DOCSLIB.ORG

Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report October 2012 Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework Planning for the future of minerals and waste in Kent Front Cover Images Top Left: Materials Recovery Facility. Bottom Right: Household recycling. Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council Contents Abbreviations i Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report 1 Introduction 1 2 Preferred Options Site Map 2 Waste Sites: Preferred Options 4 Waste Sites Preferred Options Document 4 5 Waste Sites Preferred Options Evidence Base 6 6 Energy from Waste 8 Site 13: Allington Waste Management Facility, Aylesford 10 Site 54: Richborough Power Station A, Minster 12 Site 61: SCA Packaging, New Hythe, Aylesford 16 Site 107: Land at Lower Road, Swanscombe 18 7 Hazardous Landfill 20 Site 60: Norwood Quarry & Landfill Extension, Minster and Eastchurch 20 Site 63: Pinden Quarry & Landfill Extension, Dartford 22 8 Non-Hazardous Landfill 26 Site 22: Rushenden Marshes (Dredging Disposal Site), Queenborough 26 9 Treatment/Materials Recycling Facilities 28 Site 11: Lees Yard and Adjacent Land, Rochester Way, Dartford 30 Kent County Council Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Site 14: Longfield Farm, Paddock Wood 32 Site 27: Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge 34 Site 51: Ridham, Iwade 36 Contents Site 63: Pinden Quarry & Landfill Extension, Dartford 38 Site 64: Richborough Hall, Sandwich 42 Site 72: Unit 14, Canterbury Industrial Park, Hersden 44 Site 88: Sevington Rail Depot, Ashford 48 10 Sites for Green Waste Treatment 50 Site 23: Blaise Farm, Offham 52 Site 27: Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge 54 Site 51: Ridham, Iwade 56 Site 65: Land North of Stevens & Carlotti, Sandwich 58 11 Facilities for Household Waste 60 Site 13: Allington Waste Management Facility, Aylesford 60 Site 37: Cobbs Wood Industrial Estate, Ashford 62 Waste Sites: Not Allocated Waste Sites: Not Allocated 64 Site 8: Chelsfield Ammunition Depot, Shoreham 65 Site 9: Ightham Sand Pits, Ightham, Wrotham and Borough Green 66 Site 12: Newington Industrial Estate, Newington 67 Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council Contents Site 16: Beacon Hill Quarry, Charing 68 Site 18: Covers Farm, Westerham 69 Site 31: Studd Hill, Herne Bay 70 Site 39: Chilmington Landfill, Ashford 71 Site 40: North Farm WTS and HWRC, Tunbridge Wells 72 Site 41: Cryalls Lane, Borden 73 Site 42: Pedham Place, Farningham 74 Site 50: Ightham Sand Pit Western Extension, Ightham 75 Site 54: Richborough Power Station, Ash 76 Site 55: Ightham Sandpit Gasification Plant, Ightham 77 Site 59: Shelford Waste Management Facility, Canterbury 78 Site 68: Sleedwood Landfill, Dover 79 Site 70: Stonecastle Farm Quarry Lake, Hadlow 80 Site 82: Milton Manor Farm 2, Chartham 81 Site 83: Island Road, Sturry (Westbere) 82 Site 84: Highstead, Chislet 83 Site 85: Charing Quarry (Waste), Charing 84 Site 87: Charing Quarry (Waste 3), Charing 85 Site 89: Hollowshore, Faversham 86 Site 90: Ham Farm, Faversham 87 Site 93: Highsted Pits 3, Sittingbourne 88 Site 95: Stone Gate, Dartford 89 Kent County Council Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Site 103: Pfizer Ltd, Dover 90 Site 104: Land between Orpington Bypass and M25, Shoreham 91 Contents 'No Response' Sites 'No Response' Sites 92 Appendices Appendix 1 94 Glossary 98 Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council i Abbreviations AD Anaerobic Digestion AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty APC Air Pollution Control AQMA Air Quality Management Area CHP Combined Heat and Power CDE Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste C&I Commercial and Industrial Waste DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EfW Energy from Waste EiP Examination in Public HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment HWRC Household Waste Recycling Centre KCC Kent County Council LDF Local Development Framework LWS Local Wildlife Site MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW Megawatt MWDF Minerals and Waste Development Framework ii Kent County Council Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report NPPF National Planning Policy Framework PPS Planning Policy Statement RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RIGS Regionally Important Geological Sites Abbreviations SA Sustainability Appraisal SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest tpa Tonnes Per Annum WPA Waste Planning Authority WTS Waste Transfer Station Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council 1 1 Response Summary Introduction Introduction What is the Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary 1.4 The consultation for the Waste Sites Plan Preferred Report? Options Document produced a total of 284 responses. Table 1 details how these responses were conveyed and the nature of 1.1 The Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report their submission. is a summary document of the responses received during the Waste Sites Plan Preferred Options consultation which ran from Table 1. Breakdown of total responses received. 9am on the 28 May 2012, to 5pm on the 23 July 2012. Consultees and stakeholders were invited to provide their views Total number of responses: 284 on the sites outlined in the Waste Sites Plan Preferred Options Document(1). Method Nature of response 1.2 This document provides a concise review of the responses Portal website 49 Object 52 (43 for allocated sites) received from members of the public, industry stakeholders and Email 185 Support 111 (18 for allocated sites) statutory consultees(2) in an attempt to highlight the main issues raised in supporting, objecting to or commenting on the various Letter 50 Comment 121 (112 for allocated sites) allocated and non-allocated sites contained within the Waste Sites Plan Preferred Options Document. Consultees were able 1.5 Please see Appendix 1 for a more detailed comparison of to submit their views via the KCC online consultation website, response rates for the latest consultation and the Waste Sites by email and by post. If you would like to view full responses Development Plan Options consultation which ran from the 31 that were made public, please visit our Consultation Portal at May 2011 to the 9 August 2011. http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal. 1.3 The responses submitted to KCC will be recorded as part of the ongoing site assessment process. Data collection and site visits will then be formulated, taking into consideration the emerging Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policies and changes to national planning policy. The next document to be consulted upon will be the Core Strategy Pre-submission Draft. The Pre-submission Waste Sites Plan will not be published until the Core Strategy is adopted, estimated in September 2014. 1 Available at http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-pref-options?pointId=2189556 2 As required under the 2004 Local Development (England) Regulations (as amended by the 2008 and 2009 Regulations) and the duty-to-co-operate contained in the Localism Act Waste Sites - Preferred Options 107 ") 11 Medway ") Dartford 60 22 ") ") 63 Swale ") Gravesham 51 ") Thanet Medway 54 72 ") ") ") 65 61 Swale 64") ") 13 ") Canterbury 23 ") Sevenoaks Tonbridge and Malling Maidstone Dover 14 ") 37 ") 88 ") Ashford Tunbridge Wells 27 ") Shepway 0 10 20 Kilometres ¯ © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100019238 1:390,000 Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council 3 2 This page has been left blank intentionally. Preferred Options Site Map 4 Kent County Council Waste Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Responses for Waste Sites Preferred Options Document Object 1 27 responses Support 1 Responses relating to the Waste Sites Preferred Options Document in its entirety. Comment 25 Consultee Topic response Waste - within the Core Strategy there appears to be measures for the safeguarding of minerals, minerals sites, wharfs and railheads East Sussex however, this does not appear to be the case for waste sites. By not having a method to safeguard existing and potential waste sites, County the plan may be undermined should inappropriate development reduce the capacity available for managing waste. CDE & Aggregate Council Recycling - we note that further studies are being undertaken on the capacity of aggregate recycling facilities that may affect overall requirements. If ongoing flexibility is needed it may be appropriate to maximise the recovery of materials at temporary sites. Thurrock KCC have not made explicit whether the total waste capacity being planned for is net or gross of exports to Thurrock. We would like to Council see an explicit statement in the Core Strategy and Sites Documents that the capacity being planned for is gross of exports. Waste Sites Preferred Options Document During the plan-making phase environmental criteria policies should be developed (either in the Waste Sites Plan or in the Core Strategy), 4 Tonbridge & in line with Annex E in PPS10 - and in accordance with any national planning policy that eventually supersedes it. In particular, policies Malling and/or planning conditions should ensure that the development and operation of waste sites does not generate more traffic movements Borough than can be accommodated without significant adverse affects on the local highway network and any relevant AQMAs. Where possible, Council on-site management of waste where it arises should also be pursued, as supported
Recommended publications
  • COUNTRYSIDE Page 1 of 16

    COUNTRYSIDE Page 1 of 16

    Page 1 of 16 COUNTRYSIDE Introduction 12.1 Shepway has a rich and diverse landscape ranging from the rolling chalk downland and dry valleys of the North Downs, through the scarp and dip slope of the Old Romney Shoreline, to Romney Marsh and the unique shingle feature of the Dungeness peninsula. This diversity is reflected in the range of Natural Areas and Countryside Character Areas, identified by English Nature and the Countryside Agency respectively, which cover the District. The particular landscape and wildlife value of large parts of the District is also recognised through protective countryside designations, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Heritage Coastline, as well as the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The countryside also plays host to a wide range of activities and it is recognised that the health of the rural economy and the health of the countryside are inter-linked. A function of the Local Plan is to achieve a sustainable pattern of development in the countryside. This involves a balance between the needs of rural land users and maintaining and enhancing countryside character and quality. 12.2 This balance is achieved in two main ways:- a. By focussing most development in urban areas, particularly on previously developed sites and ensuring that sufficient land is allocated to meet identified development requirements, thus reducing uncertainty and speculation on ‘greenfield’ sites in the countryside. b. By making firm policy statements relating to: the general principles to be applied to all proposals in the countryside; specific types of development in the countryside; and the protection of particularly important areas.
  • Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report

    Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report

    EB 08.20 Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
  • 7.4 Strategic Options Report

    7.4 Strategic Options Report

    DOCUMENT 7.4 Strategic Options Report National Grid (Richborough Connection Project) Order Regulation 5(2)(q) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 and TEN-E Regulation EU347/2013 First published June 2013 Application Ref: EN020017 January 2016 Richborough Connection Project Strategic Options Report for the South East Region June 2013 Issue 1 National Grid National Grid House Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 2 Background................................................................................................ 7 3 Summary of the Need Case.........................................................................11 4 New Transmission Routes - National Grid’s Approach......................................14 5 Potential Strategic Options Identified for the Richborough Connection ..............20 6 Appraisal of Strategic Option 1 – Richborough to Canterbury North (onshore) ...27 7 Appraisal of Strategic Option 2 – Richborough to Cleve Hill (onshore)...............37 8 Appraisal of Strategic Option 3 – Richborough to Kemsley (onshore) ................48 9 Appraisal of Strategic Option 4 – Richborough to Cleve Hill (offshore)...............59 10 Appraisal of Strategic Option 5 – Richborough to Sellindge (offshore) ...........64 11 Appraisal of Strategic Option 6 – Richborough to Kemsley (offshore) ............70 12 Conclusions ...........................................................................................75
  • Shepway Draft Core Strategy Review

    Shepway Draft Core Strategy Review

    Shepway Draft Core Strategy Review Sustainability Appraisal Report Prepared by LUC March 2018 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Lancaster London NW1 1JD FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] Manchester Project Title: Shepway Draft Core Strategy Review – Sustainability Appraisal Report Client: Shepway District Council Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by 1.0 21/02/2018 Draft SA Report Kieran Josh Allen Jeremy Owen Moroney Josh Allen 2.0 21/02/2018 Final draft report Kieran Josh Allen Jeremy Owen Moroney Josh Allen 3.0 08/03/2018 Final report Josh Allen Josh Allen Jeremy Owen Contents 1 Introduction 1 The Review of the Shepway Core Strategy 1 Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment 3 Structure of the SA Report 7 2 Appraisal Methodology 8 3 Relevant Plans, Programmes and Strategies 12 Key International Plans, Policies and Programmes 12 Key National Plans, Policies and Programmes 13 Local Plans, Policies and Programmes 13 4 Baseline information 16 5 Sustainability Appraisal Framework 45 Use of the SA Framework 51 6 Appraisal of High Level Growth Options 52 Approach to High-level Growth Options Appraisal 55 Summary of SA findings for Six Character Areas 58 Overview of Character Area
  • Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018

    Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018

    Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018 Foreword Foreword 4 Contents 1 Introduction 6 1.1 About the Core Strategy 7 1.2 About Folkestone and Hythe 11 2 Strategic Issues 22 2.1 District Development Challenges and Potential 22 2.2 Strategic Needs for Sustainable Development 34 3 Aims and Vision for Folkestone and Hythe District 40 3.1 District Planning Aims 40 3.2 Vision for Folkestone and Hythe District 42 4 The Spatial Strategy for Folkestone and Hythe 48 4.1 District Spatial Strategy 48 4.2 Housing and the Economy Growth Strategy 56 4.3 Place Shaping and Sustainable Settlements Strategy 59 4.4 Priority Centres of Activity Strategy 67 4.5 District Infrastructure Planning Strategy 72 4.6 Strategic Allocations 77 5 Core Strategy Delivery 108 5.1 Core Policies for Planning 108 5.2 Areas of Strategic Change 129 5.3 Implementation 150 6 Appendices 154 6.1 Appendix 1: Monitoring and Risk 154 6.2 Appendix 2: Glossary of Terms and Technical Studies 161 Consultation Draft (Regulation 18) Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018 Consultation Draft (Regulation 18) Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018 Foreword Consultation Draft (Regulation 18) 3 Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2018 Foreword Core Strategy Local Plan Review I’m delighted to present the first consultation draft of the review of our Core Strategy Local Plan. Our Core Strategy sets out our long term vision for the district’s communities, economy and environment. The current strategy was adopted in 2013 – this review updates key parts of that document.
  • Shepway Green Infrastructure Report 2011

    Shepway Green Infrastructure Report 2011

    Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
  • English Nature Research Report

    English Nature Research Report

    Natural Area: 41. North Downs Geological Significance: Considerable /I (provisional) General geological character: The North Downs Natural Area is dominated by Cretaceous Chalk. This very pure limestone was deposited on a tropical sea floor between 97 and 65 Ma and is composed of the skeletons of very small marine shells. Although the chalk was originally deposited as a horizontal layer or sheet of relatively uniform thickness, it has been folded by subsequent tectonic movements during the Alpine orogeny (beginning around 50 million years ago). This has buckled the horizontal sheets into the now distinctive North Downs hills. Other Crctaceous sedirnents include the marine clays of the Lower Greensand and Gault Clay (1 I2 to 97 Ma) which fringe the southern edge of the Downs. The Downs arc dissectcd in many places by networks of dry valleys, cut when the periglacial climates of the Quaternary (the last 2 million years) allowed the Downs to carry surface streams. Some of these dry valleys contain ephemeral streams which are the product of seasonal fluctuations in the levels of the chalk aquifer. The summits of the South Ilowns often display pure chalk in places where the weathering mantle of clay-with- flints IS absent although natural exposures are rare. The footslope of the Downs is masked by periglacial solifluction deposits, known as Coombe Rock. These deposits were washed down the hill slopes of the Downs during periods of surface weathering as a result of the intense periglacial climates during this time. Exposures of the Cretaceous rocks are rare except where they form the coastal cliffs in the east of the area.
  • Mineral Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report

    Mineral Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report

    Mineral Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report October 2012 Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework Planning for the future of minerals and waste in Kent Front Cover Images Top Left: Restored sand and gravel quarry. Bottom Right: Marine sand and gravel being discharged from a dredger on the Thames Estuary. Mineral Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Kent County Council Contents Abbreviations i 1 Introduction 1 2 Preferred Options Site Map 2 Mineral Sites: Preferred Options 4 Mineral Sites Preferred Options Document 4 5 Mineral Sites Preferred Options Evidence Base 6 6 Sand and Gravel Sites 8 Soft Sand Sites 10 Site 6: Land Adjacent to Platt Industrial Site, Platt 10 Site 24: Land North of Addington Lane, Trottiscliffe 12 Site 75: Boltons Field, Lenham Heath 14 Site 76: Chapel Farm, Lenham 18 Site 77: Burleigh Farm & Tile Lodge, Charing 22 Site 97: Shrine Farm, Postling 26 Site 105: Borough Green Sand Pits Extension, Wrotham 30 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites 32 Site 2: Beltring Green Farm, East Peckham 32 Site 17: Moat Farm, Capel 34 Site 49: Land Adjacent to Hammer Dyke, Capel 36 Site 71: Stonecastle Farm, Whetsted 38 Kent County Council Mineral Sites Preferred Options Commentary Report Site 73: Lydd Quarry Extensions (Areas A - D), Lydd 40 7 Crushed Rock (Ragstone) Sites 44 8 Silica Sand Sites 46 Contents Site 24: Land North of Addington Lane, Trottiscliffe 48 9 Chalk Sites for Cement Manufacture 50 10 Chalk Sites for Agriculture and Engineering Use 52 Site 63: Pinden Quarry Extension, Dartford 52 11 Brickearth Sites 56 Site