Agenda No AGENDA MANAGEMENT SHEET

Name of Committee Regulatory Committee

Date of Committee 15 December 2008

Report Title Compaction of the Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire Summary Compaction of the former colliery tip to create a stable landform and the construction of a resource recovery park comprising a biomass power plant and an anaerobic digestion plant and associated structures and hardstandings, access roads and landscaping on land at the junction of the Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire.

For further information Ian Grace please contact Planning Team Leader Tel. 01926 412645 [email protected]

Would the recommended No decision be contrary to the Budget and Policy Framework?

Background Papers The original planning application NW57/08CM042 and all paperwork and correspondence attached to it.

CONSULTATION ALREADY UNDERTAKEN:- Details to be specified

Other Committees ......

Local Member(s) X Councillor R Sweet – No comments received as at (With brief comments, if appropriate) 1/12/08.

Other Elected Members ......

Cabinet Member ...... (Reports to The Cabinet, to be cleared with appropriate Cabinet Member)

Chief Executive ......

Regu/1208/ww4 1 of 30 Legal X I Marriott – comments incorporated.

Finance ......

Other Chief Officers ......

District Councils X North Warwickshire Borough Council – See paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.

Health Authority ......

Police ......

Other Bodies/Individuals X Baxterley, Baddesley Ensor, Bentley with Merevale Parish Councils, West Midlands Regional Assembly, Advantage West Midlands, English Nature, The Highways Agency, The Environment Agency – See section 2 of the report.

FINAL DECISION YES (If ‘No’ complete Suggested Next Steps)

SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS : Details to be specified

Further consideration by ...... this Committee

To Council ......

To Cabinet ......

To an O & S Committee ......

To an Area Committee ......

Further Consultation ......

Regu/1208/ww4 2 of 30

Agenda No

Regulatory Committee – 15 December 2008

Compaction of The Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire

Report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy

Recommendation

That this application be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with departure procedures and subject to the application not being called in for determination by the Secretary of state the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission of application NW5707CM001 subject to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions and for the reasons detailed in Appendix B attached to this report.

Application no : NW57/08CM042

Received by County : 23/9/2008

Advertised Date : 9 October 2008

Applicant(s) : Merevale & Blyth Estates, The Estate Office Merevale Hall Atherstone,CV9 2HG.

Agent(s) : Mr M Walton - (Associate Director),Alliance Planning Halifax House 14-15 Frederick Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 1.

The Proposal : Compaction of former colliery spoil to create a stable landform for the construction of a sustainable resource recovery park comprising the renewable energy generation facilities of a biomass plant and an anaerobic digestion plant, together with associated plant and buildings, hard standing, access routes and landscaping.

Site & Location : 9.9 Ha. of Land At Former Shale Tip Land on The Corner of The Common and Merevale Lane, Atherstone. [Grid ref: 275.975].

See plan in Appendix A.

Regu/1208/ww4 3 of 30

1. Application Details

1.1 In order to fully understand this development it is necessary first for the site to be described and placed in context. The application site is occupied by a large shale tip made up of colliery spoil. That tip rises to a variable height of about 20 metres above natural ground level. Tipping ceased many years ago and the external slopes of the spoil heap have been colonised by vegetation and in particular the south western and south eastern slopes of the former tip have become cloaked in self seeded birch trees which are probably 20 to 30 years old. The interior of the spoil heap has however, been the subject of subsequent excavations whereby substantial quantities of shale have been removed to produce a crater like interior. The interior of the site is now virtually devoid of vegetation. The shale tip sits in a rural landscape some 200 - 300 metres to the north east of the village of Baxterley.

1.2 The application itself seeks planning permission to remodel the existing shale tip to produce a stable, level developable area and to construct a biomass power plant and an anaerobic digester on the level area created at the core of the shale tip by this remodelling. It is also proposed to construct a new access road to the east of the shale tip to serve the site. This new access road would link to Colliery Farm and the existing access road and junction with Merevale Lane which serves that site. An emergency access would be retained to The Common.

1.3 As an initial stage of development it is proposed that the internal slopes of the shale tip would be re-profiled and a new screening bund would be created on the northern and eastern boundary of the site. The existing well vegetated slopes of the shale tip would be left untouched and would be retained to act as a visual and amenity screen for the development.

1.4 The biomass power plant would be accommodated within an L-shaped building measuring 60 metres x 70 metres at its greatest extent. The total floor area of the building would be approximately 3,150 square metres. The structure has been designed to have the typical appearance of a large farm building or a small factory unit with a ridge height of 14 metres. The roof and external walls of the building would be predominantly faced in coloured profiles metal sheeting. In addition a chimney stack is proposed with a total height of 20 metres. The biomass plant would generate approximately 2.5 megawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately 2,500 homes. The plant would be powered by burning wood waste sourced from chipped waste timber, estate forestry products (thinnings and forestry residues) purpose grown miscanthus and compost oversize. Depending on the wood type the delivered wood would be shredded to produce a finer shredded pellet which would flow more easily through the system and release a higher calorific value when burnt. The pelleting would be carried out within the biomass building where heat would help the dry the wood. The plant would have a through put capacity of 40,000 tonnes assuming a 20% moisture content.

1.5 The biomass process would produce a wood ash residue (potash). This would be retained on site for use in season as a fertiliser on farmland. Potash is an

Regu/1208/ww4 4 of 30 important agricultural fertiliser which can be used in substitution for fertilisers produced with a reliance on fossil fuels.

1.6 The chimney flue and combustion system which would serve the biomass plant have been designed to comply with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) as regulated by the Environment Agency for the safe burning of waste wood. The building would be operated under negative air pressure to ensure that emissions of dust and odour are kept to a minimum.

1.7 The anaerobic digestion (AD) facility would be located on the northern part of the site and would comprise a main process building and 10 external tanks designed to contain fertiliser, the digestion process, biogas and water. The main building would cover approximately 3,000 square metres and would have dimensions of 60 metres x 50 metres, and would have a ridge height of 14 metres. Again the building has been designed to look like a large farm building or small industrial unit and has been designed to match the biomass plant in terms of appearance. Within the building space would be made available for vehicle reception and material storage and processing.

1.8 The series of tanks proposed as part of this development would range from 12 metres to 16 metres in diameter. The tanks would have an overall height of 16 metres. These structures would be clad in coloured profiled metal sheeting.

1.9 AD is a natural process which breaks down organic waste in the absence of air. It produces:-

(i) Biogas (60% methane/40% carbon dioxide) (ii) Solid bio-fertiliser, and, (iii) Liquid bio-fertiliser.

1.10 The methane would be collected and stored in an external gas vessel and would be used to power electrical generators that would be placed in a controlled acoustic enclosure. The biogas would power a generator which would enable the production of up to 2 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide sufficient power for 2,000 homes. Heat from the electricity generation process would be used to drive the anaerobic digestion process.

1.11 The solid and liquid bio-fertilisers produced by the AD process have a high nutrient content and can be spread on local farmland as a direct replacement for the fossil fuel manufactured fertilisers. It is anticipated that the bio-fertilisers will replace the need for manufactured fertilisers in sufficient quantities to provide all the annual plant nutrition required to farm an arable area of approximately 800 hectares (2000 acres) on an on going annual basis. However, due to the seasonal nature of applying fertiliser to farmland storage tanks would be needed to hold the fertiliser until it can be applied to farmland. It is anticipated that the fertiliser would be delivered to a number of blocks of land in the vicinity of the site by means of an underground irrigation pipe system which would reduce the number of traffic movements associated with its transport and application.

1.12 The proposed waste throughput of the anaerobic digestion facility would be 45,000 tonnes per annum. AD is flexible in the types of raw materials which can

Regu/1208/ww4 5 of 30 be processed particularly food waste. The AD feedstock would be delivered from bulk collection vehicles. Deliveries would occur from farms, hotels, supermarkets, restaurants and other catering establishments. Material would be depackaged (where appropriate), shredded and then fed into the AD plant. There would be no direct public access to the facility.

1.13 Waste reception, storage and segregation would be carried out within the main process building whilst the AD process would be carried out within enclosed vessels located within a bunded area. Each AD vessel would be located within an above ground cylindrical tank.

1.14 Landcsaping and tree planting are proposed as in integral part of the scheme. Existing trees on the external slopes of the shale mound would be retained whilst some 7 hectares (17 acres) of land would be planted up with some 27,000 trees and shrubs to screen and integrate the development into the landscape.

1.15 It is proposed to serve the site via a new access road running east to Colliery Farm, where an existing access track would serve the development taking traffic to an existing access point on Merevale Lane which has already been constructed to a high standard to serve a coal mine which has now closed. It is proposed that all day to day traffic to the site would use this access route.

1.16 An emergency access would also be created to The Common. This would be necessary to provide a secondary means of access to the site in the event of fire or a similar emergency.

1.17 A section 106 Agreement is proposed as an integral part of this submission. This agreement would route traffic from and to the site along Merevale Lane to the A5 thereby avoiding the roads closer to and through settlements.

1.18 In addition this application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) prepared under the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The ES concludes that the proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of their likely environmental impact. The contents of the ES have been assessed by both technical and non-technical consultees.

2. Consultations

2.1 North Warwickshire Borough Council – On 10 November 2008 the Borough Council resolved to raise no objections to this application subject to the Borough Council being invited to comment on any proposed planning conditions and the County Council explore the following matters for inclusion in a Section 106 Agreement.

(i) Securing a HGV routing agreement to and from the site via Merevale Lane and the A5. (ii) Securing the best means of sourcing the waste from local sources. (iii) Securing confirmation that adjoining land would not be developed through the expansion of these facilities at a future date, and,

Regu/1208/ww4 6 of 30 (iv) Securing confirmation that the deposit of fertiliser and soil improver arising from the facilities on surrounding agricultural land will comply with current and future DEFRA standards.

2.2 N. Warwickshire BC (Environmental Health) No objections in principle. The conclusions of the Environmental Statement are satisfactory. The emissions fall short of a justification for a possible reason for refusal. The plant will need to licensed to the Environment Agency who will control emissions and DEFRA will control the disposal of digestate control agricultural land,

2.3 Baxterley Parish Council – Request that the County Council should not determine this application before the outcome of the appeal currently being held in respect of this site. The appeal decision should give clear guidance to both the applicant and the County Council upon the future of the site. The making of this application under the guise of a mainly power generation proposal is considered to be a disingenuous move to soften the way for the original proposal for a waste recycling venture and as such should be resisted until the Secretary of State determines the appeal.

2.4 In addition the Parish Council make the following comments:-

(i) There inconsistencies in the submitted data. Other biomass power plants produce a higher power output for the inputs. For example the Eccleshall and Wilton plants consume 10,000 tonnes for every megawatt of energy produced whereas the Baxterley plant would require 18,000 tonnes to produce one megawatt of power. It is therefore considered that there is a possibility of a much larger electricity generation at Baxterley. This calls in to question the noise and pollution figures which are based on a 4.5 megawatt generation. If this discrepancy is explained by the lower calorific value of the inputs to the Baxterley facility then it leads to the conclusion that this is a waste disposal facility rather than a sustainable electricity. If this is the case then the facility should be located in tandem with a community waste facility, not in an isolated rural location where double handling of waste will be necessary. The Parish Council consider that the County Council should explore this discrepancy in order the establish why the input requirements are so much higher than other plants.

(ii) The Environmental Impact assessment accepts that there will be a “moderately adverse” nitrous oxide pollution effect as a result of this proposal. Baxterley lies in a valley and the combination of an east wind and high summer temperatures could lead to a temperature inversion causing the containment of high levels of nitrous oxide pollution in the village.

(iii) With regard to anaerobic digestion paragraph 23 of PPG 22 advises that “in cases where odour would have an impact such plants should not be located in close proximity to existing residential areas” The parish council is very concerned that these pollutants can have adverse impacts on the respiratory health of people who are susceptible, such as asthma sufferers, especially children, and on crops and garden vegetables.

Regu/1208/ww4 7 of 30

(iv) Most biomass power plants should make use of their heat output. This application makes no such use. It is usual to locate combined heat and power plants close to large heat consumers such as schools and hospitals. The Parish council therefore considers that a proposal in this location is not capable of being run in the most efficient way to benefit the community.

(v) The applicants state that the by-products of these processes will be used as fertilisers and soil improvers. The parish council doubt, in the light of DEFRA restrictions on the use of nitrogen based fertilisers if it is possible to dispose of these by-products on the Merevale Estate as proposed in the application.

(vi) Concerns have been expressed by the operators of small plants that the major operators will have the capacity to “suck up” all the available biomass material thereby driving up prices to an uneconomic level. As the cost of co-firing biomass with coal is considerably lower than burning pure biomass. The government has already withdrawn the subsidy for miscanthus growing and one company which constructed a generator based on willow coppicing in Yorkshire has ceased production and the plant has been dismantled. The parish council considers that there is a high possibility that the proposed plant will be of such marginal efficiency compared to the large scale producers that there is a significant risk that the plant will fail leaving a set of redundant industrial buildings. This would open the way for inappropriate industrial development which would not normally be approved in this rural location.

(vi) The parish council is therefore suspicious that the size of the building and the amount of proposed traffic generation is a reflection of some of the elements of the previous proposal for the use of the site as a waste recycling centre.

(vi) The parish council consider that a facility of this nature should be co- located with a centre for the collection of waste by the local authorities which would provide a stream of material without additional transport requirements.

2.5 Baddesley Ensor Parish Council – No comments received.

2.6 Bentley With Merevale Parish Council – Support the application stating that this project is vital for the production of electricity without polluting the atmosphere and is within easy reach of major trunk roads, has practically no impact on the locality and will create jobs. Many people think that this scheme is an essential step forward to the towns development and the parish hope that it will come to fruition.

2.7 Councillor R Sweet – No comments received as of 1/12/08.

2.8 Environment Agency – Advise that they have no objections in principle but recommend that if planning permission is granted then it should be made

Regu/1208/ww4 8 of 30 subject to planning conditions relating to sustainable drainage, surface water runoff, potential land contamination and toad habitat creation. The requested conditions have been incorporated in to the conditions detailed in Appendix B.

2.9 English Nature - No objections.

2.10 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No comment received.

2.11 Highways Agency - No comments received.

2.12 Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received.

2.13 West Midlands Regional Assembly - Comments awaited.

2.14 Advantage West Midlands – Comments awaited.

3. Representations

3.1 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) object to this application on the grounds that:-

(i) The site is in open countryside previously designated a Special landscape Area. It is a green field site with no permissions for mineral extraction or waste deposit. There are no buildings on the site and only the remnants of a rail head which covered only a small area and has long since disappeared. (ii) Until the use as a “recycling park” was proposed the site had regenerated and become a haven for wildlife. However, soon after much of the vegetation was removed and the site lost its attractive appearance. (iii) This land was designated in the former Structure Plan as a Special Landscape Area and is still protected by Policy ENVB of the North Warwickshire Local Plan and by the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines – Arden. (iv) Since 1993 when the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines (WLG) were published the area has been considerably enhanced. There is no suggestion that it is despoiled land in need of improvement. Indeed the appearance of the site now more closely mirrors the description of Woodland Estatelands in the WLG (“well wooded agricultural landscape of large fields and prominent hilltop woodlands”) and is very attractive when viewed from the north. (v) The CPRE supports sustainable methods of waste recycling and energy creation and would not object to a small biomass facility to serve the need of the estate and local community. However, we strongly object to proposals for an anaerobic digester where collection of waste would encompass a wide area far beyond North Warwickshire which will involve bringing more vehicles from longer distances to local roads and lanes which are already busy with HGV traffic. (vi) The CPRE agree that it is imperative to tackle climate change however, any proposal must be sustainable and there is no merit in a development which will through its traffic generation alone cannot be carbon neutral.

Regu/1208/ww4 9 of 30 (vii) PPS 10 requires waste facilities to be as close to source as possible. Therefore this facility has no place in the open countryside but should be located on industrial estates away from dwellings and close to the source of material. The Warwickshire waste development Framework – Core Strategy endorses this view. (viii) PPS 10 also requires the planning authority to take account of the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community. The locality already has a large animal rendering plant at Mancetter which is currently expanding. We are of the view that one such facility which generates a number of negative impacts is enough for this area. (ix) PPS 22 states that small scale projects can make a valuable contribution to renewable energy needs but stresses the importance of choosing the right location. Unfortunately this proposal does not meet either criteria.

3.2 The Atherstone Civic Society object to this application on the grounds that:-

(i) This is an undesignated greenfield site set in attractive countryside beyond settlement boundaries. There is therefore no justification for development here. (ii) Atherstone Civic Society would have no objections to a small biomass plant to serve the estate and the immediate locality were it to be located within or close to buildings with an existing agricultural use, of which there are several on the estate. (iii) We are strongly opposed the anaerobic digester as it is intended to serve a wide area to collect food from hotels supermarkets restaurants and other catering establishments. (iv) There is already an animal rendering plant at Mancetter. Impacts from this include odour from the plant and the unpleasant experience of following high sided vehicles carrying strongly smelling loads of animal waste. It seems unfair to expect the people of north Warwickshire to accept a second plant. (v) We are concerned that decaying food waste will present ample opportunity for odour to spill out into the atmosphere at it currently does at Mancetter. (vi) We are concerned that this application is speculative and that the applicant does not have the expertise to operate these highly technical industries. (vii) The estate has shown itself to be lax in managing other waste facilities on its land. (viii) North Warwickshire has a history of neighbourly uses in waste mining and quarrying but in recent years has found new forms of economic activity including tourism as the restored landscape is becoming appreciated by visitors and there are a number of initiatives to develop tourism the most significant of which is the North Arden Heritage Trail. Already the area around the application site is popular with walkers and horse riders. The tourism initiative will suffer a major setback if this development is allowed. (ix) The anaerobic digester should be sited on an industrial estate away from residential properties and within or very close to the urban area which it is intended to serve. It has no place in the open countryside and we respectfully urge Warwickshire County Council to reject the application.

Regu/1208/ww4 10 of 30

3.3 83 letters received from local residents objecting to this development on the following grounds:

(i) As there is to be a public inquiry into the refusal of planning permission on this site in January 2009 it seems sensible to leave consideration of this matter to that forum. To process this application is a waste of time and resources at a time when money is tight. (ii) Whilst we would support this form of development in principle this is the wrong location for it due to its rural setting and proximity to houses, a school and an old peoples home. (iii) The area is open countryside and development on this scale would change its character forever. (iv) Tourism and leisure pursuits would be damaged by a massive and polluting industrial plant on our doorstep. (v) The plant will produce harmful emissions, particularly nitric oxides, sulphur oxides and particles. It is recognised that emissions from a biomass facility include carbon monoxide, volatile compounds which are known to cause cancer in humans and are also a component of deadly ozone, particle matter harmful to humans, sulphur dioxide (a component of acid rain) lead and carbon dioxide. (vi) Local air quality will be set back 30 years – this will be a problem for those suffering asthma and other respiratory illnesses. (vii) The development will have a hugely negative effect on the local environment by producing thousands of lorry movements each year producing noise, harmful emissions, disruption and potential danger. (viii) Dust, noise, smell, and light pollution will be highly damaging. (ix) WCC should look to the future and protect tranquil and unspoilt areas of countryside for our children and grandchildren. (x) The proposal fails to meet the proximity principle by shipping food waste vast distances. This is not carbon neutral. (xi) This application goes against more government policies than support it. (xii) This application is not significantly different to the approved scheme and will open the door for that scheme if approved. (xiii) The proposal is not on a site allocated in the Borough’s local plan and does not comply with its policies and nor does it comply with the provisions of the Waste Local Plan for Warwickshire. (xiv) If an accident happens on the A5 all traffic will pass through the village and surrounding rural roads. (xv) Anaerobic digestion is an unproven technology with potential health risks for the local community. (xvi) Light goods vehicles, cars and agricultural vehicles will not be restricted by the routing agreement and thus will use unsuitable rural roads causing pollution, congestion and nuisance. This development should be located on an industrial estate such as Birch Coppice. (xvii) The North Warwickshire Waste management Strategy seeks to limit the amount of waste going to landfill making use of existing waste treatment facilities such as the Coventry and Solihull energy from waste plant. (xviii) This development is of no benefit to the local community. (xix) There is no need for the development, especially at off peak times when the power is not required.

Regu/1208/ww4 11 of 30 (xx) The seemed reduction in size is only the result of the removal of the composting activity. The generating plant and the amount of food waste imported is the same as the previous rejected application. (xxi) Please consider the comments of the community that live and work near to the proposed site and the duty of your office to look after our best interests and the environment.

3.4 117 letters received from local residents (19 of which are unaddressed) supporting this development on the following grounds: (i) It is now understood that the burning of fossil fuels has caused damage to the environment nearing irreversible levels. This scheme provides a means of securing renewable energy both now and into the future reducing harmful green house gas emissions. (ii) According to Sir David King the UK governments Chief Scientific Advisor, climate change is the greatest threat facing us today that is why the UK government has set a target of 10% renewable energy by 2010. This development will help to achieve that. (iii) The biodigester will produce a valuable fertiliser for local farms and will divert organic waste away from landfill sites. (iv) The site is in close proximity to major trunk roads and the transport network. Transport links are good (v) The site chosen is hidden from view and the tree planting and associated landscaping will enhance the local environment and provide a refuge for wildlife. (vi) The development will bring new employment and investment in to the area (vii) We should approve schemes such as this which address the two problems of disposing of waste and generating electricity. Such schemes must be given the go ahead if our country is to have a secure source of energy in the future. (viii) The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the locality. (ix) I have been studying this type of development in a committee in the House of Lords where we are recommending a strategy to encourage the production of “biomass from field to fuel”. (x) It makes sound economic sense to make use of waste rather than pour it into landfill sites. (xi) Supplies of fossil fuels are dwindling and prices are rising so more of our energy needs to come from renewables. (xii) There will always be NIMBY objectors to such a scheme. (xiii) Modern technology and careful planning has ensured that this plant will be quiet, safe and efficient. (xiv) We support the scheme but would like to see active measures to reduce speed on Merevale Lane where the current 50 mph limit is frequently broken. (xv) This a better option than removing the shale from the tip and makes good use of a site which is currently waste ground. (xvi) I am concerned that the UK is not setting an example as we should be and I would be proud in Warwickshire were to lead the way in Britain. (xvii) The scheme will reduce our carbon footprint and help to meet our international obligations.

Regu/1208/ww4 12 of 30 (xviii) I live on Merevale lane and support the application. (xix) The proposal seems to have addressed all the concerns relating to the previous application. (xx) Local woodlands have been neglected because their products have limited value. This proposal could reverse that trend and enhance the woods and their ecological value. (xxi) The Atherstone Civic Society’s concern about an adverse impact on tourism smacks of hypocrisy. When we applied to expand our tourism business they were the first to object. (xxii) This proposal is clean, green and addresses the two problems of waste disposal and energy generation.

3,5 The Warwickshire Rural Hub (The Royal Agricultural Society of England) based at Stoneleigh wish to support the application stating that:-

(i) This is an exiting and innovative proposal which will make a strong contribution to the rural economy of North Warwickshire. (ii) The proposal fits exactly government and EU policy were farmers are being encouraged to generate renewable energy in order to meet the target of 20% of energy generated from renewable resources by 2020. (iii) Farmers have been reluctant to grow energy crops because there is no end user this will alleviate that problem.

3.6 The Country Landowners Association (CLA) advise that they are a membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and that the applicant is a member of the CLA. They also state that they wish to support this application on the grounds that:- (i) In March 2007 the European Union agreed to deliver 20% of the Unions total energy supply from renewables by 2020. This development will help to achieve that target. (ii) The development will produce energy from renewable sources using best practical environmental practices as recommended by government. (iii) The biogas plant will use locally produced crops, manures and other organic matters like kerbside collected kitchen and catering waste. (iv) The by products nitrogen and potash are valuable fertilisers which can be used locally. Approximately 30,000 tonnes of nitrate and potash rich fertiliser will be produced every year, enough to supply 2,000 acres of farmland. This will be used on the estate and local farms. (v) The proposal will secure 10 jobs on site and 30 – 40 jobs off site. (vi) About 85,000 tonnes of waste will be diverted from landfill. In the longer term this will result in huge savings for council tax payers. (vii) The production of 4.5 megawatts of green energy will provide power for 4,500 homes equivalent to the town of Atherstone. (viii) The scheme will save 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere every year compare with producing the same amount of electricity from a coal or gas fuelled power station. This includes allowances for the transport movements required to move wood and waste products around. (ix) The CLA believes that the scheme will make an important contribution to the rural economy and to the challenge of climate change and be an

Regu/1208/ww4 13 of 30 exemplar site. The CLA therefore urge the council to seriously consider the proposal.

3.7 The National Farmers Union (NFU) state that they wish to support this application on the grounds that:- (i) The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 sets out the governments long term goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. The UK has significant capacity to produce energy crops without compromising food production. This development will help to deliver real benefits in carbon savings, domestic energy security, environmental conservation and support for the rural economy. (ii) The NFU believes that every farmer in the country should aspire to becoming carbon neutral. This project will provide an opportunity for farmers to grow energy crops, manage new and existing woodlands, and utilise the energy potential of manures and other organic matter. (iii) The proposal will also help reduce reliance on fertilisers derived from fossil fuels. (iv) A key element of the West Midlands Economic Strategy is the development of an environmental economy. The project will stimulate demand for energy crops and help to build a supply chain. It will also stimulate demand for associated environmental technologies, an area where the West Midlands aspires to lead. (v) Additional benefits to the rural economy include the provision of new jobs and demand for other associate services.

4. Planning Policy and the Development Plan

4.1 Section 54A of the 1990 Planning Act (now incorporated in to Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act) requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan “unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

4.2 This section of the Act places a legal duty upon the determining Planning Authority to make planning decisions in accordance with the adopted policies contained within the Development Plan unless there are good planning reasons for not doing so.

4.3 The reason that the legislation is so worded is to enable local people to have knowledge of and confidence in the planning system and how it regulates change within their locality and communities. Thus approval of planning applications which are not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be a relatively rare occurrence.

4.4 The Development Plan against which this application must be judged consists of the following documents:- (i) The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (RSS11), (ii) The saved policies of the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 – 2011, adopted by Warwickshire County Council in August 2001, (iii) The saved policies of the Minerals Local Plan for Warwickshire, adopted by the County Council in February 1995,

Regu/1208/ww4 14 of 30 (iv) The saved policies of the Waste Local Plan for Warwickshire, adopted by Warwickshire County Council in August 1999, and, (iv) The North Warwickshire Local Plan adopted by the borough council in July 2006.

4.5 Planning case law (R. (Cummins) v Camden LBC) has establishes that determinations have to be in accordance with the broad direction of the development plan but not with each relevant policy of the plan. It might be necessary in cases where policies pull in different directions to decide which policy is the dominant policy. Thus a development may be in breach of one policy but that fact may not mean that the entire development constitutes a departure from the development plan. The plan must be read in its entirety.

4.6 This is a complex analysis for a development of this scale made more complex by the fact that the Development Plan consists of five separate documents. The relevant policies against which the development must be judged are therefore listed in Appendix C attached to this document so that they may be read in full and a full analysis and comparison made.

4.7 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (The RSS) is supportive of the provision of further facilities to produce renewable energy and to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill sites. The Spatial Strategy envisages a significant expansion in such facilities during the plan period. It is considered that the RSS is supportive of this proposal.

4.8 Only 5 policies have been saved from the Warwickshire Structure Plan. The only such policy which is now relevant to this application is Policy 1.2 which deals with industrial land provision. The implications of this policy for the development are dealt with in the section of this report dealing with land supply in North Warwickshire.

4.9 As it is no longer proposed to extract shale the saved policies of the Minerals Local Plan are not relevant to this proposal.

4.10 With regard to the saved policies of the Waste Local Plan there are no specific policies which relate to AD or biomass power production from waste wood. Thus the only policy in the Waste Local Plan which is still relevant is Policy 1. This is a general policy which requires developments to satisfy the proximity principle and respect the amenities of the locality within which the development is set. It is considered that this development meets the requirements of Policy 1, although this conclusion is disputed by many objectors to the scheme.

4.11 The North Warwickshire Local Plan is directly relevant to this submission. Core Policy 2 of the plan restricts development to the major settlements within the borough unless the development complies with another policy in the plan. Policy ENV 10 is therefore directly relevant as this policy takes a very positive view and is supportive of renewable energy schemes across the borough provided “they do not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment “ It is considered that this development accords to Policy ENV 10, although again this conclusion is disputed.

Regu/1208/ww4 15 of 30 4.12 Also relevant are the amenity policies of the Borough Local Plan (particularly Policies ENV 1, ENV9, ENV11, TPT3 and Core Policies 1, 3 and 9) which seek to protect the environment. It is considered that this development accords to these polices although again it is accepted that this is disputed by the objectors to the scheme.

4.12 Given the above conclusions it could be argued that this development accords to the provisions of the Development Plan. This conclusion is however, disputed and the previous (larger) development on this site was treated as a departure from the development plan. Given these facts this development has also been treated as a departure from the development plan. Treating this application as a departure means that if the Regulatory Committee are minded to approve the application then the application will have to be referred to the Secretary of State who must then decide whether or not to “call in” the planning application for determination by the Secretary of State herself after the pros and cons of the development are debated at a public inquiry organised by the Planning Inspectorate.

5. Site Appearance, Characteristics and Landscape Character

5.1 The application site is set in attractive undulating countryside to the east of the village of Baxterley. The site has been used for the dumping of mineral spoil from the adjacent colliery and has developed the external appearance of a steep sided but flat topped hill. The external slopes of the feature are now heavily vegetated with self seeded trees, mostly consisting of birch trees which are probably 20 to 30 years old. The interior of the site now has the appearance of a large open crater with limited vegetation growth and large areas of exposed bare shale. The interior of the site is largely screened from external view except from Folly Lane where the interior of the site may be seen over long distances. Other than from Folly Lane development within the application site would be largely screened from external view. Thus the landscape impact of this development is held to be acceptable.

5.2 Representations have been made to the effect that the interior of the site has been subject to vegetation clearance with the specific intention to produce a site which looks bare and derelict and therefore developable. Evidence has been supplied which indicates that the interior of the site was more vegetated in the recent past but as may be seen from the planning history section of this report this may have more than one explanation.

6. Planning History

6.1 The planning records held by Warwickshire County Council indicate that the shale tip which currently occupies the application site predates the introduction of planning controls in 1947. The tip was created as a spoil mound generated by the operation of Baddesley Colliery which was located immediately to the west of the shale tip, and immediately to the north of Baxterley village.

6.2 On the 2 July 1953 planning permission was granted for the creation of a new spoil tip to the north of Baddesley Colliery and from approximately that date the use of the application site for the tipping of shale seems to have ceased.

Regu/1208/ww4 16 of 30

6.3 On the 7 May 1970 a temporary (5 year) planning permission was granted for the construction of a pre-cast concrete building at the entrance to the appeal site. This building was intended to act as the site offices for a firm called “Road and Building Supplies Ltd” who stated as part of the application that the building was intended to be used as their site office to enable them to extract 10,000 tons of shale from the site every year.

6.4 The extraction of the shale from the tip on this scale would have required planning permission in its own right but this matter does not seem to have been formally addressed at the time.

6.5 Subsequently in response to a request to reactivate the shale tip made on behalf of Baddesley Ensor Parish Council the National Coal Board stated in a letter dated 9 May 1979 that “the old tip comprises mainly burnt shale, which is economically usable and this is being extracted, albeit sporadically by Leonard Leigh and Sons……….As far as I know the Coal Board have no plans to re-use the old tip in view of the lease to Leonard Leigh.”

6.6 Subsequently control of the tip seems to have passed to Merevale Estate (the applicants for the current application) who wrote to the County Council on the 9 February 1994 stating that it was their wish to screen out and remove red shale from the tip and to use it to make improvements to farm tracks and forestry roads. The Estate advised that they considered these activities to constitute permitted development (that is development not requiring planning permission).

6.7 On 25 February 1994 the County Council replied to the Estate’s letter advising that the County Council were of the view that the use of the shale as suggested would indeed constitute permitted development however, the extraction of the shale from the tip for a more general use would require planning permission.

6.8 In late June 2007 the County Council received complaints from local residents about vegetation destruction and shale extraction occurring on the application site. In response to these complaints the applicants stated that they were advised by Warwickshire Fire Brigade that forestry tracks in Bentley woods required resurfacing to allow fire engine access and excavations were carried out to meet that request. The estate contends that such excavations have been carried out intermittently for many years and that these works in any case constitute permitted development.

6.9 From the information detailed above it would seem that some form of intermittent and relatively low key shale extraction has occurred at the site for some considerable years. This fact may explain both the current topography of the site and to some extent its vegetation cover.

6.10 The use of the shale to resurface farm and forest tracks constitutes permitted development (it is defined as such by Parts 6, 7 and 9 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (the GPDO) but the question of more general shale extraction is less clear. Shale extraction to improve farming efficiency, by for example making tracks more

Regu/1208/ww4 17 of 30 easily usable, could potentially constitute permitted development under the provisions of Class C of Part 6 of the GPDO, but perhaps not for forestry improvement and definitely not if the material were to be made available for general resale.

6.11 On 3 January 2007 a planning application was submitted seeking full planning permission for a development on the shale tip site consisting of the removal of approximately 200, 000 tonnes of shale from the site and the creation of a stable development platform to accommodate a development scheme consisting of a waste recovery park comprising of a biomass power plant, an anaerobic digestion plant, green waste composting facility, a wood shredding facility, and a metal recovery facility (Application No. NW57/07CM001 relates).

6.12 That application was the subject of considerable local opposition and subsequent investigation including a formal site visit by members of the Regulatory Committee subsequent to which the application was refused planning permission for the reasons detailed in Appendix D.

6.13 That application was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State scheduled to be considered at a 10 day long public inquiry which was due to start in Atherstone on 27 January 2009. That appeal has now been withdrawn.

6.14 Subsequent to the Regulatory Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for the earlier scheme the applicants have produced this revised submission which significantly reduces the level of development proposed for the site. The most significant changes to the development proposals include:-

(i) The removal of shale extraction from the scheme. No shale will now be taken from the site. (ii) A reduction in the development platform size by 8,000 square metres. (iii) A reduction in the building footprint from 12,000 square metres to 6,500 square metres. (iv) The removal of the wood shredding, composting and metal recycling facilities from the scheme. (v) A reduction in HGV movements to and from the site from 120 to 70 per day. (vi) The routing of all new HGV traffic via Merevale Lane to the A5 to avoid rural roads and villages. (vii) A change of emphasis from waste recycling to renewable energy production.

7. Observations

7.1 In order to properly analyse this application it is necessary to consider a series of separate topic issues and to judge each proposed activity against the provisions of the local plan and then to judge each topic on their own individual merits before a comprehensive decision can be reached. However, before looking at each individual part of the development package it is necessary to examine several individual topic areas which are common themes relevant to all aspects of the proposal.

Regu/1208/ww4 18 of 30 The Status of the Site – Greenfield or Brownfield ?

7.2 It has become an established planning principle that previously developed land (usually referred to as “brownfield” land) should generally be developed before taking “greenfield” land.

7.3 The definition of previously developed land originates from Annex B to PPS 3 “Housing” which states that:-

“Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure including the curtilage of the developed land and any fixed surface infrastructure”.

The definition is further clarified by the statement that the definition includes defence buildings but excludes:-

(a) Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings,

(b) Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through the development control process,

(c ) Land in built up areas such as parks recreation grounds and allotments, and,

(d) Land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended in to the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings).

7.4 The definition is further subject to the stated caveat that “ there is no presumption that land that is previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed”.

7.5 It could be argued that this definition is irrelevant to this proposal because the definition derives from a PPS which specifically relates to housing development and this is not a housing proposal. However, the concept of “brownfield first” has become established in the English planning system and the definition in PPS 3 is the only one which is commonly used.

7.6 It could also be argued that the site, although used as a tip, was not occupied by a permanent structure and that it is therefore “greenfield”. This tends to ignore the existence of the large concrete roadway at the entrance and the reference in 7.3 (b) above where landfill sites and quarries are potentially accepted as “brownfield land” when there is no approved restoration scheme in place, even though on such sites the total area covered by permanent structures in frequently very small.

7.7 This site is a former minerals site without an approved restoration scheme. It is therefore potentially brownfield land unless the caveat in paragraph (d) above applies. From many vantage points the site has indeed blended into the

Regu/1208/ww4 19 of 30 landscape but not wholly so. It is therefore considered that this site is previously developed land as the term is usually applied in planning terms.

7.8 The fact that the land is brownfield does not however, automatically mean that this site is developable. It is a factor which weighs in favour of the development but it must be balanced against other planning considerations, some of which militate against the proposal.

The Oversupply of Employment Land in North Warwickshire

7.9 The Structure Plan recognised that there is an oversupply of employment land in the Borough of North Warwickshire. There is therefore no justification for the provision of further speculative employment land. Thus if these activities can be accommodated onto existing employment land rather than the shale tip this would be the preferred option. In theory this is possible, however, many of these activities are quite specialist and require relatively large sites. This tends to preclude their provision on planned industrial estates unless some form of subsidy is provided by public bodies or land is specifically reserved in local plans for their use. This latter situation has not occurred. These facts tends to support this application.

7.10 The danger exists however, that if a permission is granted for this development then the opportunity will arise for this land to transfer in to general industrial uses. This is a real possibility but that possibility can be reduced by requiring the applicants to enter in to a legal agreement controlling the future use of the site, as proposed.

The Scale of the Development/Serving a Local Need

7.11 Much of the concerns expressed by objectors relate to the scale of the proposed development and the fear that this facility is essentially intended to serve as a sub – regional facility accepting waste from many miles away. This is a valid concern because accepting waste over long distances will increase the carbon “footprint” of the development, reduce the positive effects of recycling and increase traffic movements on local road networks with a potential adverse effect on amenity. It has been suggested that if accepted on this site then the facilities should be tailored to meet the needs of the local community and not be designed to serve a wider area.

7.12 Adopting this approach would help to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development but waste facilities in the United Kingdom operate as free enterprise operations and regard must be had to the economic viability of any given proposal. In addition it must be acknowledged that reasonably large centres of population are located close to the facility but outside the borough and county boundaries. In addition it must be acknowledged that some of the waste generated within Warwickshire is currently sent outside the county to be processed and or disposed of. It therefore seems reasonable for sites within Warwickshire to be capable of accepting waste streams from outside the county.

Regu/1208/ww4 20 of 30 The Proximity Principle

7.13 The proximity principle is central to waste disposal proposals. It seeks to ensure that waste is processed or disposed of as close to its source as possible to minimise the adverse impact of transportation. It is however, very difficult to apply in practice as there are no clear guidelines as to just how far it is reasonable to expect or permit waste to travel We must for example recognise that waste is transported across the globe for recycling. For example paper, plastics and metals are collected in the UK and are transported to be recycled in the far east. Thus any facility located anywhere in the UK which diverts part of this waste stream away from the far east will dramatically reduce the miles travelled by the waste and thus it could be argued meets the proximity principle.

7.14 It has been argued that both these facilities fail the proximity test and it has been suggested that the AD facility should be located on an industrial estate close to the source of the waste. Such facilities can be located on industrial estates but they best operate when close to and associated with large areas of arable farmland. Where the solid and liquid products of AD can be used as fertilisers. Such locations are often not adjacent to the major conurbations. However, in this case Birmingham is located only some 18 miles away from the AD facility along main roads whilst Coventry is located only some 17 miles away, whilst the medium sized towns of Tamworth, Nuneaton and Hinckley are located even closer to the facility. These distances are not considered to be excessively long for waste to travel Furthermore whilst it must be accepted that the facility is likely to attract waste from outside the North Warwickshire Borough Council administrative area, both local and national planning policies accept in principle that waste will cross administrative boundaries as indeed does a significant proportion of the waste generated within North Warwickshire.

7.15 The biomass power plant is again likely to receive waste from a relatively wide catchment area. It is proposed that the bulk of the material used, particularly in the early stages of development, will come from the wood shredding facility at Packington which is located some 15 miles away by main road. Again it could be argued that this distance fails the proximity test. However, material from Packington is currently sent to a biomass plant in Lockerbie some 220 + miles away, so the diversion of this material to Baxterley has the potential to dramatically reduce “waste miles”.

The Potential for Further Expansion

7.16 Serious concerns have been expressed by local residents that the approval of this development will set a precedent for the expansion of the site in a north westwards direction over a large field which the applicants propose to enclose within new tree and hedgerow planting strips. The applicants contend that these planting strips are to integrate the development into the landscape and that if required they will delete the planting.

7.17 This land does not form part of the application site and is indisputably a green field in agricultural use. Whilst there may be site specific characteristics (primarily the condition of the site and its planning history) which indicate that the shale tip has potential for some form of re-use these characteristics do not apply

Regu/1208/ww4 21 of 30 to the agricultural land and it is therefore considered that there is no potential for an expansion of the site. Planning restrictions may be imposed to ensure that intermittent use of this land for storage or other activities does not occur should a consent be granted.

7.18 The potential expansion of the site within the shale tip is rather more problematic. It has to be accepted that once the principle of development is accepted on the shale tip then it would become easier for the applicants to negotiate changes to the scheme which would intensify activities on the site. This is always the potential consequence of any grant of planning permission. Any enlargement of the scheme or indeed the introduction of new facilities would however, require planning permission and therefore could be controlled. However, it would be difficult to enlarge the scheme without removing or remodelling substantial quantities of shale which would also require planning permission and which, in practical terms would be difficult to implement once the site has been developed

7.19 Furthermore it is proposed as part of the proposed Section 106 Agreement to require the retention of the shale bunds which enclose and screen the site. This part of the Section 106 Agreement (although always potentially renegotiable) would restrict the size of the site and provide some degree of assurance that the site would not be significantly enlarged within the shale tip.

Climate Change and Sustainable Development

7.20 Climate change has been recognised as the greatest threat facing modern humanity and one which we may not have very long to address. If we are to maintain our current lifestyles into the future then we must secure sustainable forms of development.

7.21 The biomass power plant, could positively contribute towards fighting climate change because such plants potentially contribute towards electricity provision without releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere. This benefit only accrues however, when the fuel source is acquired from a relatively local source. As biomass feedstock is traded internationally it is sometimes transported over long distances using significant quantities of fossil fuels to do so.

7.22 Whilst this is a potential risk the fact remains that this technology potentially allows the generation of power without that power generation contributing to climate change and the potential exists to supply the feedstock from local sources.

7.23 At the moment approximately 8,500,000 tonnes of wood waste is sent to landfill in the UK. This is clearly a waste of a potentially valuable resource which could potentially produce carbon neutral energy.

7.24 The amount of power potentially produced by this development has in the past been disputed so the applicants figures have been checked and it can be confirmed that this development could potentially generate enough electricity to supply approximately 4,500 homes or to put it in other terms to provide enough electricity to meet the domestic needs of a town the size of Atherstone.

Regu/1208/ww4 22 of 30

7.25 The government is committed to producing at least 20% of the United Kingdom’s electricity requirements from renewable sources. Currently only 4% of our electricity needs are provided from such sources and the government is therefore committed to a significant expansion of this sector.

The Impact on Pollution and Local Amenity

7.26 Technical consultations have been carried out to ascertain the impact which this development would have upon pollution levels and local amenity. The Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department and the Environment Agency have both been consulted and have raised no substantial objections to the development. Thus whilst there may be a significant level of public concern about emissions and nuisance resulting from this development those concerns are not substantiated by any technical consultees. In the absence such technical objections an objection on amenity grounds could not be sustained at appeal. It must be accepted however, that there are houses located immediately to the south of the application site and at the junction with Merevale Lane and that these properties must inevitably suffer some adverse impact from this development.

7.27 Traffic generated by the proposed development would undoubtedly have some adverse effect upon amenities enjoyed by the occupants of properties, particularly dwellings, along the road network which will accommodate these traffic movements. However, the advice from technical consultees is that this impact is acceptable. Given this advice an objection on these grounds would again be difficult to sustain at appeal.

7.28 It should be noted however, that this matter was of significant concern to elected members when the last application was determined an indeed forms a significant part of the previous reason for refusal. In order to overcome that concern the applicants have scaled down significantly the development proposed (which will inevitably will reduce the number of traffic movements) and propose to route HGV movements along Merevale Lane to the A5. Inevitably such routing agreements will sometimes be ignored by HGV drivers but in the majority of cases they do work successfully, and in this case would be likely to remove a majority of HGV movements from the smaller rural roads.

Highway Safety

7.29 There are local concerns about highway safety problems arising from the approval of a development on this scale. Those concerns centre upon three main areas of concern. Firstly there is a concern that the road network is unsuitable to serve a development on this scale. The local roads are too narrow and of contorted alignment and already congested at peak times. It is argued that to add further significant HGV movements onto this network would overload the network and result in a danger to highway safety. The second area of concern relates to the potential conflict between the HGV traffic using these rural roads and other users of the public highway particularly walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The third area of concern is that the applicants traffic generation figures have been significantly underestimated and that they do not

Regu/1208/ww4 23 of 30 take into account the cumulative effect of this proposal and other commitments in the locality (such as the car storage scheme proposed by the applicants on the other side of The Common) which will have a very significant effect upon the locality.

7.30 The matter of highway safety has been examined by both the Highways Agency and Warwickshire County Council as part of the processing of this and the previous application on this site. Previously the Highways Agency advised that the A5 and its associated roundabout junctions can accommodate the traffic generated by the previous larger development. The Highways Agency therefore raised no objections to that development. With regard to the rest of the road network (which comes under the jurisdiction of the County Council) it was concluded that whilst parts of the network are not ideal that network could accommodate the development previously proposed in highway safety terms. The Highways Agency have not yet commented on this application but given that they had no objections to the earlier larger scheme it is unlikely that they will object to this proposal.

The Impact upon Ecology

7.31 The application site has been assessed for its ecological value. The assessments indicate that the site contains little of ecological value. That assessment has been analysed and confirmed by both English nature and the County Ecologist, both of whom have no objections to this application.

7.32 Thus whilst the site may be of value to some local residents as a wildlife refuge it does not contain protected species or important habitat which would justify preventing development on ecology grounds.

The Impact of the Development upon the Local Landscape

7.33 The impact which the proposed development will have upon the local landscape has been carefully assessed. From most vantage points the development will be hidden from view by retained topography within the shale tip and by existing vegetation which has colonised the outer slopes of the shale tip. Clearly it will not be invisible as flues and water vapour plumes will be visible but they are considered to be visually acceptable. Middle distance planting is proposed to integrate this development in to its landscape setting.

Impact upon the Character of the Area and other Development Goals and Objectives

7.34 As recently as 25 years ago the locality close to application site was characterised by large intensive and quite intrusive industrial activities. The land to the west of the application site would for example have been dominated by a large working coal mine and its associated spoil heap.

7.35 Since that time however, many of these industries have closed and the visual scars of that industrial past have been cleared away and character of the locality has begun to change from an industrial landscape to one of a quiet and visually

Regu/1208/ww4 24 of 30 attractive rural area. The locality has striven to establish a new economy based on light and service industries, the tourist sector and as commuter settlements.

7.36 Many of those who have made representations see this development as a retrograde step potentially returning the area to a heavy industrial past and damaging the areas attempts to attract tourist investment and new service sector employment.

7.37 These are legitimate concerns, however, it is difficult to give a tangible measure to these concerns. If the new uses on the application site are not visually intrusive and do not have a significant impact on local amenity then it will be difficult to demonstrate that approval will prejudice the future direction that the locality has decided to take.

Anaerobic Digestion

7.38 Anaerobic digestion constitutes the breaking down of biodegradable waste in the absence of oxygen. It take place in enclosed vessels in controlled conditions. The activity is ideally suited to the processing of food waste and other potentially putrecible materials. Anaerobic digestion as a technology has three environmental benefits:

(a) It diverts putrecible waste away from landfill sites,

(b) It captures the methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) produced by the decay of these materials and allows it to be converted into “carbon neutral” electricity by burning the gas, and,

(c) It produces a nitrate fertiliser which can be used on agricultural land in substitution for artificially manufactured nitrate fertilisers which can require substantial fossil fuel use in their manufacture.

7.39 Anaerobic digestion plants can be located on industrial estates so there is no overriding justification for the installation of such plant on the application site, except perhaps that higher land values tend to exclude their provision on such estates, unless a degree of subsidy in involved and the fact that locating them close to large areas of arable land provides a ready outlet for the organic matter produced by the process which can be used as a fertiliser.

7.40 In this case the anaerobic digestion plant also has the advantage of being closely associated with the biomass power plant. The excess heat generated by the biomass power plant would be used to bring the biodegradable waste up to temperature to facilitate digestion.

7.41 Anaerobic digestion is a proven technology with proven environmental and economic benefits. Until recently there were two significant UK operators in this field, Greenfinch and Biogen. They have recently merged to form one operator. Greenfinch operate a smaller facility to that currently proposed, on an industrial estate in Ludlow, whilst Biogen operate several facilities in rural locations in Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire. Both facilities may potentially be inspected

Regu/1208/ww4 25 of 30 to assess their impact if there are serious concerns about the impact of the technology.

The Biomass Power Plant

7.42 The location of the biomass power plant on the site is a source of considerable local concern. These concerns relate to potential pollution problems and to the large traffic volumes generated by the need to supply the plant with fuel. The fuel is high bulk and low energy and thus inevitably results in significant traffic movements.

7.43 Biomass power plants are also relatively “footloose” and can be located in a variety of locations including, potentially, on land allocated for industrial purposes. They should however, be located close to their source of fuel and enjoy good transport links to that fuel source. This would tend to favour a rural location for any plants even partially fuelled by specifically grown energy crops such as willow or miscanthus, or indeed trimmings from forestry works or woodland management. They are also best sited in locations where the excess heat generated by the plant can be used by other buildings or processes. The applicants have sought to do that here by associating the biomass plant with the anaerobic digestion plant. This has however, had the effect of concentrating essentially industrial type activities in a rural location where speculative commercial development would not normally be permitted.

7.44 Policy ENV 10 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan, prepared and recently adopted by the Borough Council is broadly supportive of renewable energy projects and states that planning permission will normally be granted for renewable energy projects “where they do not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment”. Technical consultation replies advise that this plant meets these criteria. The policy makes no reference to a need to specifically locate them on land allocated for commercial purposes.

7.45 Again biomass power production is a proven technology which is frequently used in Northern Europe to generate power without significant environmental problems.

Central Government Advice

7.46 Central government advice is provided to planning authorities via publications such as circulars Planning Policy Statements, White Papers and other ministerial statements which indicate the direction which government would wish planning authorities to take.

7.47 The recently published Energy White Paper contains specific reference to the role of the planning system and states in paragraph 5.3.67 that:-

“Recognising the particular difficulties faced by renewables in securing planning consent the Government is also:-

Regu/1208/ww4 26 of 30 (i) Underlining that applicants will no longer have to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy or for their particular proposal to be sited in a particular location; (ii) Creating the expectation amongst applicants that that any substantial new proposed developments would need to source a significant proportion of their energy supply from low carbon sources (including on and off site renewables); (iii) Encouraging planners to help create an attractive environment for innovation and in which the private sector can bring forward investment in renewable and low carbon technologies and, (iv) Giving a clear steer to planning professionals and local authority decision makers that in considering applications they should look favourably on renewable energy developments. “

This statement is potentially strongly supportive of this application.

7.48 Planning Policy Statement No. 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” places the principals of sustainable development at the centre of the British planning system. Its advice is wide ranging and concludes that planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole whilst further stating that community involvement is an essential element of delivering sustainable development.

7.49 The Supplement to PPS 1 “Planning and Climate Change” published by central government in December 2007 states that “the government believes that climate change is the greatest long term challenge facing the world today. Addressing climate change is therefore the government’s principal concern for sustainable development.”

Paragraph 40 of the same document states that:-

“ An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handing of the planning application.”

The key objectives identified by the PPS are:- (i) To make a full contribution to delivering the governments climate change programme and energy policies and in doing so contribute to global sustainability. (ii) Providing homes, jobs and infrastructure needed by communities whilst securing the highest viable resource and energy efficiency and reduction in emissions. (iii) Deliver patterns of growth and sustainable rural developments that reduce the need to travel. (iv) Secure new developments which minimise vulnerability to climate change in ways that are consistent with social inclusion and cohesion. (v) Conserve and enhance biodiversity taking into account climate change. (vi) Reflect development needs and interests of communities and enable them to contribute to effectively tackling climate change. (vii) Respond to the concerns of business and encourage competitive and technological innovation in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Regu/1208/ww4 27 of 30

7.50 Planning Policy Statement No.7 “ Sustainable Development in Rural Areas ” provides Government advice against which all developments in rural areas should be judged. This document establishes a series of principles which relate specifically to this application. These principles include the government commitment to;

(i) Thriving inclusive and sustainable rural communities ensuring that people have decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods. (ii) Good quality sustainable development which respects and enhances the intrinsic qualities of the countryside. (iii) Focussing most development in or next to existing towns and villages. (iv) Preventing urban sprawl. (v) Discouraging the use of “greenfield” land and giving priority to the development of “brownfield” land. (vi) Strictly controlling developments away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated for development in development plans.

7.51 Planning Policy Statement No. 10 “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” (PPS 10) provides planning authorities with the governments view as to how matters relating to waste disposal should be dealt with. Central to the governments approach is the principle of driving waste up the waste hierarchy. The first priority is to reduce the quantity of waste we as a society produce. The second principle of the hierarchy is to recover/recycle as much of the waste that we produce through recycling, composting or energy recovery. Only as a last resort is waste disposed of. PPS 10 has specific reference to this application for the following reasons:

(i) The PPS encourages the establishment of new facilities in appropriate locations to encourage waste recycling. (ii) The PPS advises that in providing facilities local authorities should look at the cumulative effect of the development particularly upon community cohesion, environmental quality or economic potential. (iii) Where health concerns are raised they should be thoroughly investigated with relevant consultees, and, (iv) When the development is in accordance with an up to date development plan the applicants should not be expected to demonstrate need for the development.

7.52 Planning Policy Statement 22 ”Renewable Energy” (PPS 22) provides planning authorities with the governments view as to how renewable energy matters should be dealt with. The biomass power plant and the anaerobic digestion plant are both classed as renewable energy technology by PPS 22. PPS 22 also has 5 points which are directly relevant to this submission. They are:-

(i) The governments intention to reduce UK carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 with real progress by 2020, (ii) A commitment to generate at least 10% of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2020,

Regu/1208/ww4 28 of 30 (iii) That local authorities should not adopt a sequential test to apply to renewable energy proposals as to do so may preclude the development of sites although it should be recognised that some previously developed land whilst unsuitable other land uses because of its unsustainable location may provide opportunities for renewable energy projects (Paragraph 22 of PPS 22), (iv) Anaerobic digestion should not be located close to residential properties where odour is a problem, (v) Biomass technology has the potential to increase traffic generation so such plants should be located as close as possible to their fuel source, although it should be accepted that other criteria may also influence location.

7.53 Although the PPS advice is open to a considerable degree of interpretation it is concluded that this development is supported by the supplement to PPS 1, PPS 10 and PPS 22 and is also supported by PPS 7 if it is concluded that the environmental impact of the development upon the locality are acceptable.

Economic Development and the “Green Economy”

7.54 The economic benefits which would accrue from this scheme are a material consideration which must be given significant weight particularly as the economy is currently moving into recession. Although both technologies proposed are proven technologies these activities are still relatively uncommon in the United Kingdom. However, the production of renewable energy and the use of former waste products as resources are likely to become increasingly commonplace and are likely to constitute an ever larger growth sector in our economy as government encourages the ever more efficient use of resources and the reduction in carbon emissions produced by commercial activity. Such activities are increasingly referred to as the “green economy” as they can contribute to economic well being without contributing to climate change.

7.55 This development will provide employment for approximately 10 permanent full time staff comprising technicians, weighbridge staff and plant and machinery operators. In addition the development will support a number of additional jobs in the supply chains and will enable an increase in local employment within the Merevale Estate in agriculture and forestry.

Public Opinion as a Material Planning Consideration

7.56 Public opinion is a material planning consideration but is in itself not a reason to oppose or indeed to approve a development. This position is succinctly put in paragraph 15 to Annexe 3 of Circular 8/93 the “Award of Costs Incurred in Planning and Other (Including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings” approved by government in March 1993, which state that:

“planning authorities are expected to consider the views of local residents when determining a planning application. Nevertheless local opposition to a proposal is not, by itself, a reasonable ground for the refusal of a planning application unless that opposition is founded on valid planning reasons which are supported by substantial evidence.

Regu/1208/ww4 29 of 30 While the planning authority will need to consider the substance of any local opposition to the proposal their duty is to decide a case on its planning merits.”

7.57. It should be noted that local opinion in this case seems divided on the merits of the proposal with some residents seeing merit in the proposal and others wishing to oppose the development.

9. Environmental implications

9.1 If approved this development must inevitably have some adverse impact upon the local environment primarily because the shale tip is currently unused (or is virtually unused). Thus the installation of a large development on the site must result in disturbance to the locality both from the activities themselves and the traffic generation which will result from the operation of these activities.

9.2 However, the technical consultees (Environmental Health, The Environment Agency, etc.) advise that the adverse impact upon amenity or public safety will not be at such a level that they would wish to raise objections to the application on those grounds.

9.3 The real environmental benefits which will accrue from this development relate to the production of carbon neutral energy, the more efficient use of existing resources, and the beneficial effect this will have in tackling the problem of climate change.

9.4 This considerable environmental benefit must be carefully weighed against the adverse local environmental impacts referred to in paragraph 9.1 above. 10. Conclusions

10.1 Although this is a complex matter it is concluded that the support given to this development by Regional Spatial Strategy, Policy ENV 10 of the adopted North Warwickshire Local Plan and by central government advice contained in the relevant Planning Policy Statements referred to above are sufficient to justify the grant of planning permission for this development even though the land is not specifically allocated for development in the borough local plan. It should also be noted that that most of the statutory and technical consultees are supportive of this application and that there are no substantive amenity objections to the development which are sufficient to constitute a valid reason for refusal.

10.2 It is further concluded that the County Council’s duties under the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 have been acceptably discharged.

PAUL GALLAND Strategic Director for Environment and Economy Shire Hall Warwick

8 December 2008

Regu/1208/ww4 30 of 30 Scale 1: 6500 Ref No. NW57/08CM042 Drawn Jan Stevens Regulatory Committee 15th December 2008 Subject Baxterley Shale Tip - Biomass and AD Plants

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map. With the permission of the HMSO Controller Licence No. 100019520. (c) Crown Copyright. Appendix B of Agenda No

Regulatory Committee – 15 December 2008

Compaction of the Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire

Planning Application No. NW57/08CM042

Provisions of the Legal Agreement

The applicants shall be required to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the following:-

(i) The site shall only be developed for the uses specified in the planning application NW57/08CM042 or for other developments which constitute County Matter or renewable energy developments and not for general industrial or commercial activities.

(ii) No land adjacent to the application site shall be used for ancillary storage for any of the uses approved as part of this application other than by the application of potash and digestate as a fertiliser or soil improver.

(iii) The woodland around the perimeter of the site and any new planting provided as part of the development of the site shall be retained and be maintained as woodland in accordance with a management plan which shall be agreed with the County Planning authority before the commencement of development.

(iv) When in full operation the approved development shall not generate more than 70 Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic movements per day on average measured over a four week period,

(v) With the exception of traffic movements between the site and Bentley Sawmill, a vehicle routing agreement shall be put in place to ensure that heavy goods vehicles accessing and egressing the site do not pass through the villages of Baxterley or Baddesley Ensor but shall instead turn left onto Merevale Lane and from there travel eastwards to the A5 roundabout and from there either north or south along the A5 to their ultimate destination.

Planning Conditions

Commencement Date

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B1 of 7 Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with application Reference No. NW5708CM042 and in accordance with the approved plans, and any samples or details approved in accordance with the conditions attached to this permission, unless these conditions require or allow, or the County Planning Authority agrees in writing to any modifications.

Reason: In order to define the exact details of the planning permission granted and to secure a satisfactory standard of development in the locality.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of landscape proposals for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. These details should include a planting plan showing existing trees to be retained along with new planting, written specifications, schedules of plants noting plant locations, species, sizes and proposed numbers and densities where appropriate.

Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development

4. The landscaping scheme approved pursuant to Condition 3 of this consent, shall be implemented in the first planting season following the completion of the development hereby approved and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, should any trees or shrubs planted as part of the landscape scheme, die, be removed become damaged or seriously diseased within five years of the initial planting they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species

Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development

5. No development shall take place on site until the trees identified to be retained on the landscape plan submitted in pursuance of condition 3 of this consent have been protected by fencing and enclosures, full design details of which shall have first been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority prior to their installation on site and the approved tree protection scheme shall be retained in situ and in the approved form for the duration of construction work.

Reason: In order to protect trees on the site which are of amenity value.

6. Reversing alarms shall not be used unless they are of a bell tone type or are of the directional type or are capable of adjusting their noise level automatically to 5dB(A) above the ambient noise level or are of a type otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents.

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B2 of 7 7. No loaded lorries shall enter or leave the site unless they are sheeted or the load is otherwise adequately secured.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water run-off limitation measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning authority. The scheme shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding

9. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water drainage works to serve the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning authority. The drainage works shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring a satisfactory means of surface water disposal

10. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul water drainage works to serve the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning authority. The drainage works shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

11. No mud or deleterious material shall be deposited on the public highway and a scheme to prevent that happening shall be submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. In the event that material is inadvertently deposited it shall be removed immediately.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the locality.

12. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a schedule of all external finish materials, to be used on the exterior of the buildings and storage tanks hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the said approved schedule.

Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development

13. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a noise management plan for the phase two development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Such a plan shall include detail of on site management measures to prevent noise becoming a cause of

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B3 of 7 nuisance and contingency plans should noise become a cause of complaint. Following approval the management plan shall be implemented accordingly.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the locality and prevent intrusive levels of noise pollution

14. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a dust management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Such a plan shall include detail of on site management measures to prevent dust becoming a cause of nuisance and contingency plans should dust become a cause of complaint. Following approval the management plan shall be implemented accordingly.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the locality and prevent intrusive levels of dust pollution

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an odour management plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Such a plan shall include detail of on site management measures to prevent odour becoming a cause of nuisance and contingency plans should odour become a cause of complaint. Following approval the management plan shall be implemented accordingly.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

16. Prior to the first use of any the two premises approved by this consent, the car parks, access drives and service areas shown shall be laid out, surfaced , drained and completed in accordance with a scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority prior to the construction of any part of these features.

Reason: In order to ensure that adequate provision is made for the servicing of the approved development and the adequate accommodation of vehicles away from the public highway.

17. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, the engineering operations to re-profile the site shall only be carried out between the following hours:

0700 – 1900 hours Mondays to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday

No operations shall occur on the site on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

18. Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, deliveries of material to fuel the biomass power plant and the anaerobic digestion plant and the removal of materials resulting from these proposals shall only be carried out between the following hours:-

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B4 of 7 0700 – 1900 hours Mondays to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday

No deliveries or export of material shall occur to or from the site on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents.

19. The construction of the biomass power plant hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of the means of voltage power line connection to the national grid to serve the development have been submitted and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority and the said approved scheme shall be installed in the approved form prior to the first occupation of the premises.

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the locality.

20. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the finished floor levels for the approved new building(s) in relation to their adjacent natural ground levels have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the said approved levels.

Reason: In order to ensure that the completed development is in scale and harmony with its surroundings.

21. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of all external lighting to be fixed to the buildings and all external lighting columns to be installed on the site have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning authority. All lighting shall then be fitted in accordance with the said approved scheme.

Reason: In order to minimise light pollution to the locality.

22. The new vehicular access to The Common shall only be used as an emergency access to the site and shall not be used by day to day traffic serving the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to minimise the amenity impacts upon nearby residents resulting from traffic movements to and from the site.

Development Plan Polices Relevant to this Decision

The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy

Policy EN1 – Energy Generation seeks to encourage planning authorities to encourage the development of renewable energy proposals whilst at the same time protecting the environment.

Policy WD1 – Targets for Waste Management in the Region sets targets for recycling across the region

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B5 of 7

Policy WD2 – The Need for Waste Management Facilities – by Sub Region requires planning authorities to make provision for the waste disposal facilities which are needed and seeks to encourage cooperation between authorities.

Policy WD3- Criteria for the Location of Waste management Facilities establishes the criteria for the location of waste facilities and seeks to restrict new landfill provision.

Policy QE6 – The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Regions Landscapes requires the protection of and where appropriate the enhancement of the regions landscapes.

The Warwickshire Structure Plan

Policy I.2 - Industrial Land Provision identifies the quantities of industrial land needed across the county.

The Waste Local Plan For Warwickshire

Policy 1 – General Land Use establishes the general principles to be applied to waste developments.

North Warwickshire Local Plan

ENV1 – Protection and Enhancement of Natural landscape – requires the protection and enhancement of the intrinsic qualities of the landscape.

ENV3 Nature Conservation – requires adequate protection of sites of nature and geological conservation interest.

ENV4 – Trees and Hedgerows – requires the protection trees and hedgerows of amenity value.

ENV6 – Land Resources – requires the protection of the boroughs land resources and the appropriate treatment of contaminated land.

ENV9 – Air Quality – requires the safeguarding of air quality and the protection of sensitive receptors from noise pollution.

ENV10 Energy Generation and Energy Conservation ENV11 – Neighbour Amenities – requires the protection of existing occupants of property from developments which would adversely affect their amenity.

TPT1 – Transport Considerations in New Development – requires the submission of transport assessments for large scale developments and the application of appropriate controls to prevent traffic problems arising.

TPT3 – Access and Sustainable Travel and Transport – requires development to have a safe and convenient access to the highway and to maximise the use of sustainable means of travel.

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B6 of 7

Core Policy 1 – Social and Economic Regeneration – seeks to ensure the social and economic regeneration of the borough.

Core Policy 2 – Development Distribution – restricts most development in the borough to the major settlements identified in the plan.

Core Policy 3 – Natural and Historic Environment – requires all development to protect and enhance biodiversity, natural habitats, and the landscape and townscapes.

Core Policy 9 – Employment land Requirement. – allocates employment land to prevent over provision.

Reasons for the Decision to Grant Permission

Although not specifically allocated for development in the North Warwickshire Local Plan this policy receives considerable support from Policy ENV10 of that document. In addition the development receives considerable support from the government planning policy statements PPS1 and its associated supplement and from PP22. Furthermore any adverse impacts associated with this development are not held to be so significant to constitute valid planning objections to the development.

Regu/1208/ww4b 5.12.08 B7 of 7 Appendix C of Agenda No

Regulatory Committee – 15 December 2008

Compaction of the Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire

Planning Application No. NW57/08CM042

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

Policy EN1

Local authorities in their development plans should:-

(i) encourage proposals for the use of renewable energy resources, including biomass, onshore wind power, active solar systems, small scale hydro-electricity schemes and energy from waste combustion and landfill gas, subject to an assessment of their impact using the criteria in iii) below. Specific policies should be included for technologies most appropriate to the particular area;

(ii) provide locational guidance through supplementary guidance as necessary on the most appropriate locations for each renewable energy technology, having regard to resource potential, the desirability of locating a generation sites close to or within areas of demand, and landscape character assessment where appropriate;

(iii) identify the environmental and other criteria that will be applied to determining the acceptability of such proposals including:

(a) impact on the landscape, visual amenity and areas of ecological or historic importance;

(b) impact on surrounding residents and other occupiers;

(c) traffic implications, and proximity to transport infrastructure;

(d) the environmental impact of any additional transmission requirements;

(e) the extent to which the proposal helps to achieve wider environmental benefits such as reducing harmful emissions to the atmosphere;

(f) the way in which the proposal assists in achieving national targets of new electricity generating capacity from renewable energy sources;

(g) the extent to which there has been community involvement in developing the proposal; and

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C1 of 12

(h) the extent to which the proposal supports other policies in the development plan; and

(iv) facilitate, where proposals come forward, the construction and upgrading of fossil fuel power stations that incorporate clean coal technology, the dual use of fossil and renewable resources, good quality combined heat and power or significant emissions abatement technologies in line with national policies for abatement at source.

Policy WD1

Development plans should include proposals which will enable the following Regional targets to be met:-

(i) To recover value from at least 40% of municipal waste by 2005; 45% by 2010; and 67% by 2015.

(ii) To recycle or compost at least 25% of household waste by 2005; 30% by 2010; and 33% by 2015; and

(iii) To reduce the proportion of industrial and commercial waste which is disposed of to landfill to at the most 85% of 1998 levels by 2005.

Policy WD2

A. The type and precise location of waste management and treatment facilities to be provided within the Region in order to meet the National Waste Strategy targets and the future waste management needs of all major waste streams are matters to be determined in development plans and through Waste Management Strategies.

B. Regarding municipal waste produced in the Region, additional facilities will be required to recycle, compost or in other ways recover value from at least 47.9 million tonnes, and landfill capacity will be required for approximately 40 million tonnes, between 1998/99 and 2020/21.

C. Landfill capacity with planning permission exists in the West Midlands to satisfy the identified need to dispose of approximately 75 million tonnes of industrial and commercial waste, and 29 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste, between 1998/99 and 2020/21.

D. In preparing development plans, local planning authorities should take into account the needs outlined in Table 4 – for waste treatment and landfill capacity generated by each sub-region.

E. Where necessary, and in accordance with the principles of best practicable environmental option and proximity, local authorities should seek agreement with neighbouring authorities to make provision in their plans to meet these needs (including those in neighbouring regions).

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C2 of 12

Table 4 Municipal Municipal Cumulative landfill void capacity waste waste required for all waste streams taking recycling recovery into account the target reductions in the and National Waste Strategy composting 1998/99 – 2020/21 facilities Sub Region Annual Annual Municipal Industrial & Construction throughput throughput (‘000 commercial & demolition capacity capacity tonnes) (‘000 (‘000 required by required by tonnes) tonnes) 2020/21 2020/21 (‘000 (‘000 tonnes) tonnes) Herefordshire 44 45 1,227 1,693 Metropolitan 845 1,020 16,616 31,709 area Shropshire, 150 155 4,216 7,562 Telford & Wrekin Staffordshire, 364 383 7,837 18,010 Stoke on Trent Warwickshire 172 173 4,479 9,379 Worcestershire 159 164 4,414 6,883 West Midlands 1,734 1,940 38,789 75,236 28,700 * Region * data not available to enable a sub-regional assessment

Policy WD3riteria for the Location of Waste Management Facilities

A. In their development plans, appropriate planning authorities should include policies and proposals for all major waste streams to:

(i) Guide the location and siting of waste treatment and recycling facilities to appropriate locations, having regard to the proximity principle and other environmental and amenity principles as identified elsewhere in this guidance;

(ii) wherever possible and consistent with the principles of Best Practicable Environmental Option and Proximity, encourage the use of rail and water transport in preference to road transport; and

(iii) require the submission of a waste audit and provision for in-house or on- site recycling and treatment of wastes, in the case of major development proposals.

B. Where possible, site-specific proposals for new waste management facilities should be included in development plans. Consideration should be given to the potential advantages of making provision for waste management in the form of small-scale facilities that may be more easily integrated into the local setting.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C3 of 12

C. Development plans should restrict the granting of planning permission for new sites for landfill to proposals which are necessary to restore despoiled or degraded land, including mineral workings, or which are otherwise necessary to meet specific local circumstances. The depletion of landfill capacity will be the subject of regular monitoring.

Policy QE6

The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Region’s landscape Local authorities and other agencies, in their plans, policies and proposals should conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character throughout the Region’s urban and rural areas by:-

(i) ensuring that a consistent approach is taken to landscape and character issues, particularly where they cross local planning authority boundaries;

(ii) establishing a positive and integrated approach to the use, management and enhancement of the urban fringe;

(iii) supporting the Community Forest and National Forest programmes;

(iv) protecting and, where possible, enhancing natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character of the landscape and townscape, and local distinctiveness;

(v) considering other factors that contribute to landscape character including tranquillity and the minimisation of noise and light pollution; and

(vi) identifying opportunities for the restoration of degraded landscapes including current and proposed minerals workings and waste disposal sites.

Warwickshire Structure Plan – 1996-2011

I.2 – Industrial Land Provision

Local plans should make provisions for the phased release of up to 768 ha of land for industrial development (use classes B1, B2 & B8) over the plan period, to be distributed between the districts broadly as set out in table I.1. Provision of industrial land should maximise the use of urban developed land and buildings.

Table I.1 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Need Indicative SIS LIS MIS 1996-2011 Only Small Large Major All industry % of new investme investment investment in hectares industry on nt sites sites site at least urban hectares hectares 50 previously hectares developed land and

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C4 of 12 buildings

District Area North 279 95% 3 276 - Warwickshire Nuneaton & 132 61% 47 85 - Bedworth Rugby 144 49% 4 90 50 Stratford- 81 60% 56 25 - upon-Avon Warwick 132 10% 22 110 - Total County 768 62% 132 586 - Area

The Waste Local Plan For Warwickshire – Adopted August 1999

Policy Number 1 – General Land Use In evaluating proposals to develop any waste facility, the extent, to which the proposal makes a positive contribution to re-use and/or recycling of materials and satisfies the proximity principle will be taken into consideration. Permission will not be given where the proposal would;

(i) Cause significant harm to features of nature conservation interest.

(ii) Give rise to a significant risk of pollution, including potential harm to local features of nature conservation interest.

(iii) Have a significant adverse visual impact taking account of the landscape context.

(iv) Have a significant adverse impact on the character of the locality or amenity of local occupiers, by reason of odour, noise, dust and/or local visual intrusion, having regard to the sensitivity of adjoining land uses and the proximity of residential property

(v) Give rise to traffic that would adversely affect highway safety or have a significant adverse environmental impact traversing the routes which generated traffic is likely to take

(vi) Involve significant loss of or damage to agricultural land within grades 1, 2 or 3A

North Warwickshire Local Plan – Adopted July 2006

ENV1 – Protection and enhancement of natural landscapes

Development that would neither protect nor enhance the intrinsic qualities of the existing landscape, as defined by Landscape Character Assessment, will not be permitted. Only where protection or enhancement is incompatible with proposed

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C5 of 12 development might mitigation be considered as an alternative to protection or enhancement.

ENV3 – Nature Conservation

Nationally Important Sites

1. Proposals for development in or likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) will be subject to special scrutiny. Where development may have an adverse effect, directly or indirectly on a SSSI it will not be permitted unless the reason for development clearly outweighs the nature conservation value of the site itself and the national policy to safeguard the national network of such sites.

Regionally and Locally Important Sites

2. Development and other land use change likely to have a harmful effect on the nature conservation value of:-

(i) A Local Nature Reserve, (ii) A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation or (iii) A Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site.

will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal that clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site or feature.

3. Where development is permitted, the Authority will consider the use of conditions and/or obligations to secure all compensatory measures necessary to protect and enhance the site’s nature conservation interest as well as the overall coherence of designated sites. It will also seek to increase the amount and quality of habitats, species and geological sites.

Species Protection

4. Development and other land use changes that are likely to have a harmful effect on rare, endangered, or other species of conservation importance will not be permitted.

5. Where development is permitted which may have an effect on these species, the Authority will use conditions and / or obligations to secure compensatory measures necessary to protect the species, reduce disturbance to a minimum and provide alternative habitats to sustain or enhance the population.

ENV4 – Trees and Hedgerows

Development will not be permitted if it would result in the loss of trees, woodlands or hedgerows that in terms of their historical, ecological, townscape or landscape significance make a positive contribution to the quality of the local environment. The planting of new trees, woodlands and/or hedgerows will be sought in the landscaping of new development.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C6 of 12

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C7 of 12 ENV6 – Land Resources

1. The Council will safeguard and enhance land resources in the Borough by:-

(i) In minerals developments ensuring the early establishment of after-uses that best meet the policies in this Local Plan.

(ii) Protecting suitable sites for the recycling and re-use of waste materials.

(iii) Requiring applicants to identify unstable and potentially unstable land, and securing land stabilisation.

(iv) Ensuring strict control of the use and disposal of hazardous substances, so as to safeguard land, premises and people.

(v) Protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Contaminated Land

2. Development that would result in land contamination will not be permitted. An Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposal may be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that contamination will not occur.

3. The development of contaminated, or potentially contaminated, land or of land in its vicinity, will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty that practical measures can be taken to treat, contain or control the contamination so as not to:-

(i) Expose the occupiers of the development, including in the case of housing the normal use and enjoyment of gardens, to significant risk. (ii) Threaten the structural integrity of buildings existing or to be erected on the site. (iii) Lead to the contamination of any watercourse or aquifer. (iv) Cause the contamination of adjoining land, or allow such contamination to continue. (v) Cause unacceptable environmental conditions for the occupiers of nearby properties while the remedial measures are being carried out, or (vi) Expose site operatives to unacceptable health risks.

4. All remediation measures shall be to a standard approved by the Council, and allowance made for full remediation where this is not practical initially.

ENV9 – Air Quality

The air quality of the Borough will be safeguarded and enhanced by:-

1. Not permitting new potentially polluting forms of development within and bordering the Borough’s Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) to minimise potential risks to health. The existing AQMA is shown on the Proposals Map.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C8 of 12

2. Not permitting development that would include hazardous substances likely to have an unacceptable risk to nearby areas and people.

3. Not permitting development in the vicinity of notifiable hazardous installations or premises if there is an unacceptable risk to occupiers.

4. Not permitting places of residence, employment or other noise-sensitive uses if the occupants would experience significant noise disturbance.

5. Not permitting development that would create significant noise disturbance to nearby housing, schools and other noise-sensitive uses.

ENV10 – Energy Generation and Energy Conservation

Energy Generation

1 Planning permission will be granted for renewable energy schemes where they do not have an unacceptable impact on the environment.

2 In all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings and in non-residential developments of 1000sq m or more 10% of the predicted energy requirements should be produced on site from renewable energy resources. Energy Conservation.

3 New development will not be permitted unless its siting, design and layout avoids the unnecessary waste of renewable and non-renewable energy resources and makes economic use of raw materials.

ENV11 – Neighbour Amenities

Development will not be permitted if the occupiers of nearby properties would suffer significant loss of amenity, including overlooking, loss of privacy, or disturbance due to traffic, offensive smells, noise, light, dust or fumes. Occupiers of the development itself should also enjoy satisfactory standards of these amenities.

TPT1 – Transport considerations in new development Major Traffic Generating Proposals

1. In the following cases developers will be required to submit transportation assessments and travel plans to consider and mitigate the impacts of their schemes.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C9 of 12

Use Indicative Thresholds

Non-food & Food Shops, Financial & More than 1,000m2 Professional Services, PHs & Licensed Clubs, Restaurants &Takeaways Offices More than 2,500m2

Industry More than 5,000m2

Warehousing More than 10,000m2

Schools, Hotels, Motels, Guest Houses & All Residential Clubs Residential Sites for 100 dwellings or more. Medical Practitioners, Clinics, Dentists, More than 500m2 Opticians & Chiropodists Places of Assembly More than 1,000m2 Stadia More than 1,500 seats

(i) Assessments will also be required for developments below these thresholds:- (ii) Where there is a cumulative effect created by the floorspace on the site or in the vicinity. (iii) In Air Quality Management Areas (as shown on the Proposals Map). (iv) Or where there are demonstrable shortcomings in the adequacy of the local transport network to accommodate development of the scale proposed.

2. Developments of this scale will be required to demonstrate safe and convenient access by a range of means of travel and transport.

3. Planning permission will be refused where the transportation impacts of these developments are significant and cannot be mitigated by:-

(i) Measures to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels.

(ii) The delivery of Approved Travel Plans.

(iii) Developer contributions towards public transport services and facilities, cycling and pedestrian provision.

For All Development

4. Development will only be permitted where, individually or cumulatively there would be sufficient capacity within the transport network to accommodate traffic generated by the proposal and where there would be no additional hazard to traffic safety or detriment to access visibility.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C10 of 12 5. Schemes will only be permitted where the cumulative effect of developments can be accommodated within the network capacity and where transport associated impacts have been adequately addressed to maintain the character of the local environment.

TPT3 – Access and Sustainable Travel and Transport

Development will not be permitted unless its siting, layout and design makes provision for safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and maximises practicable opportunities for the use of sustainable means of travel and transport including walking, cycling, bus and train.

CORE POLICY 1: Social and Economic Regeneration

The Local Plan will support the economic and social regeneration of the are, primarily by seeking to ensure local people have access to a range of high quality employment, housing, shopping, leisure, education and other community facilities.

CORE POLICY 2: Development Distribution

(1) The settlements identified in Categories 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix 2: Settlement Hierarchy indicate the Main Towns, Green Belt Market Town and Local Service Centres within the development boundaries of which development for employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities will be permitted, at a scale proportionate to their position in the Borough’s settlement hierarchy and where such development would maintain or enhance the function of the settlement.

(2) In other settlements with development boundaries defined on the Proposals Map, housing development will be limited to that for which a local affordable housing need has been identified.

(3) Outside the development boundaries and except where other policies of the Plan expressly provide, development will be limited to that requisite for agriculture, forestry or other uses that can be shown to require a rural location.

CORE POLICY 3: Natural and Historic Environment

All development decisions will seek to protect or enhance biodiversity, natural habitats, the historic environment, and existing landscape and townscape character.

CORE POLICY 9: Employment Land Requirement

Provision has been made for development of 279 hectares of industrial land within the Plan area in the period 1996-2011. Monitoring of supply indicated that this level of provision had already been exceeded by end March 2004 and no new employment land beyond existing commitments and the phased rollover of land from the 1995 Local Plan is therefore made the subject of site-specific allocations in this Plan.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C11 of 12

Waste Framework Directive

The combined effect of Paragraph 3, Sch. 20 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive is that a planning authority must carry out its functions for the purpose of ensuring that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:-

(i) without risk to water, air and soil, or to plants or animals;

(ii) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours;

(iii) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Regu/1208ww4c 8.12.08 C12 of 12 Appendix D of Agenda No

Regulatory Committee – 15 December 2008

Compaction of the Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley, North Warwickshire

Planning Application No. NW57/08CM042

Reasons For Decision To Refuse Permission

The redevelopment of the site for a waste recovery park would result in the construction of a large commercial development on an isolated site in the countryside, which would otherwise be likely to return to a natural appearance or another beneficial use appropriate to the countryside. The site is specifically not allocated for development by either the North Warwickshire Local Plan or the Waste Local Plan for Warwickshire.

This redevelopment and associated traffic would have an unacceptable urbanising effect upon the rural character of the locality and impose heavy goods vehicles traffic onto unsuitable rural roads to the inconvenience of other road users and to the detriment of the residential amenities enjoyed by those households living in close proximity to those roads.

In consequence, the redevelopment is contrary to the provisions of Core Policies 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11 and Policies ENV6, ENV10, ENV11 and TPT1 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan and Policies 1, 6 and 7 of the Waste Local Plan for Warwickshire.

The site is not in an Area of Search for mineral workings identified by Policy M1 and the Proposals Map of the Minerals Local Plan for Warwickshire and (for the reasons given above) the proposed form of redevelopment fails to meet the criteria set out in Policy M6 of that Plan. Therefore, the proposal for the extraction of shale also fails to accord with the development plan.

The waste park would increase the capacity of the waste disposal network to move waste treatment up the waste hierarchy. However, this benefit is outweighed by the harm which would be done to the objectives of policies for sustainable development both through the impact of the redevelopment on the local environment and through the impact on the global environment of road vehicles delivering waste from a large catchment area.

Regu/1208/ww4d 5.12.08 D1 of 1