COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE : 06 March 2013

Ward : Whitley App No.: 12/01430/FUL Address: Burghfield Landfill site, Island Road. Proposal: Development of a Leachate Treatment Plant. Applicant: CEMEX UK Materials Limited Date valid: 09 October 2012 Minor Application: 8-week target decision date: 04 December 2012 26-week target decision date: 09 April 2013

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions to include: 1. TL1 – Full 3 years. 2. AP1 – Development as per approved plans. 3. M2 – Details to be submitted. 4. Detailed landscaping proposals to be submitted to be submitted and approved prior to first use. 5. Landscape and ecological management plan to be submitted to be submitted and approved prior to first use. 6. Development shall not be brought into use until parking and turning space has been provided. 7. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include measures to deal with: - Vehicle parking; - Loading and unloading of plant and materials; - Storage of plant and materials; - Erection and maintenance of security hoarding; - Wheel washing facilities; - Measures to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads; - Details of Footpath/Road closures needed during construction; - Traffic management needed during construction, and - Times, routes and means of access for construction traffic. 8. No development shall commence until details of external lighting measures have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 9. The development shall only be used to treat leachate from the Burghfield Landfill site. 10. The cessation of the use and restoration of the land to its former condition shall be undertaken when the development is no longer required.

Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach by LPA. 2. Development plan compliance. 3. EA Environmental Permit. 4. Building regulations required.

5. Damage to the highway. 6. Terms and conditions. 7. Pre-commencement conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is approx. 0.495 ha in size and lies on the northern edge of the existing Burghfield Landfill site at the western end of Island Road. To the north of the application site lies the and wetland habitat associated with Fobney Island including groups of established mature trees. To the east lie other areas of restored landfill level with the application site.To the south lie raised areas of landfill which rise to between 7m and 14m above land at the application site. Immediately west of the application site lies the existing Landfill Gas Utilisation Facility (LGUF), refer to Photo. 1 below and the original approved plans at Appendix 1, which processes gas from the restored landfill and turns it into energy. Further west lies a 30m high pylon and electricity lines and beyond that lies the railway embankment (again raised above the level of the application site) which runs north-south. The closest residential properties include Southcote Mill, approximately 500m to the north west, and dwellings at Manor Farm Cottages, about 700m to the north east.

1.2 The site lies outside of the Council’s settlement boundary which extends as far as the existing RE3 Waste Management Facility on Island Road. The site lies within the ‘Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature’ and within an area of ‘Public and Strategic Open Space’, both of which extends north from Island Road, as designated within the Council’s Core Strategy and Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD) Proposals Map.

1.3 The application site lies within Flood Zone 2 (as defined by the Environment Agency) which has up to a 0.1 per cent (1 in 1000) chance of flooding occurring each year.

Site Location Plan:

Fobney Island

Railway

Thames Water Sewage

Island Road Treatment Works

A33 LGUF

Burghfield Landfill site RE3

Photograph 1: Application site – looking west towards the LGUF and pylon.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal intends to construction of a Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) in order to remove leachate from the existing Burghfield Landfill site. The proposed LTP comprises of the following:

• Two covered Raw Leachate Balance Tanks (RBLT) – 8m in diameter and 5.5m above ground level at its apex; • Modified Sequencing Batch Reactor tank (SBR) – 19m in diameter and 3.6m above ground level at its apex; • Treated Leachate Balance Tank (TLBT) – 8.6m in diameter and 4.0m above ground level at its apex; • Bunded Chemical Dosing Area – specialist chemical tanks the largest of which would be 3.5m above ground level at its apex; • Site Office and Control Building – 12m x 5m linked modular containers; • Compressor House and Store – each 6m x 2.5m modular containers, and • 2.3m high security fencing around the LTP compound.

2.2 The LTP compound would also be enclosed in a bunded area to contain any potential spillages and exclude flood waters. The height of the bund would vary between 0.2m to 1.0m, depending on ground level, so that the top of the bund is at 41m AoD. Main other features outside of the LTP compound include a car parking area (6 spaces), access road and landscape areas.

2.3 Following pre-application discussions, the applicant proposes to partially bury the SBR tank in the ground to a depth of 6m in order to limit its visual impact.

2.4 The leachate would be pumped from cells within the existing landfill to the proposed LTP facility from where it could be discharged directly to the nearby Thames Water Sewage Treatment Works. This system would replace the existing arrangement whereby a 45,000m3 litre storage tank that collects the leachate has to be emptied twice daily and transported by road tankers off-site for treatment.

2.5 The applicant has advised that the proposal is required to comply with environmental permits relating to the restored landfill area and complies with best practice guidance.

2.6 The following supporting information has been supplied with the application:

Drawings: • Site Location Plan (Drawing no. JW30192 - 1) • Key Local Features Plan (unreferenced) • Planning Applications Boundaries (Drawing no. JW30192 – 2A) • Proposed Landscaping Planting (Drawing no. JW30192 – D1C) • Proposed Site Layout (Drawing no. JW30192 – 3H) • Proposed LTP Compound Lighting Plan (Drawing no. JW30192 – 5B) • Proposed Elevations (Drawing no. JW30192 – 4D)

Documents: • Planning Supporting Statement (including Design & Access Statement) • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (including photographic survey) • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (Jan 2012) • Great Crested Newt Survey (July 2012) • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

12/00029/SCR Request for an Environmental Impact Not EIA Assessment Screening Opinion for the development development of a Leachate Treatment Plant. 03/10/12

01/00678/FUL Installation of Landfill Gas Utilisation Facility Approved (LGUF), three electricity generators and 08/01/02 ancillary plant.

4. CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Consultees

Environment Agency (EA) 4.1 The EA support this proposal as it would allow for greater volumes of leachate to be treated and thus comply with the conditions of the applicant’s Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Environmental Permit for the site. The EA has accepted that adequate leachate management and secondary containment measures would be put in place as part of this proposal. A condition to secure details of a landscape and ecological management plan is also requested.

Non-statutory Consultees

RBC Transport Development Control 4.2 Transport DC raises no objection to this application as the proposal would result in a significant reduction in vehicle trips and adequate parking and manoeuvring space for vehicles would be provided on site.

4.3 RBC Ecologist Raises no objection to this proposal as it would result in no significant or adverse ecological impacts. However, conditions are suggested to secure details of any contractor’s storage compound, details of any external lighting measures and a detailed landscaping scheme.

RBC Environmental Protection 4.4 Raise no objections to this proposal but have requested that the EA is consulted on this application.

RBC Parks & Open Spaces 4.5 Raise no objections to this proposal.

RBC Building Control 4.6 Advise that Building Regulations approval is required.

West Council 4.7 No comment.

Public consultation 4.8 A site notice was displayed and an advert placed in the local press advising that the application forms a departure from the development plan. No written representations were received in respect of this proposal.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction & Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS6 Settlement Boundary CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS8 Waterspaces CS24 Car / Cycle parking CS28 Loss of Open Space CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS37 Major Landscape Features and Strategic Open Space CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (adopted October 2012) - SDPD SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting SA11 Settlement Boundary SA16 Public and Strategic Open Space SA17 Major Landscape Features

Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (1998) WLP11 Preferred Areas for Waste Management Uses

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents The Council’s following adopted supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are also material planning considerations:

• Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)

National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

• Chapter 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy) • Chapter 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) • Chapter 7 (Requiring good design) • Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

6. APPRAISAL

(i) Main Issues

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are: a) Settlement boundary b) Waste and sustainability c) Visual impact of the surrounding area d) Impact on usability of open space e) Transport and parking issues f) Ecology g) Flooding h) Residential amenity

Other issues • Equality • Positive and Proactive Approach Assessment

a) Settlement boundary 6.2 SDPD Policy SD1 states that “a positive approach to considering development proposals will be taken that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Core Strategy Policy CS6 and SDPD Policy SA11 state that no development will be permitted outside the settlement boundary as defined in the proposals map.

6.3 The proposal fails to accord with Policies CS6 and SA11 and the main issues associated with the development being located outside of the settlement boundary are its potential visual impact on the ‘Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature’ and any potential impacts on the usability of the designated ‘Public and Strategic Open Space’ area. However, whilst the proposal is in conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS6 and SDPD Policy SA11, the extent to which the above issues would occur should be assessed in detail before concluding on the proposals overall acceptability. In addition, the merits of the proposal in wider sustainability terms must also be considered along with any other material considerations.

b) Waste and sustainability 6.4 The application site forms part of the Burghfield Landfill site as defined within the adopted Waste Local Plan (Site A of Smallmead, Reading - Area 11 refers). Core Strategy Policy CS2 requires that development should demonstrate measures to minimise the generation of waste in the construction, use and life of buildings and promote more sustainable approaches to waste management. SDPD Policy DM1 states that all developments will demonstrate how they have been designed to incorporate measures to adapt to climate change.

6.5 The function of the proposed development is to remediate leachate occurring from the existing Burghfield Landfill site. The proposal would ensure that this process could be carried out more effectively and efficiently through the use of automated control system systems and by eliminating the need to transport large volumes of raw leachate many miles by tanker. In addition, a greater volume of leachate could be treated as part of proposals compared to the existing arrangements. The applicant has advised that waste created as a result of the excavations for this development would be used in the construction of the bund around the facility thereby minimising the amount of waste generated in the construction phase.

6.6 The proposal therefore helps reduce the Borough’s reliance on landfill areas by hastening the remediation process and, as such, is in accordance with the Waste Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy CS2 and SDPD Policy DM1.

c) Visual impact on the surrounding area 6.7 Core Strategy Policy CS37 states that planning permission will not be granted for any development that would detract from character and appearance of Major Landscape Features. SDPD Policy SA17 identifies that the sites lies within the Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature. Core Strategy Policy CS7 requires that all development must be of a high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Core Strategy CS8 requires development to provide a positive contribution to the distinct character, appearance, landscape and amenity of waterways. Policy DM18 states that new development shall make provision for tree planting.

6.8 By its very nature, the proposed development would be industrial in appearance and could not be considered to enhance the visual amenity of the surrounding area. However, the proposal’s industrial appearance is similar in character to that of the neighbouring LGUF development (the majority of which ranges between 4m and 7.5m high) and reflects the quality of the area immediately surrounding the application site; which includes electricity pylons, railway embankment and landfill areas. Therefore, it is considered that the application site and immediate surroundings is of a much lower quality than that of the wider Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature that is approximately 300ha in size. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposal is on

the very southern periphery of the Major Landscape Feature that is bounded by Island Road.

6.9 Whilst the proposal would be visible from the to the north, views would be restricted due to the intervening vegetation. Views to the south and west would be limited by the intervening railway embankment and existing raised landfill areas respectively. The most prominent views of the proposal would be from the railway but would comprise a relatively small element against a wider backdrop seen for a short duration.

6.10 The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment, 2002) and focuses on an area extending to appropriately 2km from the proposed development. Key receptors assessed as part of this document include:

i. Viewpoint at junction of Island Road and entrance to the RE3 Waste Management Facility; ii. Viewpoint at adjacent to Fobney on the Kennet & Avon Canal; iii. Viewpoint from Island Road south of Manor Farm Cottages; iv. Viewpoint at the entrance to Kennet Island; v. Viewpoint at the lock at Southcote Mill; vi. Viewpoint at the bridge over the weir at the point where the River Kennet and Avon Canal separate around Fobney Island; vii. Viewpoint on River Kennet Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the east of the railway line, and viii. Viewpoint at the southern edge of housing in Minster Ward, near The Brookmill.

6.11 The assessment concludes that “the proposed development would constitute a limited change and the consequential landscape and visual impacts would be minimal.” Officers agree with this conclusion but recommend that conditions are added to secure detailed landscaping measures, including native tree planting, in order to further screen the development from the surrounding area, to secure details of external materials and to require the removal of the development upon it becoming no longer required.

6.12 Subject to adherence to the above conditions, the proposal would minimise any visual harm associated with the development and not significantly detract from the character of the Major Landscape Feature and therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies CS37 and CS38.

6.13 Whilst the proposal does not comply with Core Strategy Policies CS7 and CS8 in the sense that it doesn’t enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area, it must be considered that the proposal represents the optimum design solution for a development of this type. As mentioned above, the largest structure (the Sequencing Batch Reactor tank), would be part buried beneath the ground and soft landscaping measures could be agreed to screen the development to an acceptable degree. Therefore, on balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on the surrounding area.

d) Impact on usability of open space 6.14 SDPD Policy SA16 and Core Strategy Policy CS28 state that areas of Public and Strategic Open Space will be protected and that any development which would jeopardise their use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted.

6.15 The area of Public and Strategic Open Space, as referred to above, covers the same area (approx. 300ha) as the Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature. The proposal would be located within the area of Public and Strategic Open Space and would be sited at its southern periphery. The application site would only be accessible to the public via informal tracks that branch off the River Kennet Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the north of the application site.

6.16 As can been seen in Photograph 1. above, the application site is made up of remediated landfill that is uneven and covered with scrub. It is considered that the open space value of the site derives from it forming part of the much larger area. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be in conflict with Policies SA16 and CS28 as the likely loss of amenity to the public would be minimal.

e) Transport and parking issues 6.17 SDPD Policy DM12 states that development proposals will be assessed against their effect on highway safety, congestion and the environment. Core Strategy Policy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD outlines the Council’s requirements for parking provision on developments.

6.18 The vehicular entry point to the proposed development would be from the existing entrance to the Burghfield Landfill site on Island Road. An assessment of the number of vehicular trips has been provided by the applicant to assess the impact of the development against that of the existing leachate treatment process. The existing process currently requires two daily tanker visits to and from the site to transport raw leachate offsite in addition to weekly management and monitoring visits generating approximately 31 weekly vehicle trips.

6.19 As mentioned, the proposal will enable raw leachate to be treated on-site thereby reducing the need for daily tanker visits. It is estimated the proposed facility will generate approximately 3 weekly vehicle trips resulting in a significant reduction in the number of traffic movement on the local highway network. The submitted Planning Statement confirms that the LTP is to be used only for treating leachate generated at the Burghfield Landfill site.

6.20 The proposal intends 6 car parking spaces which accords with the Council’s standards for this type of industrial development. The route into the compound is a one way anticlockwise loop from the access road that is acceptable in highway safety terms.

6.21 Therefore, in transport terms, the proposal is considered acceptable and accords with SDPD Policy DM12, Core Strategy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD.

f) Ecology 6.22 Core Strategy Policy CS36 requires development to retain, protect and incorporate features of biodiversity within it.

6.23 The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report concluded that a further survey to assess the site’s potential for Great Crested Newt (GCN) habitat should be conducted. The application duly undertook and submitted a GCN survey which found no GCN’s or any signs of them.

6.24 The Council’s Ecologist advised that the above ecological reports had been undertaken to an appropriate standard and considered that no significant or adverse ecological impacts would result from the proposal. Subject to conditions to secure details of the contractor’s storage compound, external lighting measures and detailed landscaping proposals the proposal accords with Core Strategy Policy CS36.

g) Flooding 6.25 Core Strategy Policy CS35 states that planning permission will not be permitted for development in an area identified as being at high risk from flooding. Core Strategy Policy CS34 states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air… or land pollution.

6.26 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) identifies that the application site lies within Flood Zone 2 (as defined by the Environment Agency) and that the proposed development would not be subject to undue levels of flood risk. The EA has given their support to this proposal following confirmation from the applicant that a leak detection system and secondary containment measures would be put in place to deal with the unlikely event of a leak from the aeration tank. The secondary containment measures (a drain, collection pipe and geo- membrane) would be able provide the equivalent of 110% of the volume of the operating capacity of the aeration tank and would be secured by the EA through the Environmental Permit requirements.

6.27 The proposal therefore complies with Core Strategy Policies CS34 and CS35 in terms of flooding implications and environmental pollution.

h) Residential amenity

6.28 SDPD Policy DM4 states that development will not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties. Core Strategy Policy CS34 states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through… noise pollution. Policy Chapter 11 of the NPPF states that the planning system should prevent development from contributing to unacceptable levels of noise pollution.

6.29 The submitted Planning Supporting Statement advises that the noise levels generated by the proposed development, at nearby noise sensitive receptors, are predicted to result in no significant impact regardless of the existing ambient noise environment. Therefore, a full noise survey has not been undertaken and the Council’s Environmental Protection team has raised no concerns with this aspect of the development as the closest dwelling is approximately 500m away.

6.30 In terms of potential noise pollution and impacts on residential amenity, the proposal therefore complies with the requirements of SDPD Policy DM4 and Core Strategy Policy CS34.

Other matters:

Equality

6.31 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including

from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

Discussions with Applicant

6.32 If permission is granted, the Council’s decision notice will need to explain in an informative how the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. These proposals have been the subject of discussions with the applicant at pre-application and application stage in respect of the issues set out in the table below. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Planning Issue Issue resolved Issue resolved Comments requiring at pre- at application resolution application stage ? stage ? Applicant amended draft scheme to park bury the proposed structure beneath the Visual impact Yes √ N/A ground to reduce its visual impact.

Details of Measures agreed with the containment Environment Agency. arrangements in N/A Yes √ the event of a leak.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 On balance, the sustainable merits of the proposal and the fact the proposed use is directly related to the established landfill site are considered to outweigh the proposals shortfalls in respect of Core Strategy Polices CS7 and CS8 in terms of failing to enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to suitable conditions, as set out in the recommendation section above.

Case Officer: Andrew Chugg

APPENDIX 1: LGUF APPROVED PLANS (01/00678/FUL)