Contact Officer; Mary Thompson Tel: (01865) 815901

Division(s): Dorchester &

ITEM PN8

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE – 14 SEPTEMBER 2009

APPLICATION FOR AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTION BIOGAS PLANT COMPRISING OF A SERVICE BUILDING, A TECHNICAL BUILDING AND FOUR TANKS. INCLUDING A HARD STANDING AND CAR PARKING AREA. TO INCLUDE THE CLOSURE OF THE EXISTING VEHICULAR ENTRANCE ONTO PAIN WAY FROM THE A329 AND CREATE A NEW ACCESS FROM THE A329 TO CONNECT PAIN WAY. TO INCLUDE PROVISION OF RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTH WEST OF PAIN WAY AND PROVIDE A LINK BRIDLEWAY BETWEEN THE EAST SIDE OF THE A329 AND BRIDLEWAY 15B AT PLUS HARDSTANDING AND CAR PARKING AREA TOGETHER WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING SITE ACCESS FORMED BETWEEN THE A329 AND PAIN WAY, UPPER FARM, .

Report by the Head of Sustainable Development

Location Upper Farm, Road, Warborough Applicant Midland Pig Producers Ltd Application No PO9/W0076-CM Division Dorchester and Berinsfield District Council Area South

Introduction

1. This is an application for a facility to recycle food waste, farm slurry and possibly also green waste through anaerobic digestion. This process converts the waste into fertiliser, which would be spread on agricultural fields surrounding the application site, and biogas which is used to generate electricity.

Location

2. The site is located on an existing pig farm on the northern edge of the village of Warborough. Warborough is in and located 18 km (11 miles) south east of Oxford and 5 km (3 miles) north of Wallingford. The site is in the Green Belt.

The Site and its Setting (See Plan 1)

3. The site is surrounded by agricultural land although it is close to the village of Warborough. The closest properties each lie approximately 600 metres from the application site, Upper Farm farmhouse and properties on Hammer Lane to the south and Lower Grange to the north east. The Little Wittenham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie 3 kilometres (2miles) from the application site and the Watercress Beds Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies 5 kilometres (3 miles) away.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 2

4. Access to the site is from the A329 which is the main road through Warborough. The access point lies approximately 800 metres north of the edge of the built up area of Warborough.

5. Pain Lane is a bridleway and forms the access to the site, then continues between the existing pig unit and the site for the proposed biogas plant. No other public rights of way run through or adjacent to the site.

Details of Application (See Plan 2)

6. This proposal is for an anaerobic digestion plant which would process food waste and pig slurry and produce heat and biogas which is then converted into electricity and fertiliser. The application suggests that green waste might also be accepted if there was a shortage of food waste, but the final tonnages of different types of waste cannot be clarified at this time. There would be a maximum throughput of 33 000 tonnes per year. 20 000 tpa of this would be imported green and food waste and 13 000 tonnes would be pig waste and water from the pig farm adjacent to the application site.

7. The plant itself would comprise of a service building, a digester tank, a receiving tank, a residue storage tank, an effluent treatment plant technical building and a liquid bio-fertiliser storage tank.

8. The food waste would arrive at the service building by lorry. The pig slurry would be piped to a receiving tank and then transferred to the service building for mixing with the food waste. The mixed waste would then be pasteurised. From the service building it would be piped to the digester tank. Methane gas would be captured from the top of the tank during the digestion process and returned to the combined heat and power unit in the service building. This would generate electricity to be exported to the national grid and also create hot water which would be used to heat the existing pig buildings. Following the completion of treatment through anaerobic digestion in the digester tank the material would be transferred to a residue storage tank and then to an effluent treatment plant which would separate the solids. This process would produce water, liquid bio-fertiliser and fibrous solids for soil improvement. The water would be piped to an existing lagoon and some will be re-circulated within the biogas plant, the liquid bio-fertiliser would be sent to the bio-fertiliser storage tank and then removed by vacuum tanker for spreading on the surrounding agricultural fields. The second type of fertiliser that would be produced is a fibrous solid which would be dried out and transferred by tractor and trailer to the surrounding agricultural land. The transfer of the outputs from the process, water, liquid fertiliser and solid fertiliser would not result in any vehicle movements on the public highway network.

9. The plant itself would operate continuously 24 hours a day 7 days a week. However deliveries to the plant would be restricted to standard operating hours.

10. The service building would be the largest building and would measure 35 metres by 39 metres with a height of 9.7 metres to the roof ridge. The digester tank would have a 30 metre diameter and the liquid bio-fertilizer storage tank

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 3

would have a 25 metre diameter, each would be 8 metres high. The residue storage tank would have a 15 metre diameter and the receiving tank would have a 14 metre diameter. Each would be 6 metres high. The effluent treatment plant technical building would be 6 metres high at its highest point and measure 14 by 22 metres.

11. The application proposes a 2 metre high galvanised fence surrounding the site, an earth bund along the north west and south western boundaries of the site. Areas of potential new tree planting are identified to mitigate visual impact. It is also proposed to maintain the existing newly planted hedgerow to minimise visual impact from the bridleway.

12. The site is currently an agricultural field. It is located close to the existing pig unit but on the other side of Pain Way bridleway and a hedge.

13. The development would generate an average of 6 HGV movements per day from waste deliveries to the site. The 2 employees at the site might generate an additional 4 vehicle movements per day through their journeys to work. Traffic would enter the site from the A329 using a new access that would cut across a field and join the existing track Pain Way. In order to reach the site from the south and the A4074, traffic would have to travel through Warborough village.

Additional Information and Amendments – See Plan 2

14. Additional information and amendments to the application were submitted in May 2009. This included a change to the description of development. The main change is to the access arrangements. Originally it was proposed to improve the existing access point onto the A329 from Pain Way. However the amended application proposes a new access at a point further south on the A329. There would also be a new length of access road from Pain Way across a field to reach the new access point. The red line area was changed to include an area for rights of way improvements.

15. Rights of way improvements are proposed as part of the amended application. There was concern during the first round of consultations about the effect that the traffic associated with the plant construction and operation would have on users of the bridleway. Therefore the applicant has proposed to divert the bridleway from Pain Way to ensure there is no conflict between HGV traffic and other users. The applicant intends to make an application for the permanent diversion of the bridleway, to run alongside Pain Way but on the other side of the hedge. This process can take some time so the applicant is also intending to provide this route as a permissive right of way before the development commences. This now forms part of the development proposals and could be required by condition. The applicant has also applied to provide a new bridleway link from the access from Pain Way onto the A329 along the eastern side of the A329 to link with bridleway 15b.

16. The additional information also includes detailed landscaping and planting proposals, an ecological survey, a flood risk assessment, further information on archaeology and a response to objections received during the first round of

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 4

consultations, including to the comments from South Oxfordshire District Council. The additional information has been the subject of a further round of consultations.

17. The latest consultation exercise has resulted in a further response from SODC in which they continue to object to the proposal. As a result of this objection the applicant asked for a deferral to consider the points raised. However, they have now asked for the application to be determined as submitted, rather than submit any further amendments. The applicant has provided a letter further justifying the location of the application site and proposed improvements to the planting scheme and clarification regarding cut and fill.

Consultations (Consultation period finished on 25 June 2009)

South Oxfordshire District Council

First Consultation

18. Object - Site is within the green belt and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated. There is insufficient information regarding landscape. Buildings would be much more prominent in the landscape than the existing farm buildings. Planting mitigation proposed is inadequate. Insufficient information on the origin of the green waste. The Environmental Health Officer considers that noise and odour could be adequately dealt with through condition.

Second Consultation

19. Object - Development is sited close to the Pain Way right of way and this could have been overcome by siting it further to the north. In the current position there is little mitigation possible to reduce its effect on the bridleway. More planting is needed than the single new hedgerow on the edge of Pain Way. There would be an 18 metre window onto the development unmitigated by any planting. The application states that cut and fill will reduce the visual and noise impact of the service building and tanks. However archeological constraints mean that only topsoil could be stripped. Planting mitigation is inadequate. There are not very special circumstances for this development in the Green Belt.

Warborough Parish Council

First Consultation

20. Strongly support this application as at present the spreading of pig slurry can produce strong odours and fly problems. Current management at Upper Farm has a good record at minimising these problems and are confident that they would also manage the new proposals effectively. Would support the siting of the plant in the Green Belt on this occasion. Scheme would help minimise waste to landfill.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 5

Second Consultation

21. Supports this application. The changes to the vehicle access and the bridleway seem acceptable. Some concern has been raised about the size of the plant in the long term. Would support OCC to exercise control of any future large scale development.

Dorchester on Thames Parish Council

First Consultation

22. Supports the application in principle and would like to endorse the views of Warborough Parish Council with regard to the location of the proposed plant within the site.

Second Consultation

23. Supports the application and has no further comments to add.

Drayton St Leonard Parish Council

Response sent via SODC

24. Object. Out of scale in Green Belt. Concerned about environmental and visual impact of industrial process and associated HGVs. Sensitive archeological area, desk top study is dismissive of potential damage. Notification of the application in terms of site notice, individual notification and Parish Council notification was insufficient.

Second Consultation

25. No further response received at time of writing report.

Berinsfield Parish Council

First Consultation

26. No response – not consulted.

Second Consultation

27. Do not wish to raise any objections.

Newington Parish Council

First Consultation

28. No response – not consulted

Second Parish Council

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 6

29. Object. The major concern is additional traffic caused by the use of imported waste. Concern about 10 additional vehicle movements per day and the unspecified number of vacuum tankers delivering liquid fertiliser to other farms. The A329 in Newington is very narrow in places such that lorries cannot pass. Heavy lorries cause vibration of houses close to the road and for this reason a weight restriction has been put on the road. It is understandable that businesses existing before the weight limit was put on should be allowed to maintain their lorry access, but to allow an increase in HGVs would not make sense. Concerns also raised about odour and the position of the site close to a bridleway and the river.

Environment Agency

First Consultation

30. Object. The flood risk assessment submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements PPS25.

Second Consultation

31. No objection. The proposed development has achieved more than the volume of attenuation required by using swales as a sustainable drainage method. Because of the use of the site the EA accepts the use of a penstock to ensure that if the tanks should leak or fail, polluted water would not enter the surface water system. As the swale is an open system any pollution will be easier to detect. Satisfied that the scheme is achievable but will require further detailed calculations through planning conditions. Also suggest informatives on environmental permitting and consent to discharge and advice to applicant on water quality.

Oxford Green Belt Network

First Consultation

32. Object. Inappropriate development in the Oxford Green Belt since the new buildings and hard standing amount to encroachment in the countryside and would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. Would have a negative visual impact. The mitigation measures proposed are not enough to overcome these objections. Concerned about the proposal for a bund as this would alter the form of the local landscape in an artificial manner. Reject that very special circumstances can be found for this development. These seem to rely on the use of pig slurry but this is outweighed by the need to bring in larger amounts of food waste. Collection of food waste from a large area and transport to the farm is unsustainable. The County Council has already approved a digester at Worton Farm and it is understood that this would accept Oxfordshire’s food waste. Therefore this plant would be dependant on domestic food waste from other counties, or industrial food waste.

Second Consultation

33. Apart from the attempt to address access and bridleway problems the application appears to be fundamentally the same and their attitude to it

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 7

remains the same. Establishment of what is effectively an industrial enterprise in the Green Belt would be inappropriate and reduce openness. Acknowledge that PPS22 does not rule out waste facilities in the Green Belt, but applications are still required to satisfy the usual tests. No very special circumstances have been established in this case. Concerned about the large amounts of food waste needed and consider this unsustainable. Landscaping fine in principle but does not seem right for this to arise from a need to hide buildings especially if it involves artificial structures such as bunds. Dislike the need for development to interfere with established rights of way.

Campaign to Protect Rural (Wallingford District)

First Consultation

34. Object. This plant would constitute inappropriate development. The site is within the Green Belt close to its outer boundary and in open country. Close to the summit of Town Hill and would therefore be visible to the west and north. Buildings would have a negative impact on the landscape. Weak justification for the selection of the location as most dry matter would be imported to the site, only a small quantity of pig slurry nearby. Concerned about countryside location for an industrial plant.

Second Consultation

35. No further response received.

British Horse Society

First Consultation:

36. Do not feel that sufficient regard has been made for equestrian users. It is dangerous for horses on the A329 between the Pain Way junction and the bridleway to . Proposal appears contrary to a number of policies within the Oxfordshire Structure Plan policies, Oxfordshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Oxfordshire’s Local Transport Plan and South Oxfordshire Local Plan.

Second Consultation

37. Generally speaking the amendments address concerns. Encloses detailed comments from a local rider. These comments ask for clarification about which parts of these rights of way improvements would still occur if permission were not granted. Would be better not to have gates as these tend to become damaged and need maintenance and are not necessarily safer. Will a bund be installed parallel to the existing bridleway in front of the plant to prevent the users of the bridleway looking down on the plant? What measures are to be put in place at the point where the road to the biogas plant crosses the bridleway?

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 8

National Grid

38. No objection. Have carried out a detailed assessment with respect to operational electricity network and have concluded that the risk is negligible.

Thames Water

First Consultation

39. No objection with regard to sewerage or water infrastructure.

Second Consultation

40. No response received at time of writing report.

Natural England

41. No objection. It would appear unlikely that protected species would be adversely affected by this development. Advises that conditions should be added to require the implementation of the ecological enhancements proposed in the ecological report. This would be in accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which places a duty on public authorities to conserve biodiversity and Circular 06/2005 which states that local authorities should take steps to further the conservation of habitats and species through their planning function.

County Ecologist

First consultation

42. A more detailed landscaping scheme is required. The scheme that has been submitted shows tree planting on the bunds, which is not encouraged as it may lead to the bunds becoming a permanent feature. Natural England’s advice should be sought regarding the potential air emission impacts on the surrounding biodiversity, particularly the Little Wittenham SAC and SSSI.

Second Consultation

43. No objection. The landscaping scheme includes the amendments requested. Suggests conditions requiring that no vegetation removal takes place during the bird nesting season and for planting to be carried out as proposed.

County Archaeology

First Consultation

44. The application site lies south of a series of archaeological features, one of which may be of national importance. It is possible that related features extend southwards towards the application site. The geophysical survey has shown a number of anomalies. Therefore recommend that, prior to the determination of this application, the applicant should be responsible for the implementation of an archaeological field evaluation.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 9

Second Response

45. The applicant has given assurances that there will be no disturbance to the ground below the topsoil and subsoil, except for the construction of the service building and effluent treatment plant technical building. An archaeological watching brief, secured by condition, should be undertaken for this development.

Second Consultation

46. Confirms recommendation in second response for a condition requiring that there should be no development below the depth of the topsoil (except for the Service Building and the Effluent Treatment Plant) and a condition for a watching brief.

Transport Development Control

First consultation

47. Object. The access onto the A329 is substandard. There have been a number of accidents on this section of the A329. The visibility sightlines are not sufficient. This proposal would double the movements on this access point. The access road is only suitable for one vehicle in one direction and additional passing bays would be required.

Second Consultation

48. No objection. The new proposed access is in accordance with sightline requirements and takes account of the number of accidents on this stretch of the A329. The sightlines should be secured by planning condition and all hedges and shrubs must be maintained within these sightlines. The hedge and bushes on the other side of the carriageway in the direction must be removed and this should be secured through condition. Before any new access is designed in detail a safety audit stage 2 must be undertaken and submitted to the Highway Authority. The existing access point must be closed to vehicular traffic by either a hedge or fence and the kerbline and verge reinstated. However as Pain Lane is a bridleway there must be a facility at this access point to allow for horses and some form of gate/open barrier would need to be provided. The width and radii of the new access is now satisfactory. As recommended in the submitted transport report, there must be a minimum of 2 passing bays on the road to the plant. This must also be conditioned and shown on a plan and agreed with the highways authority. Parking and turning on the site must be as shown on the layout plan and must be laid out accordingly. A construction travel plan must also be submitted and agreed before any works commence on the site. This must include routeing agreements, wheel washing facilities and parking and delivery arrangements including stacking of heavy good vehicles.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 10

OCC Rights of Way

First Consultation

49. Holding objection. Concerned about the impact on users of bridleway 11 (Pain Way) during the preparation and construction stage of the operation. Suggests a temporary diversion during the construction works, the installation of passing bays and the implementation of a 5 mile an hour speed restriction. Once the construction was complete there would be a marked increase in vehicular use to the site which could deter users. Access onto A329 could become an accident hotspot. Recommends that the developer considers a separate access track to the plant. To improve the safety of users of the bridleways recommends that a small section of bridleway be dedicated to link the existing bridleway leading from the A329 to the north east towards Berrick Salome to Pain Way.

Second Consultation

50. Pleased that points made in earlier representation have been taken on board. A gate on the east side of the A329 is not required as this field does not need to be stock proof. Would like confirmation that the permissive route on the eastern side of the A329 would remain whether permission is granted or not.

Representations

51. A number of responses have been received from third parties. Details of representations received and the officer response to the points raised are in Annex 1.

Relevant Planning Policies (see Annex 3)

52. The key policy issues are waste management, Green Belt, traffic and rights of way and biodiversity and landscape.

Waste Management

53. SEP policy W3 promotes regional self sufficiency in the provision of waste management capacity, and policy W4 promotes the same at a sub - regional level.

54. SEP policy W10 lists the material streams requiring regional facilities as paper and card and plastics. Those requiring sub-regional facilities are listed as glass, wood, tyres, electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles.

55. SEP policy W5 sets out targets for the diversion of waste from landfill and states that policies and proposals should be in place to meet these targets. It states that priority will be given to processes higher up the waste hierarchy.

56. SEP policy W16 states that policies should aim to reduce the transport and associated impacts of waste movement.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 11

57. SEP policy W17 addresses the location of waste management facilities and states that the suitability of sites should be assessed on the basis of accessibility from urban areas, transport connections and compatible landuses such as previous or existing industrial land use and derelict land.

58. Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) policy W3 states that proposals for recycling/reuse will normally be permitted, providing that;

(a) the site is close to the source of the waste and/or the market for reused materials; (b) the site is well related to appropriate parts of the transport network and located where number and length of motorised journeys is likely to be minimised; (c) the proposal will not cause unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic; (d) the proposal will not pose an unacceptable threat to the water environment; (e) the proposal does not conflict with structure and local plan policies.

59. OMWLP policy W4 re-use/ recycling in the open countryside.

60. OMWLP policy W5 states that waste treatment plant, buildings, machinery and stockpiles must be screened from the surrounding landscape. Such screening should be in place before any waste stockpiling or treatment begins.

Rights of Way and Traffic

61. SEP policy T1 states that policies and proposals should encourage development which is located and designed to reduce average journey lengths, improve the maintenance of the existing transport system, include measures that reduce the overall levels of road casualties and include measures to minimise the negative environmental impacts of transport and where possible to enhance the environment and communities through such interventions.

62. SEP policy C6 states that local authorities should encourage access to the countryside particularly by maintaining and promoting the public rights of way system, identifying opportunities and planning for routes within and between settlements and making new routes multi-functional where possible.

63. SOLP policy R8 states that the retention and protection of the existing rights of way network will be sought and where appropriate proposals to improve it will be supported.

Green Belt

64. The six objectives for the use of land in Green Belts as laid out in PPG2 are; (i) to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population; (ii) to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas; (iii) to retain attractive landscapes and enhance

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 12

landscapes near to where people live; (iv) to improve damaged and derelict land around towns; (v) to secure nature conservation interest; and (vi) to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses. PPG2 states that the making of a material change in the use of land is inappropriate development unless the openness of the Green Belt is maintained. It states that inappropriate development will only be permitted in very special circumstances.

65. PPS10 states that when determining planning applications Green Belts should be protected but the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities should also be recognized. It states that ‘These locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission.’

66. SEP policy PP5 states that the existing broad extent of Green Belts in the region is appropriate and will be retained and supported. The opportunity should be taken to improve their land-use management and access.

67. SEP policy CO4 states that a Green Belt will be maintained around Oxford to a) preserve the special character and landscape setting of Oxford; b) check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl; c) prevent the coalescence of settlements; d) assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and e) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Development in the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities.

68. SOLP policy GB3 also protects the openness of the Green Belt and requires that development does not conflict with the purposes of the designation.

69. SOLP policy GB4 states that development in the Green Belt should be designed and sited in such a way that its impact on the open nature, rural character and visual amenity of the Green Belt is minimised.

70. SEP policy W17 states that ‘waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt.’

Biodiversity and Landscape

71. SEP policy NRM5 states that local planning authorities shall avoid a net loss in biodiversity and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region.

72. SEP policy C4 states that local authorities should develop criteria based policies to ensure that all development respects and enhances local landscape character, securing appropriate mitigation where damage to the local landscape character cannot be avoided.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 13

73. SOLP policy C1 states that measures will be sought to integrate new development sensitively, mitigate landscape impacts and where appropriate, enhance local landscape character through conditions and agreements.

Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development

74. There are four main issues that need to be addressed in deciding the merits of this proposal. These are described below.

Waste Management

75. This development would contribute towards dealing with waste produced in Oxfordshire within the county. This would contribute towards self sufficiency at a regional and sub regional level, in line with SEP policies W3 and W4 respectively. However the information submitted with the application does not rule out bringing in waste from a wider area. This element of the waste import may not accord with the aims of this policy. However, this is only a part of the waste that is proposed to be processed at this plant and economic factors are likely to restrict the area from which food waste is transported to the site. A consultation response has stated that as the operator at Worton Farm, a anaerobic digester plant that already has permission, has the contract to deal with Oxfordshire’s municipal food waste this development would rely on commercial food waste. This is the case. However there is also a need for capacity to handle commercial food waste. Food waste is not one of the waste material streams listed in SEP policy W10 as requiring sub-regional or regional facilities. This implies that food waste should be more localised with more than one facility in the county and that local circumstances will determine where appropriate sites should be located.

76. Anaerobic digestion recovers material to produce soil conditioner and also energy therefore it falls between mechanical and/or biological processing and thermal treatment in the waste hierarchy as set out in SEP policy W5. This is preferable to landfilling. Therefore this proposal is supported by policy W5 as it would contribute towards the diversion of food waste from landfill. The pig slurry element of the waste is currently being deposited on the surrounding agricultural land as a fertiliser. Although this process would not necessarily move this element of the waste further up the hierarchy, there are environmental advantages to treating the waste before it is spread on the land. For example the anaerobic digestion process reduces the odour of the fertiliser.

77. This development is proposing to bring in waste from Oxfordshire but does not limit the source of the waste to within the County. This has the potential to increase the impacts of waste transport due to the wider transport of waste. However the provision of a facility for commercial food waste within Oxfordshire also has the potential to reduce waste transport impacts as green and commercial food waste generated within the county would not have to be transported elsewhere for treatment. The access improvements proposed by the applicant have resulted in an acceptable access point and the removal of the bridleway from the access road itself is also good. This is in accordance

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 14

with SEP policy W16. Although traffic would go through the village in Warborough, there would not be high levels of traffic.

78. This proposal is located on a rural green field site and is not near any of the compatible uses listed in SEP policy W17. It is in the Green Belt, but the policy states that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. Although it is not ideally located for access to urban areas as it is not in close proximity to any main urban location, the site is accessible from some existing urban areas such as Oxford, Wallingford and through the A road network. Therefore this development is supported by some aspects of SEP policy W17, but not others.

79. This is not strictly a recycling operation. However, it is akin to a recycling operation because it converts waste into a different product which can be utilised. Therefore OMWLP policy W3 can be usefully applied in the consideration of this application. For the pig slurry component of the waste input the site is very close to both the source of waste and the market for the end product (the adjacent pig unit). This is in accordance is W3 (a.) Food waste would however also need to be imported to provide enough waste and the necessary mix of wastes for a viable and efficient plant. I consider therefore that the development would be in accordance with W3(a) for the food waste component of the application because it is still very close to the destination of the end product. Food waste would have to be brought into the site but the transport assessment suggests that this would be from within Oxfordshire. Warborough is not especially close to the main urban areas in the county. However on the whole I consider that the development is in accordance with this part of the policy.

80. This development is generally well related to the transport network (see also rights of way and traffic section below), because there is a direct access from the A329 and the A4074 is close to the site. Although the length of journeys would be longer than it would be if the site were close to a main urban centre, such as Oxford I consider that journey lengths would be acceptable, in accordance with OMWLP policy W3 (b.) and also in accordance with OMLP policy W3.

81. The development has the potential to cause nuisance in terms of noise and odour. However the application contains assessments of these and these show that the development should not cause a nuisance if managed properly. There has been no objection from the Environmental Heath Officer. Conditions can be imposed to limit the noise from the development. In addition odour emissions would be controlled through the Environmental Permit process. The development will cause an additional 6 HGV movements per day. This is not a significant level of traffic generation and the vehicles would arrive at the site via an A road suitable for large vehicles. Large vehicles already access the adjoining pig unit. Although the application must be considered carefully in terms of landscape and visual impact, it is some distance from other properties and therefore would not cause a nuisance in terms of visual intrusion. Therefore I do not consider that this development would lead to an unacceptable nuisance in terms of traffic. As there would be no unacceptable nuisance in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 15

intrusion or traffic this development is in accordance with OMWLP policy W3(C).

82. The proposal would not cause an unacceptable risk to the water environment. The Environment Agency have not objected. Therefore the development is in accordance with all aspects of OMWLP policy W3.

83. As stated above OMWLP policies relating to recycling can be usefully applied to this development. OMWLP policy W4 does not support recycling in the open countryside unless there is an overriding need and no other suitable site available.

84. The South East Plan sets targets for the recycling and composting and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste and the amount of C&I waste that needs to be recycled or composted is currently 290,000 tpa, increasing to 514,000 tpa by 2025. This includes food waste which can only be recycled/composted through anaerobic digestion (AD) or in-vessel composting (IVC). There is no current data on the breakdown of recyclable/compostable C&I waste between food waste and other waste, although a sample survey by the Environment Agency in 1998-99 concluded that at least 75,000 tonnes a year of C&I food waste was produced in Oxfordshire. Although this figure is now ten years old, it indicates that there is a significant quantity of commercial food waste arising in Oxfordshire.

85. Waste Strategy 2007 states that the government encourages anaerobic digestion in preference to IVC because it is more environmentally beneficial and recovers renewable energy. There are currently no facilities in Oxfordshire to take C&I waste. Although there is a planning permission in place for an AD plant near Ardley, this is intended to primarily handle municipal food waste.

86. Therefore, there is a strong need for facilities to divert C&I food waste from landfill in Oxfordshire. This is the most suitable site to deal with the waste pig slurry arising from the pig unit at Upper Farm, Warborough as it means that the waste can be dealt with where it arises and the product can be utilised in the same place.

87. The proposals now include detailed landscaping proposals. These would help screen the development from the surrounding landscape. However the District Council has stated that they consider these proposals to be inadequate. The applicant has agreed to submit a further revision to the landscaping proposals. I consider that the development can be appropriately screened and therefore subject to conditions securing these measures and the maintenance of vegetation, the proposal is in accordance with OMWLP policy W5.

Rights of Way and Traffic

88. The proposed new access road is considered acceptable by the Highway Authority. There has been no objection from Transport Development Control regarding the number of vehicles or the proposed routes. Therefore this development is in accordance with SEP policy T1. Concerns have been raised about the unspecified number of tankers transporting the material

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 16

produced from the process from the site. However, the applicant has confirmed that these vehicles would transport material within the surrounding agricultural land only and would not use the public highway.

89. This proposal provides an improvement to rights of way network by taking the bridleway off Pain Way, which mitigates the negative impact on the bridleway which would have occurred if the access road had shared Pain Way with pedestrians and horse riders. The proposals also improve the bridleway because it creates an entirely traffic free new route, where previously, regardless of the outcome of this development, the right of way was shared with occasional farm traffic. This is in accordance with SEP policy C6 and SOLP policy R8.

Green Belt

90. This site is in the Green Belt. The development does not fall under any of the categories listed in PPG2 or SEP CO4 as objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt. The construction of the buildings would affect the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore the application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and very special circumstances must be demonstrated in order for it to be permitted.

91. PPS10 states that the locational needs of some types of waste management facilities should be recognised. In this case the applicant has argued that this location is necessary because the plant is designed to process pig slurry from the adjacent pig farm, in addition to food and green waste. Locating the plant so close to the farm means that it is close to this source of waste and also close to the destination for the product created by the process. The fertiliser produced would be spread on the surrounding fields. This means the development has far fewer traffic movements than it might otherwise have if not located on the pig farm. The applicant argues that this means that there are very special circumstances for this development in this location. Objectors have argued that that only a small proportion of the waste input would be pig slurry, the majority would be imported food and green waste. They argue that this waste could be dealt with elsewhere on a more appropriate site not in the Green Belt.

92. Although policy is generally supportive of operations which move waste up the hierarchy these need to be located in the most suitable locations. The fact that the proposal is for a recovery facility does not mean in itself that very special circumstances exist.

93. There is a need in Oxfordshire for a facility to divert commercial food waste from landfill. Anaerobic digestion is an ideal technology for treating this diverted waste as it reduces landfill and gains value from the waste in terms of electricity, fertiliser and heat. Food waste must be mixed with other types of waste to undergo this process. This site is well placed to deal with pig slurry arising on the adjacent farm and this can be mixed with the food waste. A significant proportion (one third) of the waste processed would arise on the pig unit and all the product of the process would be used on the land surrounding the site. Land on the opposite side (east) of the A329 is outside of the Green Belt. However, in my view this land would not be suitable for a

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 17

development of this scale because any development in this area would be likely to cause significant harm to visual amenity because of the open nature of that land. The application site can be much more effectively screened and better relates to the existing farm complex.

94. On balance I consider that the location of this plant on a pig farm that will supply a significant and necessary element of the waste throughput does constitute very special circumstances for this development in the Green Belt, given the strong need for this type of development, the proximity of the site to the waste source and destination. In addition this site is preferable in visual terms to a site on the other side of the main road outside of the Green Belt.

95. The development would improve access within the Green Belt through the improvements to the rights of way network. This element of the proposal is supported by SEP PP5.

96. This development does not contribute towards the purposes of the Oxford Green Belt as given in SEP policy CO4. The proposal has the potential to harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt in this area, as relatively large buildings are proposed in a rural setting. However landscaping and screening measures are proposed to soften the impact. The development does conflict with this policy.

97. This development would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt, which is not consistent with SOLP GB3. The design and siting of this development has considered the impact on the rural character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the site location and planting proposals reflect this consideration, as required by SOLP GB4.

98. SEP policy W17 confirms that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt . In this case, although this is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there may be special circumstances that justify this proposal as an exception to normal policy.

Biodiversity and Landscape

99. This development should not cause a loss in biodiversity and there has been no objection from the County Ecologist. Therefore it is in accordance with SEP policy NRM5.

100. The development would have an impact on the local landscape character. However I consider that this impact could be effectively mitigated by planting proposals which would screen the development. Therefore I consider that this development could be sensitively integrated into the landscape. As a result the development is consistent with SEP policies C1 and C4.

Other Issues

101. SODC have raised a number of issues in their objection. They suggest that the proposed location of the plant means that there is little mitigation that can be incorporated to reduce the impact on the bridleway. They suggest the development could be assimilated into the landscape more successfully if it

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 18

were located away from Pain Way towards the woodland block to the north. They suggest that this would allow better planting and then very special circumstances could justify this waste development in the Green Belt. The applicant has written in response that the development cannot be located towards the woodland to the north because this site would be in the floodplain. The applicant has also argued that the proposed alternative site would require greater construction requirements, loss of surplus heat and energy due to additional pipework between the plant and the pig unit and would extend the built form even further into the countryside. The applicant has further proposed that should permission be granted for this development they could further improve the planting scheme by extending and reinforcing the planting and therefore improving the screening. For instance, the applicant has suggested that they could improve on the current screening proposals by doubling the planting along Pain Way and increasing the densities and proportion of evergreen species. If permission is granted this improved scheme could be required by condition.

102. South Oxfordshire are particularly concerned about the 7.5 metre gateway into the development as it would open an 18 metre gap providing direct views into the site from Pain Way. The applicant has again suggested that additional planting would improve this situation. I consider that this mitigation would be acceptable.

103. I accept that there are advantages to locating this development close to the pig unit. This would minimise the encroachment on the surrounding countryside and allow the effective utilisation of heat and energy from the process. The operational link between the pig farm and the biogas plant is key to the justification of this plant in a Green Belt location. Therefore I consider that the proposed site is acceptable in this respect. An additional planting scheme would allow improved mitigation of the visual impacts.

104. The District Council has also expressed concern that the application states that cut and fill within the site would reduce noise and visual impacts by setting the development down into the ground. The submitted drawings show that there would be a 1.5 metre cut in the south eastern end of the site and ground raising in the north eastern end. However, due to archeological constraints only topsoil can be removed in the general area of the site. The advice from the archaeologist is that there can be works below the level of the topsoil for the technical and service buildings only, subject to a watching brief. The applicant has confirmed that they consider that it will be possible to carry out the development without going beneath the topsoil except for foundations for those two buildings. The applicant has not provided detailed engineering drawing showing ground levels at this stage. However, a condition can be attached to any consent given requiring that a detailed plan is submitted showing the depth of excavation to be undertaken as part of the development. If the archaeologist is not satisfied that the development can be carried out without going beneath the topsoil (except for the service building and effluent treatment building) or that the depth or extent of the disturbance beneath the topsoil is such that a watching brief will not be sufficient, then a full archaeological study will be required before work can commence. The applicant has confirmed that any change in building levels will not materially alter the findings of the Landscape Character and Visual Impact assessment,

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 19

which was based on a 0.5 metre cut level. I am of the view that any change to the ground levels as a result of archeological constraints will not be significant in terms of noise or visual impact

105. A key justification for this development in this countryside and Green Belt location is the proximity to the pig farm and the source of a proportion of the waste. This development would not be appropriate in this location without this relationship. In recognition of this, I recommend a section 106 agreement requiring that a minimum percentage of the waste to be used in the operation should be pig slurry from the adjoining pig farm. Therefore if the pig farming operation ceases, the anaerobic digestion operation must also cease. A condition should also be added requiring the buildings to be taken down and the site reinstated if the waste treatment operation ceases.

106. Although the concerns relating to rights of way have largely been addressed by the second submission, the second response from the British Horse Society does contain some further questions. The applicant has responded to these to confirm that it is not possible to install a bund adjacent to the bridleway due to the presence of a field drain. The area does contain a recently planted hedgerow which would mitigate the visual impact once matured. The applicant has also confirmed that the new right of way would only be provided if permission was granted. A condition for signage requiring a speed limit of 5mph could be attached to any permission granted. Although the concern about the use of gates is noted, it is important that the access to the field is secure. The applicant confirms that measures would be put in place to ensure the crossing of the right of way and access road is safe. The measures suggested include a warning sign, a mirror and a gate. Details of this crossing point would be agreed through condition.

Conclusions

107. The provision of waste facilities that move waste up the hierarchy is supported by waste management policy. The site is situated away from residential properties and would create minimal vehicular movements due to the use of the material produced by the process on surrounding agricultural land and the processing of pig slurry arising on the adjacent site. I consider there to be a strong need for this waste management facility and no other obviously more suitable site available, in accordance with OMWLP policy W4.

108. The site is located in the Green Belt but there is a strong need for a facility of this type in Oxfordshire and the plant is located very close to the source of the pig slurry element of the waste and to the destination of the product created by the process. I consider that these comprise very special circumstances which justify overriding normal Green Belt policy and allowing this development.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 20

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is RECOMMENDED that:

(a) subject to a legal agreement, to ensure that a suitable minimum tonnage of waste used in the plant is pig slurry from the adjacent pig unit the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to grant planning permission for application P09/W0076/CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to cover matters included in Annex 2 to the report PN8;

(b) the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (a) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting on the grounds that it would not comply with PPG2 and SEP CO4 (in that there would not be very special circumstances for this development to be located in the Green Belt.)

Chris Cousins Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy

Background Papers: Application for an anaerobic digestion biogas plant comprising of a service building, a technical building and four tanks plus hardstanding and car parking area together with improvements to the existing site access formed between the A329 and Pain Way, Upper Farm, Warborough at Upper Farm, Thame Road, Warborough. File 8.3/5994/1 And: Application for an anaerobic digestion biogas plant comprising of a service building, a technical building and four tanks. Including a hard standing and car parking area. To include the closure of the existing vehicular entrance onto pain way from the A329 and create a new access from the A329 to connect Pain Way. To include provision of right of way to the north west of pain way and provide a link bridleway between the east side of the A329 and bridleway 15b at plus hardstanding and car parking area together with improvements to the existing site access formed between the A329 and Pain Way, Upper Farm, Warborough.

File 8.3/5994/1 part 2 located in Minerals and Waste Development Control Team area at Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford. Contact Mary Thompson 01865 815901.

September 2009

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 21

ANNEX 1

First Consultation

1. Two letters of representation were received in response to the original consultation. These are summarised below.

2. Letter 1 - Pain Way bridleway would be adversely affected by this planning application. Horses are highly strung and would be affected by the noise, dust and heavy plant during the construction phase, the lorries using the bridleway, the smell of pig slurry and the operational noise. The bridleway is higher than the plant and therefore suggest a bund should be placed behind the hedge to screen the plant more effectively. There is nowhere for horse riders to get off the bridleway if they meet a lorry. Suggests that the landowner could consider allowing horse riders to ride on the other side of the hedgerow. Asks what precautions will be in place to ensure there is no conflict between horses and lorries. Will there be appropriate signage, speed restrictions?

3. Letter 2 - Requests that if the planning application is successful, adequate provision is made for the safety of horse riders using the bridleway. If number of lorries using this right of way is to increase greatly, suggests that the bridleway could be relocated to the left of the hedge so Pain Way can be avoided.

Second Consultation

4. 66 letters of representation were received in response to the second round of consultation. These objected to the development in principle rather than the amended proposals in the resubmission in particular. These include a number of representations that were submitted on SODC’s online form rather than to the County Council.

5. A petition containing 18 signatures has been received objecting to the application on the grounds that it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the full potential impact on the environment has not been assessed.

6. One letter of support has been received. This states that there is an urgent need to find modernise our treatment of waste materials, and this project applies state of the art technology. One resident asked a number of technical questions about the plant. On receiving the answers this resident confirmed they had no objection to the proposals. One resident wrote to withdraw their objection after seeing a presentation by the applicant at a meeting. One resident stated that their comments should be read as a ‘response’ rather than an ‘objection.’ This response stated that there should be a condition for the provision of free electrical power to surrounding communities. Therefore there was a total of 63 objections.

7. The table below shoes the points raised by objectors and the number of letters raising each point.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 22

Point Raised: Number of letters mentioning this: Traffic 58 Odour 20 Green Belt location 15 Consultation/notification process 15 Industrial activity in rural location 13 Noise 10 Health 7 Landscape impact 7 Pollution of watercourses 5 Impact on bridleways and footpaths 5 (note this table includes letters up to no 66)

8. In addition the following points were raised by less than 5 people:

• Object to food waste aspect • Too close to village/houses • Precedent for expansion • Flies and vermin • Air pollution • Scheme appears green but is simply profit seeking • Impact on property prices • Source of waste – not enough known • Lack of detail on storage of waste materials

9. The comments on traffic included a range of individual points:

• Road is unsuitable for HGVs • Impact of HGVs on the character of the village • Noise and pollution from HGVs • Potential for accidents • Pedestrian safety • Houses built close to the road • Damage to property from vibration • Road has sharp turns which HGVs cannot negotiate without taking up both sides of the road • Access should be direct from the A4074

Response to objections

10. Traffic

There has been no objection to this application from the Highways Authority. The traffic generation is relatively low with 6 HGV movements per day (3 in and 3 out) plus staff car movements. Therefore the corresponding impact on amenity and safety as a result of these movements would be relatively low. There would be no vehicle movements associated with the transport of material produced by this process. The existing pig farm unit already gives rise to HGVs on these roads. The Highways Authority originally objected because the access point was not adequate but a new access is now

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 23

proposed which is acceptable. The A329 has a weight restriction on it to protect amenity, but this would not apply to access.

11. Odour

The Environment Agency has not objected to this application. The applicant has suggested that this development has the potential to improve the situation regarding odour because pig slurry would be processed before being spread on the fields. If operated and managed correctly anaerobic digestion plants do not cause significant odour. The environmental permit issued by the Environment Agency would cover odour and could include conditions to require the plant to be operated in such a way to reduce the odour impact.

12. Green Belt location

The Green Belt policies are considered in the main body of the report. This is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but can be permitted if Very Special Circumstances exist.

13. Consultation/notification process

There has been much local concern that the application was not properly consulted on and people were concerned that they hadn’t been notified. This application was advertised in the usual way. An advert was placed in a local newspaper and Warborough Parish Council consulted in accordance with normal practice, as this is the Parish in whose area the site lies. Neighbouring properties within 350 metres of the application site are consulted on waste planning applications, however in this case there were none. Site notices were also put up. This procedure exceeds the statutory requirements for public consultation. However, following public concern that the application had not been poorly advertised, the subsequent consultation included neighbouring properties outside the 350 metre radius and the Parish Councils of Drayton St Leonard, Newington, Dorchester and Berinsfield.

14. Industrial activity in rural location

This is a waste management activity rather than an industrial activity. The policies regarding the location of waste management facilities are considered in the main body of the report.

15. Noise

A noise study was submitted as part of the application and there has been no objection from the Environmental Health Officer on the basis of the noise impact. Noise levels could be controlled by condition.

16. Health

The environmental permit and the animal by-products legislation would ensure that the development did not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the heath of residents.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 24

17. Landscape impact

A landscape impact assessment was submitted as part of this application. Although the buildings are quite large they are similar in design to agricultural buildings which one would expect to see in this rural setting. The site is more acceptable in visual terms than an alternative site which was considered on the eastern side of the A329. This would have been outside of the Green Belt but would have been more visually intrusive.

18. Pollution of watercourses

The Environment Agency has not objected to this application. On a well run site there should be no risk of contamination as all wastes would be properly dealt with. This would be dealt with through the environmental permit.

19. Impact on bridleways and footpaths/users of these rights of way

As a result of comments made in the initial round of consultation the amended application included improvements to the Pain Way bridleway. There was concern about users of the bridleway having to share the track with HGVs associated with the development. Therefore it is now proposed to create an alternative right of way on the other side of the hedge for pedestrians and horses. Other rights of way improvements are proposed as detailed in the main report. There have been no objections to the amended application from OCC rights of way team.

20. Object to food waste aspect

The import of food waste has been considered against waste management policy in the main body of the report.

21. Too close to village/houses

The plant is located over 350 metres from the nearest residential property.

22. Precedent for expansion

Any future planning applications for development on this site would be considered against the development plan and any other material considerations. This is a rural, Green Belt location and is unlikely to be suitable for significant expansion in the future. The development and its scale is linked to the existing operations at the pig farm.

23. Flies and vermin

As the operations proposed would be completely contained it should not attract flies or vermin. However this would be controlled by the EA through the environmental permit process.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 25

24. Air pollution

The application included an air quality and odour assessment. It concludes that there would be a small increase in some pollutant concentrations but that this would not exceed any statutory levels. There has been no objection to this application from the Environmental Health Officer or the Environment Agency. The environmental permit would cover air pollution issues.

25. Scheme appears green but is simply profit seeking

The application has to be considered against the development plan and other material considerations. The profit of the developer is not relevant to the acceptability of this proposal in landuse terms. Anaerobic digestion does have environmental advantages over the landfilling of food waste.

26. Impact on property prices

This is not a material planning consideration.

27. Source of waste – not enough known

The planning application states potential sources for the food waste element but at this stage in the process the applicant cannot be certain about the sources of this waste. However, given the relatively low numbers of vehicle movements associated with this development and the fact that economic considerations should avoid waste being transported over long distances, I do not consider that further detail is required on the source of the waste at this stage.

28. Lack of detail on storage of waste materials

The planning application provides detail of the process and layout of buildings including where material will be stored at various stages in the process. Conditions could be added if necessary to prevent waste being stored for long periods of time or to restrict the areas where waste is kept, but none have been suggested by the Environment Agency or Environmental Health.

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 26

ANNEX 2

Heads of conditions

1. Complete compliance 2. Commencement within 3 years 3. Submission and approval of revised planting scheme 4. Submission and approval of details of final ground levels including cut and fill 5. Removal of buildings and restoration of site when site stops being used for the purpose 6. Excess heat to be used as proposed (in heating of pig unit) 7. Material produced as a result of this process to be used on surrounding agricultural land and transferred by pipeline as proposed. 8. Sightlines onto A329 as proposed – removal of vegetation as necessary 9. Submission of a safety audit for the new access arrangements 10. Submission of a detailed plan for the closure of existing access and reinstatement of verge and kerbline and provision of an access point for horses 11. Submission of detailed plan showing minimum of two passing bays on access road 12. Submission of detailed plan showing new junction between access road and A329 13. Parking as shown on layout plan 14. Construction travel plan to be submitted, agreed and implemented 15. No material to be deposited on highway 16. Provision of permissive right of way as detailed in the application, submission of detailed plan showing this 17. Submission of a plan showing arrangements for safe crossing of the right of way and access road 18. Application to be made for permanent diversion of right of way along Pain Way 19. Requirement for signage showing 5 mph speed limit on access road 20. o disturbance below the topsoil except for the service building and effluent treatment plant 21. Submission of details of ground disturbance. If necessary this may result in a detailed archeological investigation being required 22. Watching brief for development beneath the depth of the topsoil (i.e. where the service building and the effluent treatment building extend beneath this depth.) 23. No vegetation removal during bird nesting season 24. Ecological enhancements as recommended in ecological report 25. Hedge/tree protection for existing vegetation during construction works 26. Standard operating hours for waste deliveries to the site 27. Development in accordance with flood risk assessment 28. No development to commence until a scheme showing surface water drainage scheme has been submitted and approved 29. Noise limits

Informatives and advice as required by Environment Agency

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 27

ANNEX 3

Relevant Development Plan and other Policies

South East Plan

W3, W4, W5, W10, W16, W17, T1, C6, PP5, CO4, NRM5, C4

Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) 1996

W3, W4, W5

South Oxfordshire Local Plan

R8, GB3, GB4, C1

PPG2

PPS10

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 28

PNSEP1409R020.doc PN8 - page 29

PNSEP1409R020.doc