Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director, Environment & Economy

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 8 December 2014

Subject: County Matter Application - (E)N199/2021/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought by Welton Aggregates Limited (Agent: Hughes Craven Limited) for the restoration of the southern section of the quarry to an agricultural afteruse using quarry fines and soils screened from existing on-site materials at Highfield Quarry, A1028 (Bluestone Heath Road), Welton le Marsh, . A significant volume of imported construction, demolition and excavation (C, D and E) wastes are already present within the quarry and these are located outside the existing authorised storage and processing areas associated with the permitted waste recycling operations. The applicant states that the presence of these imported wastes poses a significant barrier not only to the working of consented mineral reserves which remain within this part of the quarry but also the progressive restoration of the site. The applicant proposes that these C, D and E wastes (as well as mineral wastes within the site) be relocated and processed in a number of phases with recoverable materials such as brick, concrete and other aggregate products being exported as a secondary aggregate. Recovered soils and materials not suitable for sale (or which have a limited market) would be retained and landfilled within a defined area of the site in order to facilitate its restoration to an agricultural after-use. The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application is whether the proposed development is appropriate in waste planning policy terms and whether it would give rise to any unacceptable adverse environmental, traffic or amenity impacts.

Recommendation: Following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Background

1. Highfield Quarry is a historic and active chalk quarry. The first permission was granted in January 1948 under an Interim Development Order (IDO). This permission covers the north-western section of the quarry and can be separated into two areas. The southernmost of these areas has been partially worked whilst the northern area remains in agricultural use. Under the provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, new conditions were approved for this permission in January 2010 (ref: (E)S199/1904/02). Conditions attached to this permission do not allow for the use of imported materials in the restoration of the site and the restoration design secured by this permission involves the creation of calcareous grassland using mineral wastes derived from on-site (i.e. chalk fines) and the retention of quarry faces for geological conservation/interest.

2. A further area of mineral extraction in the southern area of the quarry is permitted by a permission first granted in 1954 and in September 1997 new conditions for this area were agreed under the provisions of Environment Act 1995 (ref: (E)S199/0913/97). The bulk of the reserves within this part of the site have been worked out and again conditions attached to this permission do not allow for the use of imported materials in the restoration of the site. The land subject of the current proposal/application lies within this permission area and the waste materials identified to be processed and deposited within the site currently occupy the majority of this part of the site.

3. In addition to the mineral extraction operations/permissions, a number of further operations/activities are undertaken at the site and a series of planning permissions for these operations/activities have been granted over the last 15 years. A summary of those consented operations/activities relevant to this current application are summarised as follows:

 (E)S199/0667/99 – granted on appeal in 1999 for the use of existing crushing facilities for the crushing and screening of imported concrete and brick for recycling as aggregate.

 (E)S199/0575/10 – granted in May 2010 to enlarge and relocate the existing recycling area and to broaden the range of materials accepted from concrete and brick to general construction and demolition wastes. This planning permission limited the capacity of the recycling facility to a total tonnage of waste not exceeding 25,000 tonnes per annum.

 (E)N199/2496/12 – granted in April 2013 to locate a wash plant within the recycling area authorised by permission (E)S199/0575/10 for use in connection with the recycling operations and the construction of a number of recycled product stocking bays. This permission again limited the total tonnage of wastes to be handled by the wash plant and existing recycling facility to no more than 25,000 tonnes per annum.

 (E)N199/0184/14 – granted in April 2014 for an additional stocking area for use in conjunction with the permitted waste recycling activities.  (E)N199/01519/14 – resolved to be granted for the relocation of the proposed wash plant (consented by permission (E)N199/2496/12) to a new position within the site. Planning permission has yet to be issued as this decision is subject to the applicant completing a legal agreement (S106 Planning Obligation) which would revoke planning permission (E)N199/2496/12 so as to ensure that only one wash plant could be operated at the site.

The Application

4. Planning permission is sought for the permanent deposition and use of residual imported wastes and recovered soils in order to help facilitate and restore part of Highfield Quarry (approximately 3ha) to an agricultural after- use. A significant volume of imported waste materials are already present within the quarry and these are located outside the existing authorised storage and processing areas associated with the permitted waste recycling operations. The applicant states that the presence of these imported wastes poses a significant barrier not only to the working of consented mineral reserves which remain within this part of the quarry but also the progressive restoration of the site. The applicant states that prior to making this application, a number of potential alternative options were considered in order to address this situation and these included:

Option 1: Removing the historically imported material to landfill; Option 2: The processing of the material and off-site sale of the resultant range of recycled products (i.e. soils and aggregates); Option 3: Landfilling the imported materials directly on site to achieve the early restoration of the quarry.

5. Option 1 was discounted by the applicant as they felt it would involve the removal, transport and re-tipping of material at consented landfill sites elsewhere and would generate a significant level of vehicle movements leading to unnecessary environmental impacts. The deposit of the unprocessed wastes to landfill was also considered to be contrary to both local and national planning policy as it would lead to the depletion of available landfill void space and was therefore considered to be the least favourable option on economic, environmental and policy grounds.

6. Option 2 was also discounted as although the processing of the waste materials would enable a range of recycled products to be recovered, given the nature of the markets for aggregates and soils in the area, the applicant did not consider it realistic to process and remove all the materials within a reasonable timeframe, especially the finer soil fractions which have a limited market. The applicant therefore considered it unlikely that all such materials could be successfully marketed and taken off site without significantly delaying the restoration of the quarry.

7. Option 3 was also discounted by the applicant as the use of such materials in the restoration of the site without recovering any potentially recyclable elements is considered to be against both the principles of sustainability and waste planning policy.

8. The applicant states that none of the above options are considered to achieve a satisfactory solution, however, a combination of Options 2 and 3 would allow for the recovery and sale of the more desirable aggregate fractions derived from the wastes whilst the less easily marketable soils could be retained and used to aid the restoration of the site. This application therefore proposes that the imported waste materials already on site be processed and screened as part of the consented waste recycling operations with any residual unsaleable wastes and recovered soils (along with chalk fines derived from the mineral extraction operations) being deposited so as to facilitate the restoration of part of the quarry to an agricultural after-use. The applicant argues that there is an on-going requirement for arable land within the County and that the restoration of part of the quarry to agriculture would therefore meet this need and also helps to offset the loss of arable land as the quarry expands into its existing consented areas. Specific planning permission is required for the landfilling and use of wastes in the restoration of the quarry as planning conditions attached to the mineral permissions and consented waste recycling operations prevent the permanent deposit and use of imported wastes in the restoration of the site.

Phasing and Operational Details

9. The materials are located within four broad locations within the quarry (Areas A, B, C and D on Drawing No. 151-1-17 below) and the applicant proposes that these be worked in a phased manner with the works being completed within seven years from commencement.

Existing Site Layout

Phase 1 (Year 1)

10. During this phase existing chalk fines along with an additional 35,000m3 of chalk fines present within Area A would be re-profiled to create a landform ready for restoration. Once the principal landforming works have been completed, approximately 15,000m3 of C, D and E wastes from within Area C would be processed and screened to produce approximately 10,000m3 of recovered aggregates and around 5,000m3 of recovered soils. The recovered aggregates would be taken off site for sale whilst the recovered soils, along with a further 3,000m3 taken from a screening bund along the south-western boundary of the quarry, would be retained and used to re-soil and restore around 0.4ha of the site. It is anticipated that this phase would take one year to complete.

Phase 2 (Years 2 and 3)

11. During this phase, 38,000m3 C, D and E waste materials from within Area D would be screened and processed to produce approximately 21,000m3 of recovered aggregates and around 17,000m3 of recovered soils. The recovered aggregates would again be taken off site with the recovered soils being used to re-soil and restore a 0.85ha area of the landform created during Phase 1.

12. In order to access consented mineral reserves remaining within Area A, up to 40,000m3 of chalk fines would also be relocated and used to create and extend the restored landform during this phase. It is anticipated that this phase would take two years to complete.

Phase 1 and 2 Plan

Phase 3 (Year 4)

13. During this phase, the remaining 17,000m3 of C, D and E wastes from within the south-eastern corner of Area D would be processed and screened to produce around 9,500m3 of recovered aggregates and 7,500m3 of recovered soils. The recovered aggregates would be taken off site with the recovered soils being used to re-soil and restore a 0.3ha area of land created by the deposit of chalk fines during Phase 2. The restored landform would be created by relocating a further 70,000m3 (105,000 tonnes) of chalk fines from Area A and these would be deposited so as to bring the levels to within the 2m of the final finished level. It is anticipated that this phase would take around one year to complete.

Phase 4 (Years 5 to 7)

14. During the final phase, 60,000m3 of materials from within Area C would be processed and screened which would reduce the height of this area by an average of 3-4 metres and significantly reduce the volume of imported wastes overlying the consented chalk reserves. It is estimated that approximately 39,000m3 of recovered aggregates and around 20-22,000m3 of soils would be recovered. The recovered aggregates would be taken off site and sold whilst the recovered soils would be used to re-soil 1.1ha of the restored landform. It is anticipated that this phase would take around three years to complete.

Phase 3 and 4

Restoration and Aftercare Proposals

15. It is clear from the above that the restored landform would principally be created through the use of consented chalk fines with the recovered aggregates (totalling approximately 79,500m3 or 127,000 tonnes) being taken off site and sold as recycled products on the open market. The soils (totalling approximately 52-54,500m3 or 77-79,750 tonnes) would be spread over the application site to a depth of no more than 2m with the topmost metre being comprised of friable soils suitable for supporting agricultural production. Areas of calcareous grassland would, however, also be established around the base of the quarry faces that are to be retained as part of the overall restoration scheme.

16. Following the completion of the restoration works a five year period of aftercare would be implemented in order to maintain the site an ensure the effective establishment of the restoration landscape.

Overall Restoration Design

Traffic Implications

17. Over the course of the development the applicant estimates that in the region of 125,000-130,000 tonnes of aggregates would be recovered as a result of the screening operations equating to an average production rate of 17,500-18,000 tonnes per annum. In terms of traffic movements this would equate to less than 1,000 HGV loads per annum which is around 20 loads per week or 3-4 HGVs per day.

18. In further correspondence received from the applicant during the consideration of this application, the applicant argues that if the residual soils that are proposed to be landfilled at the site were also required to be removed then this would generate between 8,300-8,700 two-way HGV movements (4,150-4,350 loads) over the course of the development. If these materials were required to travel to alternative existing landfill sites such as those at and Boston, then this additional traffic would exacerbate already problematic bottlenecks in the towns of Boston and and would lead to between 260,000 and 340,000 of additional vehicle kilometres being travelled unnecessarily. It is therefore argued that it would be unsustainable to require the residual soils to be removed from the site and by not requiring these materials to also be removed not only avoids unnecessary onward transport but also preserves consented landfill capacity elsewhere in the County. Finally, it is also argued that as the materials are currently present at Highfield Quarry then the processing of these materials using existing on site consented technologies is also wholly in compliance with the proximity principle.

Site and Surroundings

19. Highfield Quarry is situated between the villages of Welton-le-Marsh and , some 12km north-west of , and lies within the Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The quarry is bordered to the south-west by the A1028 (Bluestone Heath Road), to the north-east by Welton High Wood (a Local Wildlife Site) and to the north-west and south-east by agricultural land. A former petrol filling station and two dwellings lie to the south with a further residential dwelling and site office associated with the quarry lying to the north-west.

20. The application site extends to 3ha and lies within the southern, worked out section of the quarry. All significant mineral reserves within this area have been worked out although a limited quantity of mineral exists along the north western boundary. The quarry itself (and the application site) is well screened with mature, hawthorn dominated hedgerows along the south- western and south-eastern boundaries which limit views into the site from the A1028 and the nearby residential properties. A combination of the existing soft landscaping and topography serve to limit views from the north and north-west.

21. Access to the quarry is gained directly off the A1028 with the area immediately adjoining the road accommodating staff and visitor car parking, weighbridge and associated office. An internal haul road runs northwards from the site entrance down into the main quarry where an area of hardstanding has been constructed which accommodates a variety of ancillary and consented operations including the concrete batching plant, workshop/storage buildings, wash plant and product stocking bays. A second internal haul road provides access to the application site and extends from the site main internal haul road.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

22. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for . Whilst it does not contain specific waste policies which are addressed in National Waste Policy documents, paragraph 5 states Waste Planning Authorities should still have regard to relevant policies in the NPPF. The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and adopts a presumption in favour of sustainable development. A number of paragraphs of the NPPF are of particular relevance to this application:

Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, including through the prevention of pollution.

Paragraph 115 states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and also emphasises the importance of the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage in these areas.

Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

 the need for the development and the impact of refusing it on the local economy;  the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area or meeting the need in some other way; and  any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities and the extent to which that could be moderated.

Paragraph 118 states, amongst other things, that when determining applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles. In particular, opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.

Paragraph 120 seeks to protect general amenities and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location and that any effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity should be taken into account.

Paragraph 122 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

Paragraph 123 states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Decisions should also aim to mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 state that local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicant to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Paragraphs 215 and 216 state that 12 months after the publication of the NPPF (March 2012) due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given). This is of relevance to the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan 1991, Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 and Local Plan Alteration 1999.

23. The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (October 2014) sets out the Government’s detailed waste planning policies for England. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and should be read in conjunction with the NPPF. The NPPW provides the planning framework to enable local authorities to put forward, through local waste management plans, strategies that identify sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced facilities to meet the waste management needs of their areas.

Paragraph 7 sets out a range of issues and criteria that should be taken into account when determining planning applications for new or enhanced waste management facilities which includes:

 only expecting applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan. Applicants should be expected to demonstrate that waste disposal facilities not in line with the Local Plan will not undermine the objectives of the Local Plan through prejudicing the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy;  consider the likely impacts of a facility on the local environment and on amenity;  ensure facilities are well-designed so they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area they are located;  focus on implementing the planning strategy in the Local Plan and not with the control of the processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced;  ensure that land raising or landfill sites are restored to beneficial after uses at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions as necessary.

Appendix B also sets out the locational criteria which must be considered in relation to the suitability of proposed sites. Of particular relevance to this application are the issues relating to landscape and visual intrusion, nature conservation, traffic and access, air emissions (including dust), noise, light and vibration and potential land-use conflict.

Adopted Local Plan Context

24. Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 (WLP) - the following policies are of relevance to this proposal and should be given due weight in the determination of this application.

Policy WLP1 (Objective of the Plan) states that waste management proposals shall be considered in relation to their contribution towards the waste management hierarchy and assessed in terms of their accordance with the proximity principle, regional self-sufficiency, waste planning policies and their compatibility with neighbouring land uses and any environmental implications of the development on its setting.

Policy WLP13 (Landfill/Landraising) states that proposals for new landfill or landraise will be permitted if the available void space in the proximity of the waste source to be serviced by the site falls below 10 years at projected disposal rates, except where inert landfill represents the most satisfactory method of restoration. It would be expected that facilities for recycling will be made available on site if appropriate. Such proposals would have to meet the criteria set out in Policy WLP21.

A supporting paragraph to this policy recognises that some inert materials are of beneficial use for site reclamation. However, it goes on to state that a balance has to be drawn and operators should be encouraged to take measures that ensure the amount of inert waste tipped is kept to an absolute minimum.

Policy WLP21 (Environmental Considerations) states that planning permission for waste management facilities will be granted where a number of environmental considerations are met. Of particular relevance to this application are:

(iii) Area of Landscape Importance – supports proposals where landscape and visual impacts and the appearance of the development would not materially harm the local landscape and would respect the character and local distinctiveness of the area. With respect to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty development will be allowed in exceptional circumstances where this is consistent with the proximity principle, subject to the other relevant criteria in the policy being met and would not involve the erection of any new buildings;

(v) Drainage, Flood Protection and Water Resources – supports proposals which would not adversely affect local land drainage systems, groundwater resources or be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or create an unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere;

(vii) Nature Conservation – supports proposals where the development would not adversely affect non-statutory sites of importance for nature conservation or geological/geomorphological interest or a protected species and/or their habitat;

(xi) Dust, Odour, etc – supports proposals where the development including its associated traffic movements, visual impact, noise, dust, odour, litter, and emissions, and its potential to attract scavenging birds, other vermin and insects would not have an adverse effect on local residential amenity including air quality, and/or other land uses;

(xii) Transport System – supports proposals where sufficient capacity is available on the local or wider road system for the traffic that is expected to be generated. Improvements or alternatives modes of transport can be implemented and/or where there would not be adverse effect on road safety;

(xiii) Reducing Transportation - where the development proposed contributes where appropriate to the need to minimise the impact of transport requirements;

(xvii) Recovery of Materials – supports proposals where they contribute to the potential recovery of materials and energy via recycling, energy recovery and composting in reducing the amount of waste for final disposal.

25. East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 (ELLP) - the following policies are of relevance to this proposal and should be given due weight in the determination of this application.

Policy A4 (Protection of General Amenities) states that development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted.

Policy A5 (Quality and Design of Development) states that development which, by its design, improves the quality of the environment will be permitted provided it does not conflict with other Policies of the Plan.

Policy C11 (Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Areas of Great Landscape Value) states the natural beauty of the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will be protect by not permitting development which would:

(i) harm landscape features which contribute to the character of the area; (ii) harm the distinctive character, role or regional or local historic significance of the area; or (iii) inhibit the quiet enjoyment of the AONB.

The following development will not be permitted in the AONB unless it is essential in the national or wider public interest and cannot be located elsewhere:-

(i) major or large scale development;

Where development proposals in the AONB are otherwise acceptable in principle, they will not be granted planning permission unless they have demonstrated how their layout, design, materials, scale, siting and appearance have taken account of and complement - the locally distinctive characteristics of the landscape, settlements or buildings.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

26. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor C Davie – no objections and is content for officers to work with the applicant to achieve a positive outcome with conditions as deemed appropriate.

(b) Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service – has commented that having viewed the site both externally and internally, the Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service has determined the proposal will have negligible visible impact on the AONB. Officers from the Wolds Countryside Service have previously met with the applicant as well as officers from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and a member of the Lincolnshire Geodiversity Group (part of the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership) to discuss options for restoration on the southern section of the quarry. As per the proposals presented in the application all parties discussed and agreed a suitable restoration plan that delivers towards landscape, biodiversity and geo-diversity benefit whilst restoring agricultural land to its prime purpose. The proposals deliver against the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB Management Plan 2013-18, the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2020, and the Lincolnshire Geo-diversity Action Plan 2009.

(c) Environment Agency – no objection subject to the operator obtaining the relevant environmental permits that will be required.

(d) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – has commented that Highfield Quarry has been selected as a Local Geological Site and lies within the AONB which is a priority area for the restoration of calcareous grassland. The restoration of the quarry offers an opportunity to create a significant area of calcareous grassland habitat whilst safeguarding and enhancing the geological educational resource of the site.

LWT is disappointed that the applicant no longer proposes to restore the whole of the quarry to calcareous grassland as originally intended, however, provided that the remaining quarry area (approximately 12ha) is restored to calcareous grassland they are not opposed to this current application. However, it is recommended that if the revised restoration plans are approved then the proposed buffer strip of calcareous grassland to be created at the base of the retained quarry faces and the proposed restored agricultural field should be increased in width from 5m to 10m. This would provide a reasonable width over which to establish calcareous grassland and could be used in the future as a seed resource for restoration of the wider quarry. Further advisory comments are provided with regard how the applicant could aid the establishment and maintenance of calcareous grassland in carrying out the development.

(e) Natural England – has commented that based upon the information provided the proposal will not damage or destroy the Willoughby Wood and Hill Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

In respect of potential impacts on the AONB, Natural England advise that the advice of the Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service be sought as their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the AONB designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the AONB Management Plan.

Finally, it is added that (where relevant) the Waste Planning Authority should assess and consider other possible impacts resulting from this proposal including on biodiversity action plan priority habitats, protected species and local wildlife sites and, if practicable, the securing of measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site.

(f) Environmental Health Officer (East Lindsey District Council) – no objection subject to the existing noise and dust mitigation methods used on the site being extended to cover the works proposed by this application.

(g) Highways Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – no objection as the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.

(h) Historic Environment (Lincolnshire County Council) – no comment as all the archaeological issues have been dealt with.

27. The following bodies/persons were consulted on the application on 6 October 2014 but no response/comments had been received at the time of writing this report.

Welton le Marsh Parish Council Parish Council Ashby and Parish Council (adjoining Parish)

28. The application has been publicised by notices posted at the site and in the local press (Skegness Standard on 6 October 2014) and letters of notification were sent to the nearest neighbouring residents. No representations had been received as a result of this publicity/notification at the time of writing this report.

District Council’s Recommendations

29. East Lindsey District Council has no objection subject to the County Council being satisifed that the development would not result in adverse dust or noise impacts to neighbouring properties.

Conclusions

30. The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application is whether the proposed development is appropriate in waste planning policy terms and whether it would have an adverse impact on the AONB or give rise to any unacceptable adverse environmental, traffic or amenity impacts.

Waste Policy Context and Need for New Landfill Provision

31. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPW and WLP Policy WLP1 seek to move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy and therefore more support is given to developments which propose to manage wastes consistent with the hierarchy's order of priority this being prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, recovery and only supporting disposal of wastes through landfill as a last resort.

32. In this particular case, the processing and screening of the existing C, D and E wastes is accepted as being a sustainable waste management practice and helps to move the management of wastes up the waste hierarchy (as supported by the NPPW and WLP Policy WLP1). Planning permission for carrying out waste recycling and screening operations at Highfield Quarry however already exists and further planning permissions have recently been resolved to be granted (subject to the completion of a S106 Planning Obligation) for a new wash plant associated with the recycling operations in acknowledgement of the benefits that such operations and activities present. These existing waste recycling permissions have all been considered and granted on the basis that all materials, including any residual wastes, are exported and taken off site once processed and this restriction was imposed in acknowledgment that conditions attached to the wider mineral permissions do not allow for the use of imported materials in the restoration of the site. Therefore whilst Officers support the proposals to process and screen the waste materials already on site, the proposal to allow a proportion of these materials to be landfilled within the site, even over a limited area, would be in direct conflict with conditions attached to existing planning permissions governing the other consented operations and activities at the site.

33. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed disposal and landfilling of wastes itself sits at the bottom of the waste hierarchy and therefore, in line with the objectives of the NPPW and WLP Policy WLP1, should only be supported where this is the last available option. WLP Policy WLP13 reflects and supports this wider objective of driving the management of wastes up the waste hierarchy by stating that proposals for new landfill or landraise sites will only be permitted if the available void space in the proximity of the source to be served falls below 10 years.

34. The applicant argues that the presence of the existing waste materials and their close proximity to the proposed means of treatment and final disposal (i.e. the quarry) accords with the proximity principle as advocated by WLP Policy 1 and is also consistent with objectives of the emerging policies of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. Your Officers, however, disagree with this position as the wastes identified to be landfilled by this proposal are only already on site as they have previously been deposited and stored in areas not covered by any existing planning consent. The existing presence of these materials should not therefore be given any favourable weight in support of this proposal or the proposals be viewed as compliance with the proximity principle and/or justification to support the creation of new landfill capacity in this location as to do so would give advantage and recognition to activities that have previously been carried out without any planning consent. Additionally, although the materials are already on site it does not necessarily mean that the development automatically accords with the proximity principle or that this proposal is the most effective or sustainable means of treatment. This position is supported by the recently published National Planning Policy Guidance entitled 'Waste' which confirms that compliance with the proximity principle does not necessarily require using the absolute closest facility to manage wastes to the exclusion of all other considerations. In this particular case, it is not considered necessary to create new landfill void space capacity in order to manage these wastes as there are existing alternative sites within the County and in close proximity to Highfield Quarry that are consented and capable of accepting the types of residual wastes and soils proposed to be landfilled. These sites include Boston landfill site (approximately 24 miles away) which although is not currently accepting wastes for disposal, is currently carrying out restoration works which requires soils and capping materials not dissimilar to the residual wastes that the applicant proposes to dispose of at Highfield Quarry. Similarly, there is also Kirkby on Bain landfill site (approximately 19 miles away) which is staying open to service the East Lindsey area and which also requires and utilises the types of wastes identified for use as daily cover and in capping landfill cells. Finally, Quarry (approximately seven miles away) is also permitted to use and incorporate residual soils that are derived from and processed by its permitted waste recycling operation for the restoration of that quarry. Although the applicant has argued that these alternative sites are not practical or sustainable (e.g. as the wastes would have to travel further for treatment/disposal, unnecessary traffic movements and road miles, etc) there is no planning reason or justification why given the existence and close proximity of these alternative sites the residual wastes/soils could not instead be taken, processed and ultimately deposited at any one of these sites without conflicting with their respective permissions.

35. Finally, whilst WLP Policy WLP13 does allow new inert landfill proposals where they represent the most satisfactory method of restoration, in this case the proposed restored landform would largely be created using existing chalk fines derived from the consented mineral extraction operations with only the uppermost 2m being comprised of the proposed landfilled residual wastes. The use of mineral wastes to restore the site is already permitted and as a consequence of this situation the existing approved restoration design/concept for the quarry is to restore the site using such materials to nature conservation after-uses comprising of areas of calcareous grassland with some retained quarry faces. Whilst it is accepted that there may be a need to revise this previously approved concept restoration plan (due to discrepancies that exist between the working depths and restored landform levels shown on those plans) given that only a limited volume of imported wastes have been identified as necessary to achieve the overall landform proposed by this application, your Officers can see no reason why a similar revised landform could not therefore be achieved which does not require the landfilling and use of imported wastes (i.e. restore to the same overall profile but 2m lower than currently proposed). Such a revised scheme would be consistent with the accepted and currently approved after-uses for the site and more importantly could be achieved without the need or reliance on the use of imported wastes and would not conflict with the conditions already attached to the existing mineral/waste planning permissions.

36. Taking into account the above, it is your Officers view therefore that there is already available landfill void space capacity in the County and local area to serve and accommodate the types and volume of wastes identified to be landfilled by this proposal and therefore there is no need to create new landfill capacity in this case. The proposed creation and provision of new additional landfill capacity is therefore contrary to the principles of the waste management hierarchy and in conflict with the strategy and objectives of the National Planning Policy for Waste and Policies WLP1 and WLP13 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan.

Highways and Traffic Considerations

37. In terms of traffic implications, the applicant states that approximately 125- 130,000 tonnes of recycled aggregates are expected to be recovered from the operations and based on a seven year timeframe this would equate to approximately 20 additional loads (or 40 two-way HGV movements) per week or a maximum of 3-4 loads (6-8 two-way HGV movements) per day. It is added that if the volume of residual soils identified to be landfilled were also required to be taken off site then this would generate between 8,300- 8,700 additional two-way HGV movements over the same time period and generate extra traffic which would exacerbate already problematic bottlenecks in towns such as Boston and Horncastle if the materials were required to be taken to the alternative landfill/disposal sites at Boston and Kirkby on Bain.

38. Whilst the applicant's argument is noted, when these numbers are considered in detail it is important to recognise that planning permission already exists for the processing and transportation off site of materials processed through the consented waste recycling operations. The permitted waste recycling operations have an operational throughput limit of 25,000 tonnes per annum and as that plant has been identified to process the on-site wastes (within the consented throughput limit) there would have to be an equivalent reduction in traffic movements associated with the importation of wastes for processing by that plant. Consequently, the traffic movements cited by the applicant in relation to this proposal would not represent additional traffic but would rather replace existing traffic movements already consented and accepted as a consequence of the permitted waste recycling operations. Similarly, whilst the applicant argues that there would be further increased traffic and impacts on the highway network if the residual soils were also required to be removed from the site, given the volume of these specific wastes identified and proposed duration of the works (i.e. seven years) in reality the traffic associated with the export of just with those materials would equate to an average of around 11 loads per week (22 two-way HGV movements) or two loads (four two-way HGV movements) per day. There is no reason why the existing on-site wastes could not already be processed through the consented waste recycling plant and therefore the highway benefits and sustainability arguments being promoted by the applicant as a consequence of this proposal are not as robust or as significant as indicated and therefore should be given limited weight in terms of the merits and perceived benefits of this proposal.

Impacts on the AONB and other Environmental and Amenity Considerations

39. Highfield Quarry lies within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the NPPF, WLP Policy WLP21 and ELLP Policy C11 all seek to protect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that their landscape and scenic beauty is not harmed. The NPPF, WLP Policy WLP21 and ELLP Policy A4 all seek to protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and land-users.

40. Whilst regard has been given to the applicant's arguments and reasons in support of the development and Officers also acknowledge the responses that have been received from statutory and non-statutory consultees during consultation, it remains a general principle of the planning system that opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission and each application has to be considered on it planning merits. Given the response from the Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service Officer the development is not considered likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the AONB. Similarly, given the location of the development within the confines of an existing and operational mineral working, Officers are also satisfied that any potential environmental or amenity impacts (i.e. noise, dust and visual impact) would not be significantly adverse or could potentially be mitigated through conditions. Instead in this case it is the principle of the development that is contested and it is your Officer's view that if planning permission were to be granted it would not only undermine the objectives of national and local waste policy which seeks to promote sustainable waste management practice and to deter and avoid the creation of new landfill capacity, but more fundamentally if this proposal were accepted, it could also set a precedent which would make it difficult for the Waste Planning Authority to resist any further applications which may seek to expand or increase landfilling activities within this site or other similar sites in the future. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that although the development would be unlikely to give rise to any substantial environmental or amenity impacts this does not outweigh or justify the conflict this proposal has with the objectives of the policies contained within the Development Plan in particular those set out in the NPPW, WLP Policy WLP1 and WLP13.

41. The proposed development has been considered against Human Rights implications especially with regard to Article 8 – right to respect for private and family life and Protocol 1, Article 1 – protection of property and balancing the public interest and well – being of the community within these rights and the Council has had due regard to its public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. There is no identified need for the creation of new inert landfill capacity in County or the local area as there are existing alternative sites in close proximity to Highfield Quarry which have consented void space capacity available to accommodate the type and volume of wastes proposed to be landfilled. The creation and provision of new additional landfill capacity is therefore contrary to the principles of the waste management hierarchy and in conflict with the strategy and objectives of the National Planning Policy for Waste and Policies WLP1 and WLP13 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan.

2. A significant volume of mineral wastes are already available within the quarry and additional materials will be released as the mineral extraction operations advance into the currently unworked areas of the site. The significant quantity and volume of these materials means that there are suitable materials available which can deliver and achieve a satisfactory method of restoration and after-use without the need for, or reliance upon, the landfilling of imported wastes. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy WLP13 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan as the use of inert landfill is not considered to represent the most satisfactory method of restoration.

3. The landfilling of imported wastes within the site would be contrary to, and in direct conflict with, conditions attached to existing planning permissions governing the other consented mineral and waste operations and activities at the quarry. If permitted the development could therefore set a precedent which would make it difficult for the Waste Planning Authority to resist subsequent applications which may seek to expand or increase landfilling activities within this site. Appendix

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application Files Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park (E)N199/2021/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln (E)N199/1519/14 (E)N199/0184/14 (E)N199/2496/12 (E)S199/0575/10 (E)S199/1904/02 (E)S199/0667/99 (E)S199/0913/97

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (2012) www.gov.uk National Planning Policy for Waste (2014)

Lincolnshire Waste Local Lincolnshire County Council website Plan (2006) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk

East Lindsey Local Plan East Lindsey District Council website Alteration (1999) www.e-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Marc Willis, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 8 DECEMBER 2014

Slope

Slope 

Slope

Slope

Cliff Welton Quarry Site of Application

nnee aann LL mm hhaa gghh iiiinn B ssss lu aass e BBaa s BB Cliff to n e Slope H e a th R o a d

(A 1 0 2 8 )

Slop

Slope Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Highfield Quarry Application for the restoration of the southern section of the Bluestone Heath Road quarry to an agricultural afteruse using quarry fines and Welton le Marsh soils screened from existing on-site materials Application No: (E)N199/2021/14(E)N199/2021/14 Scale: 1:5000