore, the development is considered to be beneficial in landscape terms.
Impact on Ecology
9.24 The development has the potential to result in impacts on ecology, primarily through the disturbance of the quarry which has begun to regenerate.
9.25 It was considered in the appeal decision that in ecological terms the benefits of the proposal were fairly balanced against the loss of existing biodiversity features. Regenerating habitats have value, but the Inspector concluded that:
“In this case, while the habitat that is naturally regenerating may come to be of increasing value, especially if inappropriate uses do not degrade it, I do not consider that a proposal to restore the site, either as currently approved or as proposed, would be harmful in the longer term. The habitats, although they Agenda Item No. 4 would be different, would also have value and this could further be supported in terms of the landscape character benefits that could arise were a suitable restoration scheme to be delivered.
9.26 It is considered that these conclusions can be echoed in relation to the present application. The development would bring forward different habitat to that which has come forward naturally at the site. In ecological terms it is considered that the development would therefore be acceptable, if not necessarily beneficial overall. Around half of the restored site would be put to woodland, scrub, ponds, wetlands and other habitat which, along with the less valuable pasture/equicultural, would help to mitigate the loss of existing habitat.
9.27 It is considered by the County Ecologist that potential impacts on biodiversity during the construction period could be satisfactorily mitigated through the imposition of conditions.
9.28 Overall, therefore, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of its potential impact on ecology.
9.29 The development would result in the loss of ecological features on the quarry site which have emerged as it has naturally regenerated. However, it is considered that the inclusion in of woodland, wetland and other habitat in the proposed restoration scheme would help to off-set any impacts, and the imposition of conditions controlling construction would mitigate adverse impacts during the restoration. Overall therefor it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of potential ecological impact.
Local Amenity and Recreation
9.30 The development has the potential to result in impacts on local amenity and the amenity of Public Right of Way (PROW) users through noise and dust resulting from the waste processing operations, and HGV movements. There are dwellings within 50 metres of the quarry, and Tinwood Lane and a Public Right of Way extending around the southern boundary of the quarry.
9.31 The potential adverse impacts on amenity and recreation resulting from the development would be solely related to the construction phase as after this the site would be put to agricultural/equicultural use and woodland/habitat.
9.32 It is considered that the potential for significant dust impacts is limited as the processing activity would be entirely within the former quarry, and the HGV route would be distant from houses and PROWs. A wheel wash would be in place to minimise dust and mud being transported onto the highway. No concerns have been raised by Environmental Health Officers in relation to dust emissions.
9.33 It is considered that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement are sufficient to ensure the potential for dust impacts is minimised. A condition is therefore proposed requiring that these measures are implemented throughout the restoration phase.
9.34 With regards to noise impacts, the Environmental Statement concludes that noise levels are unlikely to exceed 55dB. However, there is the potential for Agenda Item No. 4 substantial impacts at Tinwood House (closest to the quarry) and Ounces Barn (in business use) on Saturday mornings, and moderate impacts at these and other receptors at other times through an increase in background noise levels by more than 10dB.
9.35 The Environmental Health Officer has recommended that a number of conditions are added to the planning permission, should it be forthcoming. The conditions require that given noise levels are not exceeded in agreed locations, works do not take place on Saturdays in areas with line of sight to residential properties within 150 metres, only broadband reversing alarms are used, and silencing measures are fitted on plant.
9.36 It is considered that with the imposition of these conditions the development would be acceptable in planning terms, and in terms of noise impacts, subject to the imposition of the conditions set out above.
9.37 The development has the potential to adversely affect residents and Public Right of Way users during the construction phase as a result of dust and noise emissions. There is a dwelling within 50 metres of the quarry, and Tinwood Lane and a Public Right of Way extending along the southern boundary of the quarry. However, it is considered that the potential for significant dust impacts is limited, and can be adequately controlled through good site management, required by condition. Noise impacts have the potential to be significant, so it is proposed to add conditions setting maximum noise levels, and other measures including requiring the use of silencing measures on plant, and allowing only broadband reversing alarms. Subject to these controls it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of its potential impact on local amenity and recreation.
Economic Sustainability
9.38 The NPPF Technical Guidance notes: “Responsibility for the restoration and aftercare lies with the operator and, in the case of default, with the landowner. Applicants should, therefore, demonstrate with their applications what the likely financial and material budgets for restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be, and how they propose to make provision for such work during the operational life of the site.”
9.39 The NPPF Technical Guidance makes it clear that financial guarantees will be reasonable only in exceptional cases.
9.40 In response to these requirements, the applicant contends that they are considerations relating to a new mineral extraction operation, requiring that funds are put aside for restoration (see Appendix 7 – Applicant’s Response to Viability Issues). They consider the situation is different at Boxgrove Quarry where the application entirely relates to restoration without extraction. They also note that the Environmental Permitting process provides reassurance as it “requires applicants to demonstrate adequate provisions have been made for financial security of the operations.”
9.41 With regards to the NPPF Technical Guidance applying only to new mineral operations, it is considered that this is not the case, and that it relates to restoration, however it has come about. Further, in taking on a restoration site Agenda Item No. 4 the operator has taken over responsibility for the minerals site, albeit only at the end stage.
9.42 With regards to Environmental Permitting, it is the case that operators are required to demonstrate that they are financially capable of complying with the Permit. However, Environment Agency guidance notes that “regulators should only consider financial solvency explicitly in cases they have reason to doubt the financial viability of the activity.” (paragraph 9.22, Environmental Permitting Guidance, revised March 2013). Assuming that the operator will be applying for an Environmental Permit for recovery, rather than landfill, there is not considered to be significant financial reassurance provided by the Environmental Permitting process.
9.43 On balance it is considered that, as set out in the applicant’s response, it is in the operator’s interest to restore the site to a useable state, and that they have demonstrated their commitment to the project by their investment to date in both the land and planning process. It is considered that this investment indicates that they consider the project is financially viable. Further, it is also considered that the County Council has sufficient mechanisms through the planning process to ensure that restoration is completed, and that it is done to an agreed standard.
9.44 The NPPF Technical Guidance requires applicants to demonstrate that there is financial provision for restoration. The applicant has reassured the Council that it is in their interests to complete the work, and that they have demonstrated their commitment to date through investment in the land and in the planning process. Further, it is in their interest to complete the work so that they can hand the site back to the owner. On balance, it is considered that the applicant’s investment in the process to date indicates it is financially viable, and that there are sufficient mechanisms through the planning process so ensure that restoration is completed, to an agreed standard.
10. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation
10.1 The proposed development proposes to restore Boxgrove Quarry using imported inert waste, and seeks to address the issues set out in the appeal decision relating to a previous restoration proposal. It is considered that the proposal would deliver a recovery, rather than disposal, project for the deposit of inert waste, thereby moving the management of waste ‘up the hierarchy’. It would bring forward a site restoration which would improve the appearance of the site and surrounding area by creating a feature in keeping with the rolling countryside, rather than existing steep-sided bunds. It would use the minimum amount of waste required for the development by using material already on site.
10.2 While there would be a loss of regenerated habitat within the quarry, it is considered that on balance this would be outweighed by the benefits to the landscape of the area, as well as the provision of habitat on site. The development would result in an average of 40 HGV movements each day, but this is not considered to result in impacts on highway safety or capacity, or to result in a significant loss of residential amenity. Potential impacts on residential amenity and the amenity of PROW users could be satisfactorily controlled through the imposition of conditions. The financial viability of the project is, on balance, considered to have been demonstrated by the operator’s Agenda Item No. 4 commitment to bringing it forward, and planning mechanisms can ensure that the project is satisfactorily completed.
10.3 In determining the application the County Council has, through consultation with the appropriate statutory bodies and having regard to the Development plan, emerging waste policies and all other material considerations, considered the objectives of protection of human health and the environment and the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity as required by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.
10.4 It is recommended, therefore, that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of this report, as well as a legal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure planting beyond the application site boundary.
11. Resource Implications and Value for Money 11.1 This is not a material planning consideration and cannot therefore be considered in determining this application. There will be no requirement for additional resources unless the decision is challenged and there is a requirement to defend the County Council’s position at any subsequent appeal.
12. Equality Duty 12.1 An Equality Impact Report has been undertaken and is attached as an Appendix.
12.2 The EIR required in relation to this proposal concluded that the development would not adversely affect those with ‘protected characteristics’.
13. Risk Management Implications 13.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If this is not done, any decision could be susceptible to an application for Judicial Review.
14. Crime and Disorder Act Implications
14.1 This decision has no implications in relation to crime and disorder.
15. Human Rights Act Implications
15.1 The Human Rights Act requires the County Council to take into account the rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of (inter alia) public safety and the economic wellbeing of the country. Article 1 of protocol 1 provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.
15.2 For an interference with these rights to be justifiable the interference (and the means employed) needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. Agenda Item No. 4 The main body of this report identifies the extent to which there is any identifiable interference with these rights. The Planning Considerations identified are also relevant in deciding whether any interference is proportionate. Case law has been decided which indicates that certain development does interfere with an individual’s rights under Human Rights legislation. This application has been considered in the light of statute and case law and the interference is not considered to be disproportionate.
15.3 The Committee should also be aware of Article 6, the focus of which (for the purpose of this committee) is the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 provides that in the determination of these rights, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 has been subject to a great deal of case law. It has been decided that for planning matters the decision making process as a whole, which includes the right of review by the High Court, complied with Article 6.
Sue Hawker Michael Elkington
Director of Communities Commissioning Strategic Planning Manager
Contact: Jane Moseley, Principal Planner, 0333022 26948.
Background Papers: As set out in Section 6.
Background Papers As set out in Section 6.
List of Appendices Appendix 1 - Conditions and Informatives Appendix 2 – Appeal Decision Appendix 3 – Site Location Plan Appendix 4 – Site Boundary Plan Appendix 5 – Phasing Plan Appendix 6 – Restoration Strategy Appendix 7 – Applicant’s Response to Viability Issue
Contact: Jane Moseley, Principal Planner, 0333022 26948. Agenda Item No. 4 Appendix 1: Conditions and Informatives
1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Prior written notification of the commencement of the development shall be provided to the County Planning Authority no less than seven days before such commencement.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The use of the site for the deposit of waste shall cease on or before five years from the date of the commencement of development by which time all buildings, plant, machinery, and hardstanding shall be removed and the site shall have been restored in accordance with the scheme agreed in relation to condition 12.
Reason: to minimise the duration of disturbance and to secure a satisfactory restoration of the site.
Approved Plans and Documents 3. The development hereby permitted shall not take place other than in accordance with the particulars of the application, the approved plans and documents: • Application and Ownership Boundary (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/01C). • Site Drainage Plan (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/03A); • Restoration Phasing Sequence (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/04); • Site Office Elevations (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/07); • Waste Reception Area (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/08); • Haul Road Design (drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/10); • Haul Road Design Cross Sections(drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/11); • Restoration Strategy (drawing A080117 L01-1.cdr); • Visibility Splays (drawing 1.006/2 Rev B);
and supporting information, save as varied by the conditions hereafter.
Reason: To secure a satisfactory development.
Prior to Commencement
4. Prior to the infilling of the site commencing, the proposed vehicular modified access to the A285 shall be designed/constructed and provided with visibility zones, in accordance with DM Mason plan 1.006/2 revision B. Once constructed, the access shall be permanently maintained for the duration of the works and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, scheme(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority showing: • Temporary signage onto the A285; and Agenda Item No. 4 • Areas for site operatives' and visitors' cars to be parked and for the loading and unloading of goods vehicles, and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.
The approved scheme shall be implemented in full. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of: i) Public Safety, Amenity and Site Security ii) Operating Hours, Noise and Vibration Controls iii) Stormwater and Sediment Control v) Waste and Materials Reuse vi) Traffic Management including routing of large vehicles.
Thereafter, the approved Construction Management Plan shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and local residential and rural amenity.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a quantitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved HRA and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect water quality and ensure compliance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a surface water drainage scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall incorporate sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development and shall include: • Design for 1:100yr return period plus inclusion of 30% peak run-off and 20% additional volume for climate change. • Infiltration rates and groundwater levels shall be determined by site investigation and/or testing during the winter period. • Inclusion of a suitable freeboard above the seasonal high groundwater table (minimum 1m unless otherwise agreed by the Local Council’s engineers). • Consideration of overland flows (pluvial impact). • Inclusion of pollution/siltation control measures.
Thereafter the approved surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality and improve habitat and amenity.
Agenda Item No. 4 9. Prior to the commencement of the development, a quantitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved HRA and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing by the county planning authority.
Reason: To protect water quality and ensure compliance with PPS23.
10. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority setting out monitoring, recording and reporting by an archaeologist/geoarchaeologist of geoarchaeological features exposed through bund removal, haul road creation, the drilling of any new/replacement site investigation or monitoring boreholes and test pits, and the excavation of drainage features in the southern and western and eastern edges of the quarry. Once approved, the scheme shall be adhered to until the completion of the development.
Reason: In the interests of recording features of the archaeological and geoarchaeological historic environment where affected during the course of development.
11. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority showing details of the location and type of any fencing to be installed around the site during the infill process. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Reason: to ensure that the impact of fences on the surrounding landscape and PROWs is controlled.
12. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit a scheme for approval in writing by the County Planning Authority detailing the establishment of a local liaison group to include representation from the site operator, WSCC and local residents. The scheme shall include its objectives, membership, frequency and location of meetings and arrangements for the publication of minutes. Liaison group meetings shall be held in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of the local amenities of the area.
13. Prior to the importation of any soils, marker posts and profile boards relating to ordnance datum shall be placed around the site at 25 metres intervals to indicate the extent of the tipping operations and the finished contours identified in the restoration scheme pursuant to Condition 12. The posts shall be retained in place for the full duration of the tipping phase and grading operations and shall be replaced within seven days if they are removed or damaged at any time. The marker posts and profile boards shall not be removed until the finished levels have been approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
Reason: To guide filling operations and to ensure a satisfactory restoration of the site.
14. Prior to the commencement of development a restoration and aftercare scheme relating to the former quarry and haul roads shall be submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall indicate: Agenda Item No. 4 • the phasing of progressive restoration of the quarry on at least a yearly basis, including levels above ordnance datum; • details of site drainage (in relation to the quarry, for each phase); • details of the top layers of fill including depths; • details of seeding, planting and subsequent aftercare of the restored land including the species and spacing of any plants/trees; • details of the site’s aftercare for at least five years after the completed restoration. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: To secure a satisfactory restoration of the site.
15. No development shall commence until tree protective fencing has been erected on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (Section 2 of the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement by Barrell Tree Consultancy dated 11 June 2013, ref. 13144-AIA-EA). The measures set ou in the Statement shall be implemented in full throughout the course of the development hereby approved. Reason: in the interests of retaining existing trees within the site. Within Three Months of Commencement
16. Within 3 months of the commencement of the development a Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval. The Landscape Plan should include: a detailed plan showing accurate locations of existing and proposed vegetation; a landscape schedule detailing planting species and mixes; and landscape specification, in accordance with the National Plant Specification and relevant British Standards. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Reason: to minimise the impact of the development on the appearance of the area.
17. Within 3 months of the commencement of the development a Landscape and Restoration Management Plan (LRAMP) shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval. The LRAMP shall set out establishment and maintenance operations to be carried out over a five year period after restoration, together with the management objectives for each vegetation and habitat type. It shall include a plan showing hedgerows and permanent fencing for the area of the site to be used for grazing. The management objectives should seek to provide connectivity across the site and to link with ecological networks beyond it. Once approved the LRAMP shall be implemented in full.
Reason: to ensure the site restoration is adequate.
Ongoing
18. Topographical survey plans shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority by 31 July of each year from the commencement of the development showing accurate levels above ordnance datum of the restoration site. The survey shall have been undertaken no more than 1 month prior to submission.
Agenda Item No. 4 Reason: In order that the County Planning Authority can monitor the progress of restoration.
Upon Completion
19. All reptile mitigation, including the use of exclusion fencing, translocation and habitat creation, must be carried out as described in the Reptile Mitigation Method Statement (WYG, 2013). Upon completion of the scheme a final report detailing how all elements of the proposed mitigation were implemented shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.
Reason: To secure the safety and long term conservation status of protected reptile species
Hours of Operation
20. No operations authorised or required under this permission shall take place except between the hours of: • 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday inclusive; and • 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays. There shall be no operations on Sundays or Public or Bank Holidays. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the locality and to minimise disturbance arising from the activity.
Highways/Traffic
21. No access to the site shall be made for or used by road traffic to the site other than through the the approved temporary access point on the A285, as shown on drawing IRL/A080177/PLA/01C, and via the internal haul road shown on that drawing.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Ecology
22. All bat mitigation, including climbed inspections by a licenced bat ecologist and soft felling of a small number of trees with some potential to support roosting bats (7 ‘Category 1’ trees) and the erection of bat boxes, must be carried out as described in the Method Statement (WYG, 2013) unless agreed otherwise with WSCC. Should any trees be found to support a bat roost, a European Protected Species licence will need to be obtained from Natural England.
Reason: To secure the safety and long term conservation status of protected bat species.
23. No removal of trees, shrubs, hedgerows or brambles shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless: • A competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds’ nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared; and • Written confirmation of this work is provided to the County Planning Authority, confirming that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are Agenda Item No. 4 appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site; and • The County Planning Authority subsequently approves, in writing, the removal of trees, shrubs, hedgerows or brambles.
Reason: To ensure protection of breeding birds.
Operational Conditions
24. Waste processing shall not take place other than within the environs of the former quarry.
Reason: in the interests of local amenity and the environment.
25. The dust mitigation measures set out in paragraph 10.6.2 of the Environmental Statement shall be implemented throughout the development hereby approved.
Reason: to minimise the impact on residents and the environment.
26. Noise levels shall be monitored at three monthly intervals from the date of the commencement of development at the closest residential facades at Tinwood House/Keeper’s Cottage/the Folly, Ounces Barn, Halnaker Barn Farm, and Oakford Park to the quarry. The results of the monitoring shall include LA90 and LAeq noise levels, the prevailing weather conditions, details and calibration of the equipment used for measurement and comments on other sources of noise which affect the noise climate. The monitoring shall be carried out for at least 2 separate durations during the working day and the results shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority within 1 month of the monitoring being carried out. If the results indicate that the noise levels exceed those set out in Condition 25, a Noise Mitigation Scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority within one week of the noise monitoring results being submitted.
Reason: to minimise the impact on residents and the environment.
27. The ambient noise level resulting from the operations shall not exceed 55dB LAeq, 1 hour (free-field) at any time, as measured at Tinwood House/Keeper’s Cottage/the Folly, Ounces Barn, Halnaker Barn Farm, and at the closest point of Oakford Park to the quarry. The LAeq, 1 hour (free-field) noise level shall not exceed the existing LA90, 1 hour noise level for the area (as referred to in Table 11.3 of the ES) by more than 10dB at the monitoring points referred to above.
Reason: to ensure noise emissions from the site do not result in unacceptable impacts on sensitive receptors.
28. Restoration works which have a line of sight to residential receptors and are within 150 metres of them shall not be undertaken on Saturdays.
Reason: to protect residential amenity.
29. Any liquid stored on the site other than water shall be stored in suitable tanks and containers which shall be housed in an area surrounded by bund walls of sufficient height and construction so as to contain 110% of the total contents of all containers and associated pipework. The floor and walls of the bunded areas Agenda Item No. 4 shall be impervious to both water and oil. Pipes shall vent downwards into the bund.
Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution to watercourses.
30. Only clean uncontaminated soils and inert waste materials shall be imported onto the application site. Any materials which are found to be contaminated or are non-inert must be stored in containers on the site and removed from the site within 24 hours. Reason: In the interests of the amenity value of the local environment
31. No plant or machinery shall be operated on the site unless fitted with silencing equipment to a standard not less than the manufacturers standard (UK) specification for such equipment; and that the best practicable (UK) environmental standards of operation and equipment are used on site to control emissions at all times..
Reason: To control and minimise the impact of noise, toxic emissions and odour from the site on both the local environment and local amenity.
32. No lighting or floodlighting shall be used on the site without the prior written approval of the County Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the nuisance and disturbances to neighbours and the surrounding area, and in the interests of highway safety.
Restoration
33. In the event of the cessation of the delivery of waste to the site for a period of six months, a scheme for the rehabilitation of the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority within two months. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site.
Informatives A) The applicant is advised of the need to enter into an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to provide signage within the highway network. The signage required is that set out in TSRGD Diagram 7305 (opposite the proposed access to the A285 junction), combined with advance warning signing to TSRGD Diagram 7306 or 7307 at appropriate distances from the junction on the A285 and other suitable signing which shall be designed and constructed in liaison with the local highway authority. All signage shall be permanently maintained during the period of any planning consent. B) If it is the applicant’s intention to carry out any of the roadworks included in the application so that they affect maintainable highways, permission under the Town and Country Planning Act should not be construed as approval to the highway engineering details necessary for inclusion in an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act. C) The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be Agenda Item No. 4 obtained from the Highway Authority Local Transportation Service before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. D) The applicant is advised that Public Footpath Number 3575 is adjacent to the application site and it is an offence to obstruct or divert the route of a right of way unless carried out in complete accordance with appropriate legislation. E) The applicant is advised to read the Environment Agency’s consultation response dated 27 January 2014. F) In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
G) Should any trees be found to support a bat roost, a European Protected Species licence will need to be obtained from Natural England.