planning report PDU/3052/01 21 November 2012 West London Composting Land and Land to the North and South of New Years Green Lane, in the London Borough of planning application no.12579/APP/2012/2366

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal The continuation and formalisation of existing recycling operations at land to the North and South of New Years Green Lane for an In Vessel Composting Facility (IVC) operation to handle a maximum throughput of 75,000 tonnes per annum of organic waste for a temporary period of five years. The applicant The applicant is West London Composting and the agent is SLR Consulting

Strategic issues The principle of the existing use at this site is acceptable since it is an established use in the Green Belt, however the proposed increase in throughput to the site, which would intensify the use may lead to a number of environmental impacts. These impacts include air quality, odour, noise, pollution and health. Whilst the proposal would support waste policies, the likely impacts of this proposal need to be considered carefully and mitigated against effectively by the applicant in liaison with the Environment Agency and Hillingdon Council before the proposal can be considered appropriate and balanced strategically. Further work is needed in respect of the Green Belt, waste, air quality, odour, noise, biodiversity, land contamination/water pollution mitigation, health and transport.

Recommendation

That Hillingdon Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 55 of this report; however possible remedies set out in this paragraph define how these deficiencies can be addressed.

Context

1 On 15 October 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Hillingdon Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site

page 1 for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 23 November 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 2B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

Category 2B 1. Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than— (b) 50,000 tonnes per annum of waste; produced outside the land in respect of which planning permission is sought.

3 Once Hillingdon Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

6 The application site is located to the north and south of New Years Green Lane and covers an area of approximately 4.2 hectares. The site is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt land in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (September1998). Access to the site is via the eastern end of New Years Green Lane, which links to the A4180 to the east, which provides access to Rickmansworth to the north and the A40/M40 and M25 motorways to the south and the south west. The nearest section of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A40 Western Avenue, which lies 2.6km to the south of the site. The nearest section of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A404 Rickmansworth Road located approximately 3.5km north of the site.

7 Bus route 331 operates between Station and Belmont Road; this can be accessed from Leaholme Way, approximately 1km from the site. West Ruislip Station, which is 2km to the east of the site, provides both a Central line service between Epping and West Ruislip and mainline service to Marylebone and Gerrards Cross. The West London Composting Land site is estimated to have a poor Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2, on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is most accessible.

8 The West London Composting Land site is split across two separate areas of land located north and south of New Years Green Lane. The majority of the northern site is bounded by open land, with 4 residential units to the south west and St Leonard’s Farm to the south east of the site. The south site is bounded by open land to south, east and west with Elm Tree Farm situated to the north east of the site.

9 The existing compost maturation area is located on the northern side of the road (on Pylon Farm) and the waste reception (delivery) and invessel composting (IVC) facility are located on the southern side of the road (on Highview Farm).

10 The following structures occupy the application site:

page 2  Weighbridge and site office;  Maintenance building;  Reception hall;  Compost storage clamps;  Water tanks;  Final maturation and storage area;  Car parking area;  Drainage lagoon; and concrete hard standing

11 The River Colne flows 2.5km west of the application site in a north-south course. The also follows the same course as the River Colne. The Chiltern railway line is located approximately 1 km south of the application site and follows a east-west route.

12 There are a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the vicinity of this invessel composting (IVC) plant and operations. These include:

, which lies 3.55 km to the north west;  , which lies 2.45 km to the north west;  , which lies 3.9km to the south west;  , which lies 2.1km to the west; and  (Specifically Bayhurst Woods Country Park), which lies 200m to the north.

13 There are also a number of Local Nature Reserves in the vicinity including Northmoorhill Wood 3.4km to the west, Ruislip 3.4km to the east, Frays Valley and Denham Quarry Park 1.75km to the south west.

14 There is another composting facility located on Crow’s Nest Farm adjacent to the site (see map below), which is operated by Country Compost Ltd. The two sites-north and south of New Year’s Green Lane

(Source: google maps)

page 3 Land to the North of New Year’s Green Lane

Land to the south of New Year’s Green Lane

(Source: Planning and Sustainability Statement, September 2012)

page 4 Details of the proposal

15 The application is for the continuation and formalisation of existing recycling operations at land both north and south of New Years Green Lane for an in IVC to handle a maximum throughput of 75,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of organic waste for a temporary period of five years. This proposal for intensification of the use is a temporary ‘trial run’ for five years.

16 The site is currently used for this proposed purpose, however the size and form of the development is not undergoing any changes despite the proposed increase in tonnage throughput of green waste.

17 The site currently benefits from an existing planning permission which has a condition which restricts the site to 50,000 tpa so essentially the applicant is applying for an additional 25,000 tpa throughput. The environmental permit for the existing operations also cap the throughput at 50,000 tonnes per annum and thus the applicant has submitted an application to the Environment Agency (EA) simultaneously to obtain a ‘variation to the existing permit’.

The process

18 The IVC facility will continue to receive source separated materials and process green and kitchen waste. The material arrives into a reception building, where it is shredded and transferred to the IVC process, which takes place within enclosed vessels (on land to the south of New Years Green Lane, at High View Farm). The compost is then deposited onto the asphalt apron and formed into windrows (on land to the North of New Years Green Lane, at Pylon Farm). The material is turned once a week for 6-10 weeks with a Backhus Side Turner to ensure that the material is mixed thoroughly. The number of weeks of maturation of the compost depends on the speed at which it forms. Case history

19 A permanent planning permission ref: 39755/APP/2002/3026 (June 2003), secures the infrastructure at Highview Farm to the south of New Years Green Lane. A further permanent planning permission ref: 39755/APP/2006/1446 allowed for the erection of 16 further vessels (June 2006).

20 On March 6 2006 an application was submitted to allow the continued use of the maturation area (Ref 12579/APP/2006/673) for a further five years. This application was granted. The permission was due to expire on 17 August 2011 however the agent (SLR) secured a further extension of life for a temporary period of one year to allow maturation operations to continue whilst the current planning application, which is the subject of this report, and associated environmental statement was being prepared.

21 On 19 February 2007 an application was submitted to relocate the drainage lagoon to the northern end of the site and the application was granted. The permission was also due to expire 16 August 2011 however SLR secured a further extension of life for a temporary period of one year to allow maturation operations to continue.

22 These aforementioned temporary permissions expired on 27 October 2012.

page 5 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

23 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Green Belt/MOL London Plan  Waste London Plan; the Municipal Waste Management Strategy; PPS10  Air quality London Plan; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Climate change London Plan; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Biodiversity/Geodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; draft Tree and Woodland Strategies; London’s Foundations (Geodiversity) SPG  Water supply/land contamination London Plan  Health London Plan; Health Inequalities Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

24 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Hillingdon Council Unitary Development Plan amended with saved policies, 27 September 2007 and the 2011 London Plan.

25 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  Defra’s Good practice and regulatory guidance on composting and odour control for local authorities (2009)  The Hillingdon Core Strategy, approved on 8 November 2012 following a successful independent Examination in Public held between March and May 2012.  The Hillingdon Biodiversity Action Plan (HBAP)  The Draft West London Waste Plan (Issues and Options stage, April 2009). The Proposed Submission draft of the Plan is to be consulted on next year (although it has been agreed in a joint Boroughs meeting on 11 May 2012). It should be noted that this document has not been referred to and this particular site is not an identified site within this draft plan.  Environment Agency-GP3 Ground water Protection policy and Practice

Principle of use- Green Belt land

26 No change to the size and form of the buildings on site are proposed however, the intensification of the use may pose some negative impacts on the Green Belt and surrounding receptors and sites, some of which have SSSI designations. Similarly it may pose impacts on environmental receptors and thus the applicant will need to demonstrate that this proposal does not negatively impact on the openness of the Green Belt in line with National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 87-89; 122-124.

27 Clarification is required from the applicant as to whether the IVC infrastructure has the capacity to process a further increase in tonnage of green waste. The EA has indicated through discussions that the IVC is the subject of a condition which restricts its throughput to 50,000 tpa

page 6 for environmental reasons, however the planning statement presumes that the facility can increase its throughput as the IVC potentially has a capacity of 100,000 tpa, hence the proposal to trial an additional 25,000 tpa.

28 The GLA has been in liaison with the EA and it is understood that there is further work required on the part of the applicant to make this proposal acceptable. The GLA will require this information alongside the additional material specified within this report. Waste

29 The London Plan aims to ensure London is 100 per cent waste self sufficient by 2031. London Plan waste policy focuses on minimising the level of waste generated, increasing re-use, recycling and composting of waste and generating energy from non-recycled waste in the most environmentally friendly way possible in order to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and to support the development of low carbon waste infrastructure in London. 30 The GLA supports this proposal as it is contributing to increasing composting levels in London. The intensification of the land use for increased throughput is supported subject to all other environmental impacts being reviewed and there being no adverse impact from the intensification. The applicant is however requested to clarify the following:  Where the feedstock is coming from  Whether there is sufficient storage and drying maturation land space to accommodate the increased tonnage of green waste intake  What the market is for the end product, and  Whether the end product is PAS1 10 standard?

Air quality

31 The applicant has submitted an air quality assessment and this has been independently assessed by the GLA.

Road Traffic

32 The site will give rise to 30 extra vehicle movements per day and thus the impact from road traffic emissions is negligible and has been assessed as such.

Air quality impact/air quality neutral

33 The development can be said to be air quality neutral as there will be a negligible impact on air quality.

Cumulative effects

34 It is not clear if the cumulative impact of this development and any other permitted development has been assessed and this should be clarified.

35 The EA are reviewing the Odour Management Plan of the adjacent facility and this should lead to increased control of odour from that site.

page 7

Baseline & Historic Odour

36 The Air Quality assessment indicates that there have been some complaints made. It is not clear whether these are to the EA, applicant or Hillingdon Council. The consultant’s opinion is that the level of complaints during the period is non-trivial.

37 However the Council has indicated that whilst odour is within the remit of the EA and controlled under the existing environmental permit, there have been odour complaints over a long period regarding the site. Given the permit, the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) has been working in a liaison role between residents, the EA and West London Composting (WLC). As odour emissions from the site are controlled under the environmental permit, complaints are now referred to the EPU to the Environment Agency, or more often made direct to the Agency on their hotline. Clearly there may be greater local issues which are not always reported and thus logged.

38 The permit covers the north and south areas of the site. There is an Odour Management Plan (OMP) for the site. The current version dates to 2009 following an enforcement notice dated 15/2/2009 by the EA. The OMP is a requirement of the permit and odour is controlled by two conditions, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of permit, EPR/UP3893EC dated 29/3/2011. The EA has indicated that it is reviewing the variation to the existing permit (application), its decision remains undecided and it will be necessary for the Council to be involved in this consultation to know what the variations to the environmental permit are to then secure the relevant conditions, should the proposal be considered acceptable.

Odour, Dust and Bioaerosols

39 The odour impact assessment is not complete and the following information should also be supplied. It will not be sufficient to rely on the EA permit process.

40 The information on the following is also required: potential pathways, odour emissions, odour exposure criterion, background levels (of odour), model description, emission parameters. This outstanding information is required by the GLA and Hillingdon Council to assess the potential impact. It is expected that the EA will also raise such concerns.

41 The operation will handle more waste material and therefore, without changes to the operation odour nuisance would be expected to increase. In addition, since the original operation was permitted by the Environment Agency the assessment criterion has become tighter, reducing from 5 ouE/m3 as a 98th percentile to 3 ouE/m3 as a 98th percentile.

Bioaerosols

42 Studies indicate that bioaerosols generated during composting are reduced to background levels within 200 metres of a source and the Environment Agency suggests a risk based approach where composting occurs within 250 metres of a receptor. As there are residential receptors within 250m of the windrows a bioaerosol risk assessment should be conducted.

Meteorological Conditions

43 The year of the data should be specified in paragraph 6.68 of the air quality assessment. Ideally several years data should be considered as year to year variations can occur, for instance, in 2010 there was a significant proportion of winds from the northeast. However, this data is not

page 8 directly used to assess impact and therefore looking at further years would not add anything to this report. A trend in conditions over a number of years would provide clearer results.

Conclusion

44 It is evident that there is further work required to be undertaken by the applicant to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed intensification of use of the IVC facility do not cause negative impacts, which cannot be rectified due to the sensitive receptors nearby. The relevant additional assessments/work need to be undertaken, such as a bioaerosol impact assessment, the additional information specified in paragraph 40 of this report, verification of the complaints received and review of the meteorological variations over the years. The applicant should work with the EA and the Council to reach a local resolution to these matters thereby allowing for appropriate conditions to be imposed, should this proposal be considered appropriate in the current setting. Noise

45 The applicant has submitted a noise assessment (chapter 8 and its appendix) and this has been independently assessed by the GLA. 46 The following matters require further clarification:  no specific planning requirements of Hillingdon Council or London wide planning & noise policies are referred to. Therefore, compliance/non-compliance with the relevant planning policies cannot be confirmed.  where noise from heavy goods vehicles is predicted in accordance with the calculation methodologies contained in British Standard 5228, details of the assessment methodology, including plant noise data and any assumptions made on the operations of the HGVs, should be provided.  confirmation is required as to whether there are any other noise sources capable of adversely affecting local amenity associated with the proposed development.  A BS 4142 assessment, comparing the rating noise level and typical background noise levels, should be carried out where the proposal involves industrial operations.

47 It is noted from the report that the three noise measurement locations used are The Breakspear Arms, The Homestead and New Years Farm. These are considered to be representative of the nearest noise-sensitive locations to the site. However, it is understood that there are 4 residential units to the south west and St Leonard’s Farm to the south east of the north development site, and Elm Tree Farm to the north east of the south development site. The above mentioned noise sensitive receptors are much closer to the proposed development site than those identified in the noise report, and are potentially subjected to higher noise levels. Clarifications/justifications are required as to why these closer noise sensitive receptors were not included in the assessment.

48 The noise report states that measurements were taken over a number of 15 minute periods during the daytime period 07:00 to 19:00 hours at each location. It is noted from Appendix 8/D that noise measurements were carried out between 12:30 and 14:45 on 15 March 2012. To clarify the measurements, a full survey should be carried out to characterise noise variations between the proposed operational hours, especially if there are operations on Saturdays. Summary and Recommendations

49 Further work and clarification is required to fully assess the application in terms of noise. The report should be updated to fully address any relevant planning & noise requirements of London Borough of Hillingdon and wider London planning & noise policies. A full BS 4142

page 9 assessment should be carried out at the nearest noise sensitive receptors including St Leonard’s Farm and Elm Tree Farm.

Biodiversity

50 The site lies in close proximity to numerous SSSI sites and nature reserves. It is also on the Green Belt and as such Natural England has advised the applicant to undertake an assessment of protected species at this site and to consider the Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The applicant should refer to London Plan policy 7.19 (biodiversity and access to nature) to ensure that its assessment is compliant with the London Plan. Water supply/land contamination

51 In reviewing the assessment made by Hillingdon Council of the EIA scoping exercise undertaken by SLR, and from the discussions had with the relevant EA officer, it is apparent that this proposal for intensification is likely to lead to ground water pollution and landfill gas increase with no suitable and sufficient risk management arrangements in place to prevent such harm. It is understood that there are numerous boreholes on the site and this may potentially lead to pollution of the main groundwater supply. The GLA will require the applicant to continue working with the EA and the Council to mitigate against this and will require the imposition of conditions to prevent such pollution, should the application be deemed successful. Health

52 In light of the potential impacts on the health of local residents and perhaps those further afield, it is necessary for the applicant to consider London Plan Policy 3.2 C (Improving health and addressing health inequalities) and undertake a health impact assessment (HIA) to demonstrate that any cumulative impacts of this development intensification proposal, and any other permitted development (such as the neighbouring composting plant at Crow’s Nest Farm) have been considered and that measures have been taken to mitigate the impacts. Transport

53 The site is located on New Years Green Lane, which is not part of or in close proximity to either the TLRN or SRN. Therefore in light of its location, scale and nature, TfL is satisfied that the proposed development is unlikely to impede vehicle movements on the TLRN or SRN.

54 TfL however recommends that a construction logistics plan (CLP) and a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) are submitted for approval by Hillingdon Council and suggests this is secured by condition.

55 TfL recommends that the proposals are supported by a travel plan. Although one is not required for the scale of the development, it is suggested that one is devised to encourage sustainable travel. TfL also suggest additional cycle parking is provided on site to encourage sustainable travel.

56 In summary there are no major issues that need to be resolved before the application can be considered to be in line with the transport policies set out within the London Plan (2011). Local planning authority’s position

57 The Council’s position is currently undecided. The Council are in liaison with the Environment Agency.

page 10 Legal considerations

58 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

59 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

60 London Plan policies on Green Belt, waste, air quality, odour, energy, transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others and on balance does not comply with the London Plan; the reasons and the potential remedies to issues of non compliance are set out below:

 Green Belt: Although this proposal is for an existing development in the Green Belt, the applicant should review the relevant sections of the NPPF to demonstrate that the application will not have a overall detrimental impact on the Green Belt.

 Waste: The applicant is advised to address the outstanding matters raised in the waste section of the report. Reference should be made to policy 5.17 of the London Plan (Waste capacity) since this lists the criteria against which waste management is evaluated. Whilst these criterion/matters are addressed in this report, it is considered relevant and important for the applicant to understand how this waste proposal will be assessed amongst other policy (environmental) matters.  Air quality: There are various matters raised in this report specifically relating to odour, bioaerosols, and climatic conditions which require further work and or clarification. Reference should be made to the air quality section to address all the outstanding matters raised.

 Noise: There are outstanding matters relating to noise policy, monitoring measurements and measurement points which require clarification and further work.

 Biodiversity: The applicant is required to undertake a biodiversity impact assessment, considering the advice of Natural England and the Council’s BAP.

 Water supply/land contamination: The applicant should continue to work with the EA and Hillingdon Council to ensure that the impacts likely to occur to ground water supply and land, due to increase in gases should be avoided and or sufficiently mitigated against. The Council will need to impose conditions and monitor this carefully should the proposal and the mitigation proposed be considered acceptable.

page 11  Health: The applicant is required to undertake a HIA to demonstrate any health impacts that may arise as a result of this development and cumulatively with other such permitted uses nearby.

 Transport: It appears that the likely extra vehicle movements is acceptable from a transport and air quality impact perspective, however there are further plans required to be undertaken and secured by condition. A travel plan is required to specifically address sustainable travel and to provide cycle parking at the site.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Sukhpreet.khull, Case Officer 020 7983 4806 email [email protected]

page 12