Development Control Committee
Title: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A WASTE TRANSFER STATION (WTS) AT LONDON ROAD EAST, INCLUDING: A WASTE TRANSFER STATION FOR THE RECEPTION, BULKING AND LOADING OF WASTE; INSTALLATION OF WEIGHBRIDGES, WEIGHBRIDGE OFFICE, ACCESS AND INTERNAL ROADS AND PARKING FACILITIES; CONSTRUCTION OF AMENITY / WELFARE BUILDING; THE PROVISION OF SUDS AND LANDSCAPE AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE SITE BOUNDARY TO ATTENUATE RAINFALL AND ENHANCE THE APPEARANCE AND BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS TO THE SITE; RE-ALIGNMENT AND WIDENING OF THE HWRC AND SITE ACCESS ROAD; PROVISION OF ACOUSTIC BUNDS (AND FENCE) AND SECURITY FENCING; AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING A413 JUNCTION AT LONDON ROAD EAST, AMERSHAM, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP7 9DT
Application no: CM/59/14
Applicant: FCC Environment Ltd
Bucks Street Atlas: P166 A4-A5 & P165 F4
Date: 27th May 2015
Author: Head of Planning
Contact Officer: Gemma Crossley
Electoral Divisions Affected: Amersham and Little Chalfont / Chalfont St Giles
Local Member: Cllr Martin Tett
Recommendation: A. Subject to no over-riding objections being received from outstanding consultees, the Committee is invited to:
A. INDICATE SUPPORT for application no. CM/59/14 at London Road East, Amersham;
B. RESOLVE that the application be forwarded to the Secretary of State in accordance with the provision of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009;
C. That in the event that the Secretary of State not intervening the Head of Planning be authorised to APPROVE application no. CM/59/14 for a Waste Transfer Station at London Road, Amersham, subject to the applicant entering into a suitable
Legal Agreement, or to appropriate conditions, to secure the routeing of HGV’s between the site and the Greatmoor EfW at Calvert, and subject to conditions to be determined by the Planning Manager, including:
1. Details of the industrial access leading to the WTS shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA and the development shall not be operational until the access has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. 2. The proposed traffic management scheme shall include lining and signing and shall be laid out as shown on the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt the access alterations shall include a new 2m wide footway link leading from the existing bus stop on the A413, along the main depot access road and in to the application site. 3. Visibility splays to be provided on both sides of the access. 4. The development shall be carried out during the following hours: 0700 to 1700 Monday to Friday; with a maximum of 12 Saturdays per year following public holidays or as a consequence of adverse weather; no operations on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 5. Maximum of 43 HGV daily trips or 86 HGV movements a day (two-way). 6. Scheme for parking and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be submitted, approved and implemented. 7. Submission of a Construction Management Plan. 8. Prevent deposit of mud and similar debris on the public highway. 9. HGV’s exporting waste from the site travelling to Greatmoor Calvert shall turn left (north west) out of the site access and travelling along the A413 via Aylesbury and vice versa. 10. Details of existing ground levels, proposed slab levels and finished floor levels compared to a fixed datum point, shall be submitted to the LPA. 11. No waste management operations relating to the unloading, tipping, sorting, storing or loading of waste or waste products shall take place outside of the waste transfer building hereby permitted at any time. In addition, no materials, crates or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings and no temporary structures shall be erected within the site.
12. The WTS shall not be brought into use until the weighbridges, security fencing, new access road and the staff and visitor car parking spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. 13. Prior to the site being brought into use, the cycle store shall be provided and thereafter be retained. 14. No hazardous waste shall be used, stored or treated on site. 15. Details and samples of the external materials to be used in the construction of the buildings approved, shall be submitted to the LPA. 16. Details of the hardstanding surfaces shall be submitted to the LPA. 17. Submission of a Noise and Vibration Mitigation and Management Plan, including noise monitoring, shall be submitted. 18. Details shall be submitted of the proposed acoustically insulated cladding for the WTS building. 19. Submission of an Odour Mitigation and Management Plan. 20. Submission of a Dust Action Plan. 21. Details of the dust and odour suppression measures to be installed within the WTS building shall be submitted. 22. Details of the earth bunds and acoustic barrier shall be submitted to the LPA, including elevational details and cross sections. 23. Details of the SuDS drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. 24. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved FRA. 25. Petrol/oil interceptors shall be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. 26. Submission and approval of a preliminary risk assessment, a site investigation scheme and a remediation strategy, and the works to be carried out as approved. 27. Submission and approval of a verification report which demonstrates completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy. 28. Submission and approval of a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination. 29. If contamination not previously identified is found, no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with, shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA.
30. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground. 31. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted. 32. A scheme of all water quality control features as identified on dwg no. ST13628-020, shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. 33. A landscape management plan shall be submitted to the LPA, covering the top of the bank within 8m of the River Misbourne, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedule, how the buffer zone will be protected and enhanced, details of the proposed attenuation pond, and details of new planting. 34. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Landscape management and Aftercare Plan. 35. Submission of a detailed planting plan shall be submitted to the LPA. 36. Refuelling of vehicles shall take place either off- site or within a designated area equipped with appropriate spill interceptors and/or spill kits. 37. Details of measures to be implemented in the event of waste spill out of designated areas shall be submitted to the LPA. 38. A mitigation strategy to avoid interference with any badger setts and to ensure that habitat connectivity and any links to foraging habitats are maintained following completion. 39. A mitigation strategy to avoid adverse impacts to reptiles. 40. An Ecological Clerk of Works to pre-check the site for reptiles prior to works, including a destructive hand search, during May to September and suitable conditions. All suitable reptile refugia shall be translocated. The submission of written confirmation from a suitably qualified ecologist that such works have been undertaken. 41. Submission of details of additional habitat creation for reptiles. 42. The submission of a River Misbourne Monitoring Regime. 43. Details of dark zones to be provided. 44. Details of the provision of bat features to be provided. 45. Details of the lighting scheme, including light spill, to be provided. 46. No lighting shall be used on site, other than during the approved hours of operation or for security or emergency uses. 47. Submission of a method statement for the protection of badgers to be provided.
48. A new badger survey shall be carried out prior to the commencement of works. 49. Submission of a Tree Protection Plan. 50. Submission of a Landscape Ecology and Management Plan, to include details of the attenuation pond, specification of artificial habitat, specification of badger fencing and grassland management details. 51. Details of bird nesting boxes to be erected on site, shall be submitted. 52. The brick proposed to be used on the WTS building and other buildings on site shall match the Bucks multi-brick effect as set out within the Chilterns Flint and Chilterns Brick Supplementary Technical Notes. 53. The roof and doors of the WTS building shall be coloured black. 54. All vehicles carrying waste shall be enclosed or sheeted. 55. All internal haul roads shall be hard surfaced for their entire length and be kept clean and clear of potholes at all times. 56. No lighting shall be erected at the site other than in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The details shall include provisions to ensure that no lighting will be used other than during operational hours. 57. The roller shutter doors shall be kept closed when not in use by vehicles entering or egressing the WTS building. 58. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Code of Practice shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the measures to be taken in the event that the clay cap is breached, and the measures to be taken to manage any contaminated material that may be encountered during the construction process. 59. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority detailing the measures to be taken to ensure that all reasonable means are taken to prevent the importation of waste that is otherwise recoverable through re-use, recycling or other recovery. The scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the development. 60. No vegetation shall be removed during the bird nesting season (March to September inclusive). 61. Prior to the commencement of the development, a biodiversity mitigation, management and enhancement plan shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of measures to protect, mitigate impacts against, and enhance habitats for reptiles (including slow worms), bats, badgers, and breeding birds.
D. The reasons for approval of the application are that subject to the conditions outlined above, the development would be in accordance with Policies CS/LP1, CS9, CS12, CS18, CS19, CS20, CS21, CS22 and CS23 of the MWCS; Policies 28 and 29 of the MWLP; Policies GC3, GC4, GC7, GC9, GC10, GC12 and TR2 of the CDCLP; and Policies CS20, CS24 of the CDCS. The development would be contrary to Policies CS1 and CS22 of the CDCS; and Policy GB2 (Development in General in the Green Belt) of the CDCLP, however, it is considered that very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm, and exceptional circumstances exist in this case, and it has been demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. As the proposals amount to sustainable development and accord with the development plan when considered as a whole, they should, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, be approved without delay.
Resources Appraisal: None
Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
1. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking resolutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with committees, respondents and applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
Supporting Information
2. The application, which is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, is submitted by Wardell Armstrong LLP (WA) on behalf of their client FCC Environment (FCC). It was received on 30th July 2014 and validated on 26th August 2014. It was initially sent out for consultation on 28th August 2014 and was advertised as a departure from development plan policy by newspaper advertisement, neighbour notification and site notice. Further information was submitted by the applicant on 2nd April 2015, which was sent out for consultation and advertised by neighbour notification and site notice
on 9th April 2015 and by newspaper advertisement on 16th April 2015. The sixteen week target for determination of the application expired on 16th December 2014, however the applicant has agreed to extensions to the determination deadline, which is currently 17th June 2015.
Background
3. The proposed development is for a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) which would bulk waste material from Chiltern and part of South Bucks Districts for delivery to the approved Greatmoor Energy from Waste (EfW) facility (planning application reference: 11/20000/AWD, approved on 27th July 2012), currently under construction at Calvert Landfill Site. A WTS at High Heavens Waste Complex (planning application reference: CC11/9003/CM, which was approved on 26th July 2012), also under construction, will serve Wycombe and part of South Bucks Districts. The Greatmoor EfW is intended to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste from Buckinghamshire and other areas. Notwithstanding, this application should be considered on its own merits.
Site Description
4. The development site is located 2.5km southeast of Amersham, adjacent to and accessed from the A413 London Road between Amersham and Chalfont St Giles. The site measures 2.9 hectares and comprises an irregularly shaped field of brambles, scrub and grassland with a broad margin of deciduous woodland. It forms part of a wider ‘Depot’ which includes a Household Waste and Recycling Centre, Highways Depot (used for highways maintenance vehicles and storage of salt etc), and other waste management operations located to the north and west. It is bordered to the southeast by agricultural land.
5. The site is allocated for use as a waste transfer station in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (Policy CS12). The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
6. The River Misbourne is located to the southwest of the development site, it flows through Amersham Old Town, before flowing in a south easterly direction past the site and onwards towards Chalfont St Peter.
7. Pubic Footpath 16 Amersham, which forms part of the South Bucks Way, lies to the southwest of the development site, on the far side of the River Misbourne, running in a northwest-southeast direction.
8. The nearest residential properties are numbers 1-4 London Road Cottages, located immediately adjacent to the site on the northern boundary. The nearest of the four properties is number 4, the garden of which borders the red line planning boundary and the property lies just 50m from the proposed WTS building. Further residential properties are located along the A413 to the northwest and southeast of the development site, as well as along Cokes Lane to the north and Bottom House Farm Lane to the south.
9. The Ivy House Public House, which is a Grade II Listed Building, is located approximately 200m to the southeast of the site. It is located on the northern side of the A413, with a car park to the northwest and a garden to the southeast.
10. The Harewood Downs Golf Course is located to the southeast of the site, on the north side of the A413.
Site History
11. The site was originally used for agriculture up until around 1902, then it was used for landfilling up until the 1920s. Historical maps from 1925 show a sewage works and several filter beds on the site. The River Misbourne originally flowed across the site however this was diverted around the edge of the site at some point between 1900 and 1925. The sewage works appear to have remained on site up until the early 1960s, and some possible additional landfilling may have continued during this period. The use of the site between the 1960s and 1978 is unclear however in 1978 licenses were granted for 'waste management purposes' (not landfill).
12. The site received its last input of waste in 1968 (see Cultural Heritage Chapter 8 of ES).
13. In 1979 a planning application was submitted by Bucks County Council for a 'new security compound with stores, a portacabin/mess room, a new barrier and a kiosk for waste' however this application was withdrawn and was not therefore determined.
14. In 1981, a two year temporary planning permission was approved to use the land for target shooting (reference CH/1981/1067/FA) and this application was renewed in 1983 and 1985, each one being for a temporary two year period, with the latter application expiring on 30 June 1987. In 1984 a planning application was submitted by Chiltern District Council Sports and Social Club to use the land as a sports field and to erect a pavilion, which was refused on highway grounds as an additional access was proposed to the A413, south of London Road Cottages and this resulted in highway safety concerns. The site has since been colonised by woodland, scrub and grassland and is not currently actively used for any purpose.
15. A Certificate of Lawfulness for an Existing Use (reference CH/2010/0860/EU) was granted on 9 July 2010 to confirm that the existing use of part of the adjacent site to the north as a Local Authority service depot was lawful. However, other than part of the access road, none of the current application site for the waste transfer station falls within the area that was the subject of the Certificate of Lawfulness.
16. The development site was subject to a planning application submitted by FCC for a WTS in 2011 (Ref: CH/2011/60005/BCC). The 2011 application sought planning permission for a WTS with a combined capacity of 85,000 tonnes per annum, which was proposed to be sought from MSW (25,000tpa) and C&I (60,000tpa) waste streams.
17. The 2011 application was refused by the Development Control Committee on July 2012 for the following reasons:
- Impact on the Green Belt - Impact to the Chilterns AONB - Impact to Residential Amenity of 1-4 London Road Cottages - Impact to the setting of the Ivy House Grade II Listed Building
The Application
18. Planning application CM/59/14 seeks permission for the proposed development of a waste transfer station (WTS) at London Road East, including: - A waste transfer station for the reception, bulking and loading of waste; - Installation of weighbridges, weighbridge office, access and internal roads and parking facilities; - Construction of amenity/welfare building; - The provision of SuDS and landscape and biodiversity enhancement areas within the site boundary to attenuate rainfall and enhance the appearance and biodiversity benefits to the site; - Re-alignment and widening of HWRC and site access road; - Provision of acoustic bunds (and fence) and security fencing; and - Improvements to the existing A413 junction.
19. The proposed WTS would have a combined maximum waste throughput of 50,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), of which circa 40,000 tpa would be Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and circa 10,000 tpa would be from Commercial and Industrial (C&I) sources. The facility would provide for the management of municipal and household waste streams from Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council. In this respect, it would support a 30 year Residual Waste Treatment Contract that the applicant has with Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) acting as waste disposal authority. It would also receive C&I waste from Buckinghamshire and the wider area.
20. The redevelopment of the site would involve the clearing and levelling of the site, including removal of overgrown vegetation. It would also require the widening and realignment of parts of the existing HWRC access road, including the provision of a footpath between the car parking area within the WTS site and the bus stop on London Road, as well as works to the junction with the A413 London Road.
21. The WTS building is proposed to be located in the eastern corner of the site, aligned in a northwest-southeast direction, parallel to the A413 London Road, with the Operational Yard located in front of and to the southwest of the building. The welfare office and car park are located southwest of the operational yard and the access road enters from the west, wraps around the south of the car park and into the Operational Yard. Outside of the buildings and hard landscaping are soft landscaping features including grassland, native scrub planting, enhanced boundary planting and an attenuation pond.
22. Vehicles would access the site via the existing access from the A413 towards the HWRC, from which a new access road would branch off into the WTS site. All HGV’s would be weighed in (and out) over the weighbridge, before continuing to the Operational Yard from where they would be directed to a delivery bay via one of 5no. roller shutter doors, which open automatically as the vehicle reverses. Once inside, the door closes automatically behind to minimise any odour escape. The access road and positioning of the weighbridge allow sufficient space for some 10 vehicles to queue, thereby minimising any potential impacts on the public highway.
Waste Transfer Station Building
23. The WTS would measure 55m long, by 30m wide and 10.4m high at the centre ridge and 8.4m to the eaves. It would be constructed using a structural steel frame clad with red multi brick panels and black stained timber cladding. The building would include 5no. roller shutter doors, coloured black and a black curved roof chosen to minimise visual impacts. The southwestern elevation would include Reglit panels
(translucent sheeting) to provide natural lighting into the building, similar panels on other elevations have been removed following advice from the Chilterns AONB Board with regards to appearance and light impact on the AONB.
24. Within the WTS building the Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCV’s) would deposit imported waste material into the appropriate area, a loading shovel would be used to move the waste inside the building and to load it into bulkers within the collection area for transportation to the Greatmoor EfW.
Welfare Building
25. The welfare building would measure 8.3m x 10.1m and 4.1m in height and would contain two offices, a mess room, WC and a shower. It would be clad in the same material as the WTS building. The western elevation would have a pedestrian access door and two windows providing sight of the weighbridges.
Weighbridge and Weighbridge Office
26. Two weighbridges would be installed on site to weigh incoming and outgoing HGV’s. They would be standard single decked, surface mounted units. The weighbridge office would be a single stored building measuring 8m x 3.5m and 3.9m high, constructed of bricks and composite cladding in keeping with the WTS building itself.
Storage of Waste
27. It is intended that 95-100% of waste would be loaded into bulkers for dispatch on the same day, with the WTS building being designed in line with permit requirements, to store any remaining waste that may accumulate over a two-day period. The applicant states that this two-day contingency allows for bank holidays or unexpected road closures; the applicant anticipates that the amount of waste stored during such times is likely to be quite small.
Dust and Odour Control
28. A dry fog dust and odour suppression mist system is proposed to be installed within the waste handling area of the WTS. Dry fog is formed to absorb fine airborne dust and odours, bringing them down rather than extracting them via extraction vents.
Signage
29. Traffic signs would be erected for the safety of vehicles and pedestrians, including signage relating to access and egress; pedestrian walkways; speed limits; give way; one way; and keep left direction signs.
Hours of operation
30. The site is proposed to operate between the following hours:
Monday to Friday: 07:00-17:00 Saturdays: Catch-ups on a maximum of 12 Saturdays per year following public holidays or as a consequence of adverse weather. Sundays: No waste operation on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Vehicle Movements
31. The applicant anticipates that the number of vehicle movements per day would be made up of the following:
• Waste deliveries - the maximum throughput of waste would be 50,000 tpa, which would comprise: o A maximum of 40,000 tpa MSW delivered by RCV’s with a typical payload of 5 tonnes. This typically accounts for 30 daily deliveries [actually calculated as 30.77] (3 deliveries per hour, based on a 10 hour day). o Circa 10,000 tpa C&I waste delivered by RCV with a typical payload of 11 tonnes. This typically accounts for 4 daily deliveries (less than 1 delivery per hour, based on a 10 hour day).
• Waste collection of 50,000 tpa in bulker lorries with payloads of 21-25 tonnes. Typically 9 loads per day.
32. This gives a total of 43 daily HGV loads, or 86 movements.
33. In addition to HGV’s, 5 cars or light goods vehicles (LGV) would access the site daily, creating a further 10 movements.
Access and Routing
34. Access to and from the site, including for emergencies, would be via the existing access to the HWRC and wider waste depot onto the A413 London Road. It is proposed that HGV’s transporting material from the WTS site to the Greatmoor EfW would do so via the Strategic Highway Network (SHN), namely the A413 north towards Aylesbury, then onto the A41 towards Bicester and accessing the Greatmoor EfW via the new access road off the A41 between Woodham and Westcott.
35. Pedestrian access to the site can be made via Public Transport and the existing Bus Stop on the A413. As part of the development a new footpath would be provided from the Bus Stop along the access road and into the WTS site.
Parking Spaces
36. The following new vehicle parking spaces are proposed:
- 8 spaces for cars, including 1 disability space - 3 spaces for light goods vehicles - 5 cycle spaces
37. In addition, the WTS building would accommodate up to 3 RCV’s and 2 bulk articulated vehicles for overnight parking and external parking can also be provided within the yard area if necessary. However, the majority of vehicles would be contractor vehicle and therefore would not be expected to park at the site overnight.
Water and Drainage
38. Surface water run-off would pass through silt and hydrocarbon treatments prior to discharge off site into a SuDS (Sustainable Drainage System) pond, an open balancing pond, which would provide storage capacity for water collected on site, prior to discharge to the River Misbourne at a rate to be approved by the Environment Agency.
39. Surface water from the internal access road from the HWRC to the A413, would be collected at the base of the slope and pumped back to attenuation storage to pass through the interceptors prior to leaving site. A hydro-break lagoon located close to the river would hold storm water overflow prior to discharge.
40. Foul water would be discharged to the public sewer. Rainwater harvesting would collect and store water for purposes such as ground maintenance and flushing toilets.
41. Following discussions with the EA, the drainage from the Operational Yard would be treated as trade effluent and discharge to the public sewer. This is to address concerns that surface water from the yard may have potential to contaminate the River Misbourne. Further details are provided within the Flood Risk Assessment, see chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement.
Landscaping
42. The existing habitats within the site boundary include large stands of scrub, ruderal and ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, which would be retained and managed in order to enhance their biodiversity and screening value.
43. Areas of the site which are not hard paved would be landscaped with a combination of grass and low maintenance ground cover planting as appropriate, including some wildflower species. Planting with hazel, hawthorn and blackthorn would be undertaken to fill gaps in the existing vegetation. There will also be a gravel area in the centre of the site.
44. A screen bund would be constructed around two sides of the proposed WTS building. This would be planted with hazel, hawthorn, blackthorn, goat willow and dogwood to create a dense, fast growing and ecologically diverse scrub habitat.
45. Smaller areas of semi-mature broad-leaved woodland, amenity grassland, mature specimen trees and species poor hedgerow are present at the north-western boundary of the site. The proposed landscape scheme would retain these wooded areas, any new planting would be of species characteristic of Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland, such as beech, holly, birch and oak, in accordance with the National Vegetation Classification (NVC).
Boundary Treatment – Fencing and Security
46. A 3m high paladin fence would be installed around the whole WTS compound, with a paladin access gate adjacent to the weighbridge entrance, connecting with existing fences at the HWRC compound. A separate pedestrian emergency access gate would be provided at the rear of the WTS.
47. An acoustic fence would be installed between the proposed screening bund and the access road to provide noise attenuation.
48. A screening bund located in the north of the site, between the residential properties on London Road and the main operational areas of the site. It would provide noise attenuation and reduce visual impacts.
49. CCTV units would be sited on the building and internal access road.
Lighting
50. Wall mounted halogen lights are proposed along the front (southwest) elevation of the WTS building, on the welfare building and weighbridge office, with low level bollard lighting along the access road, car park and adjacent to the pedestrian doors to the WTS building. All lighting would be timer controlled to ensure no light emission beyond approved working hours.
Staffing
51. The development would provide short terms employment opportunities in terms of construction jobs at the site and 5 long term positions during the operation of the development for skilled operational staff, as well as work placements. In addition, there would be 5 haulier / drivers employed. Wherever possible, staff would be employed from the local area.
Construction
52. It is envisaged that the construction period would take approximately 6 months and be carried out in two key stages: • Stage 1: Enabling works – comprising access road improvements, sewer diversion and earthworks in preparation for the construction of the site access and hardstanding areas. • Stage 2: Construction phase – comprising infrastructure works including utilities installation, hardstanding formation and building construction.
53. The detailed design and method of providing foundation works for the proposed development are yet to be confirmed, but would need to be agreed with the EA prior to commencement.
Relevant Planning Policies
Development Plan
54. The relevant development plan documents are identified below. The development plan should be considered as a whole. The planning polices of particular relevance to the proposed development are identified:
• Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP), adopted June 2006
Saved Policies 28 (Amenity), 29 (Buffer Zones), 36 (Planning Application Issues), 37 (Environmental Assessment), 38 (Planning Obligations) and 39 (Site Monitoring and Enforcement).
• Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (MWCS), adopted November 2012
Policies CS/LP1 (The Overarching Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), CS9 (Additional Waste Management Capacity and Net Self- Sufficiency), CS11 (Strategic Waste Complex at Calvert Landfill Site), CS12 (Essential Infrastructure to support the Strategic Waste Complex at Calvert Landfill Site), CS13 (Contingency), CS18 (Protection of Environmental Assets of National Importance), CS19 (Protection of Environmental Assets of Local Importance), CS20
(Green Belt), CS21 (The Chilterns AONB), CS22 (Design and Climate Change) and CS23 (Enhancement of the Environment).
• Chiltern District Council Local Plan (CDCLP), adopted September 1997, consolidated November 2011
Saved policies GC1 (Design of Development), GC3 (Protection of Amenities), GC4 (Landscaping), GC7 (Noise-generating Developments), GC9 (Prevention of Pollution), GC10 (Protection from Flooding), GC12 (Protection of River Character – Rivers Chess & Misbourne), GB2 (Development in General in the Green Belt), LSQ1 (Chilterns AONB), TR2 (Highways Aspects of Planning Applications), TR3 (Access and Road Layout) and TR16 (Parking and Manoeuvring Standards).
• Core Strategy for Chiltern District (CDCS), November 2011
Policies CS1 (The Spatial Strategy), CS4 (Ensuring that Development is Sustainable), CS20 (Design and Environmental Quality), CS22 (Chilterns AONB), CS24 (Biodiversity), CS25 (Dealing with the Impact of New Development on the Transport Network), CS26 (Requirements of New Development) and CS31 (Infrastructure).
Other Relevant Planning Policies
55. In addition, the following policy documents are relevant (paragraphs or policies of particular relevance are identified):
• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Paragraphs 14, 30, 32, 56, 58, 64, 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 100, 109, 115, 116, 128, 129, 132 and Annex 2. • National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) – Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and Annex B. • Waste Management Plan for England – Pages 17, 18 and 29-36 • Chiltern AONB Management Plan – Paragraphs 1.1-1.28, 2.1-2.24, 2.40-2.43, 3.5- 3.16, 3.22-3.33, 3.43-3.46, 3.53-3.65, 3.95-3.101, 4.1-4.36. • Buckinghamshire Supplementary Planning Guidance – Note 7
View of the District Council
56. Chiltern District Council (CDC) have provided a response to the formal consultation, in addition to an Officer’s report to their own Planning Development Control Committee and recommended conditions should the County Council approve the planning application.
57. In summary, CDC raise strong objections to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1 The application site is located in the open Green Belt where most development is inappropriate and there is a general presumption against such development, for which planning permission will be refused. The site is allocated for a Waste Transfer Station in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, however this allocation is for an essential facility to support the County Waste Strategy as set out in Policy CS12. In this respect, the applicant states that the Waste Transfer Station is required for the bulking of residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) for Chiltern District and up to half of the residual MSW arising from South Bucks District. This totals a current throughput of 28,251 tonnes per annum, based on current estimates set out in the County Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report. The proposed Waste
Transfer Station building has a throughput capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum and is therefore considerably larger than can be considered an essential facility. The predicted requirement in this Application for 50,000 tonnes is excessive and the design allows for Commercial and Industrial Waste, which the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy explicitly states would either be transported direct to Calvert or via existing smaller WTSs, without the need to pass through the London Road Depot WTS. Given that it is not an essential facility, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, given its large size and bulk, the proposed building would have a severe detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is not considered that very special circumstances exist in this case that are sufficient to outweigh the harm arising from the proposal. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy GB2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (Including Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004) and the NPPF and the District Council raises strong objections in this respect.
2 The Chilterns Buildings Design Guide, adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, highlights that the Misbourne valley is one of a series of broad, but distinctive, linear valleys running through the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the way in which new buildings respect the landscape is of paramount importance. Buckinghamshire County Council's Landscape Plan also identifies this particular location as a typical Chiltern river valley landscape. The siting and appearance of the proposed waste transfer station is an improvement to the previously refused application. However, given that it is larger than can be considered essential, the size of the building would have a considerably greater impact on the landscape than a smaller, essential, facility. It cannot therefore be concluded that the building would have the minimum impact necessary on the landscape. Its basic size would neither conserve nor enhance the special landscape character and high scenic quality of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS4 and CS22 of the Adopted Core Strategy 2011 and Policies GC1 and LSQ1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (Including Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). In addition, even if the Local Planning Authority considers there to be a case for exceptional circumstances it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the size of the proposal is in the public interest and the District Council raises strong objections in this respect.
3 The Waste Transfer Station building has been resited closer to the adjacent dwellings at London Road Cottages. It is considered that, by reason of its scale and proximity to this row of cottages, the proposed Waste Transfer Station building would appear visually intrusive when viewed from the rear gardens of these neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the amenities of Nos. 1-4 London Road Cottages. As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy GC3 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (Including Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004) and the NPPF. The District Council raises strong objections in this respect.
4 The application site is located around 200 metres from the Grade II listed Ivy House Public House to the south east. This is an old coaching Inn and tourist destination, particularly for walkers on the nearby South Bucks Way. The inn also now contains letting rooms for tourists, which it did not at the time of the previous application for a Waste Transfer Station. The proposed Waste Transfer Station building would be very large and clearly visible from the higher land level of the Ivy House and any existing or proposed screening would be seasonal, could not be retained in perpetuity and would not therefore screen the development. The proposed development would therefore have a harmful impact on the Ivy House as a leisure
facility. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which advocates the support of sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. The District Council therefore raises strong objections in this respect.
58. Whilst not reasons for objection, further issues were raised regarding traffic, landscape and the environment, and the MSW figures, such that CDC provide the following informatives:
1 INFORMATIVE: The District Council notes that the access to the waste transfer compound will come from the internal access road which leads to the existing household waste and recycling centre (HWRC) to the west of the site. This access road to the HWRC is heavily used by members of the public, particularly at weekends during hours when the WTS would be operational and it is not uncommon for traffic to back up the access road and form lengthy queues. As such there would be the potential for conflict between lorries (RCVs and HGVs) accessing the WTS and cars waiting to access the HWRC, with lorries potentially attempting to overtake a queue of cars in order to turn left into the WTS compound. Whilst not raising a formal objection, the District Council requests that the County Council should be satisfied that this access arrangement would not result in danger or inconvenience for members of the public using the existing HWRC. Furthermore, it is noted that the County Council has received large numbers of objections from third parties, many of whom object on grounds of traffic generation and highway issues. The District Council considers that the highways alterations to the main entrance of the site to the A413 are important and must be carried out prior to the construction of the development, if permission is granted.
2 INFORMATIVE: The site is a mix of woodland and scrub and grassland which has some ecological value. The biodiversity improvements to the site are considered important to the overall scheme and if the application is granted contrary to the District Council's objections, then the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan (July 2014), submitted with the application, should be adhered to, by way of condition or Legal Agreement, as considered appropriate. In addition, in order to improve the environmental characteristics of the main building, we would recommend the use of a green (bio) roof. This would assist biodiversity, air quality and reduce the volume of surface water runoff.
3 INFORMATIVE: The County Council is advised that Members of the District Council Planning Committee expressed concern regarding the applicant's figures for the amount of Municipal Solid Waste arising from South Bucks District that would need to pass through the Waste Transfer Station at London Road. Specifically, Members felt that the annual tonnage of MSW arising from South Bucks has already been taken into account to justify the grant of planning permission for the Waste Transfer Station at High Heavens and the applicant is seeking to rely on these figures again, i.e. duplicate them, to justify the throughput of MSW for the Waste Transfer Station at London Road.
Consultations
59. Cllr Martin Tett, the Local Member for Little Chalfont and Amersham Common supports this application.
60. Cllr Martin Phillips, the Local Member for Amersham and Chesham Bois replied with no comments.
61. Amersham Town Council make the following comments:
1. Whilst Members recognise that steps must be taken to deal with the disposal of household waste produced within Bucks, they are concerned that given the capacity of the proposed Strategic Waste Complex at the Calvert site, large amounts of waste from outside the county may be transported via the local road network (and via the WTS in Amersham) to “feed” the unit at Calvert. It is our understanding that without this additional waste the unit at Calvert would not be viable. Members are mindful that the Depot at London Road is within the Green Belt / AONB and adjacent to residential properties. As such they feel that it is inappropriate site for a WTS servicing large amounts of commercial waste.
2. Members feel that in the public presentations given by the applicant, they have not been wholly transparent in the display of the facts relating to the type of waste to be transported to the Calvert site. Emphasis has been placed on the need to deal with household waste produced within Bucks, particularly in the south of the county, and yet approximately half of the total waste to be transported through local roads to the Calvert site would appear to be commercial waste. The access to the London Road Depot is not considered appropriate to cope with this level of additional vehicle movements and is likely to cause congestion on an already busy road.
3. Given the possibility that vehicle movements may not necessarily be spread evenly during the hours of operation, Members have concerns that the traffic implications for users of the A413 during peak traffic times may have been grossly underestimated.
4. The existing access to the London Road Depot is already considered by Members to be inadequate for its current use. The proposed intensification of use resulting from the WTS would only exacerbate this issue. Because of the curvature and undulations of the A413 in the vicinity of the depot, the access road from the Depot has poor visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Given the size of the proposed heavily laden waste trucks and their resultant slow acceleration into a busy traffic flow within a 50mph speed limit, this will have a significant impact on other road users of the A413. Members consider that insufficient measures are proposed within the planning application to deal with the increased vehicle movements associated with the use of the site as a WTS.
5. Members were concerned to learn of a recent report written by the Geological Advisor to the Chiltern Society, Haydon W. Bailey BSc, PhD CGeol FGS, which refers to possible water contamination at the site resulting from the proposed Waste Transfer Station. They would urge that the issues raised in the report should be examined and dealt with within the planning application.
6. Members also have serious concerns about the impact of a WTS on nearby residents, some of whom live only 65 metres from the site. It is felt that the proposed use would result in an unacceptable level of disturbance from smell, noise, light pollution and safety issues associated with the additional vehicle movements. However, Members were pleased see that the current application includes an embankment around the site, rather than fencing, as proposed on the previous application.
7. Members are mindful that many walkers use the Public Right of Way immediately behind the site (The South Bucks Way). It is felt that the WTS would have a negative visual impact for users of this important and well used path, given that this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt. There could also be additional safety
issues resulting from walkers crossing the A413 to access the Right of Way. It is suggested that Bucks CC conducts an Equality Impact Assessment to ensure there would be no disproportionate disadvantage placed on this group of people.
62. Little Chalfont Parish Council object to the proposed Waste Transfer Station on the grounds of air quality, the effect on health, the effect on wildlife, Green Belt/AONB, need for development, noise, odour/smell from area, residential amenity, traffic or highways and visual effect. They provide the following comments:
a) Green Belt - the development would be inappropriate in and affect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt and very special circumstances do not justify making an exception to the policies protecting the Green Belt. In this context, the screening now proposed will not provide any bar to visibility of the WTS shed from the elevated parts of the South Bucks Way, and the noise mitigation measures will themselves harm the openness of the Green Belt. The Parish Council does not accept the applicants assertions that there is an established need for the development at Amersham; that there are no alternative non Green Belt sites that are allocated, available and suitable; and that there are very special circumstances that result in the proposed development being acceptable in the proposed location.
b) AONB - The development would have a significant adverse impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural beauty and that the applicant has totally failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances in the public interest justify making an exception to policies protecting the Chilterns AONB.
c) Amenity – adverse impact on the amenity of local residents, it is unacceptably close to and would have an adverse impact (noise, vibration, odour, illumination etc) on the amenities of residents at 1 – 4 London Road Cottages, situated just 51 metres from the proposed waste transfer system shed. The WTS building would be difficult to conceal and the applicant fails to demonstrate “very special circumstances”.
d) Impact on Listed Building – The development would cause substantial harm to the setting of the Ivy House Grade II Listed Building as well as Harewood Downs Golf Course.
e) Traffic - The Parish Council is concerned about the likely impact of vehicles carrying commercial waste on the local traffic load which is already under threat from the additional traffic generated by the proposed High Speed 2 train line. It must also be pointed out that the street lighting on the A413 has been switched off, significantly increasing the danger of an accident involving vehicles turning into and out of the site on this fast and increasingly busy stretch of road. In the event that permission for this development be granted, such permission must be conditional on the street lighting being turned back on before any development begins.
f) Contaminated Ground - concern about the disturbance of contaminated ground and the risk to this highly sensitive water environment above a major aquifer.
g) Capacity / Need - There is no need for a waste transfer station handling 50,000 tonnes of residual waste.
63. The Town Council also referred to their objection raised in response to the 2011 application and requested, that if permission is granted, it should include conditions requiring street lighting to be turned back on and to address odour, i.e. by the fitting of a bio-filter system.
64. Chalfont St Giles Parish Council appreciate that this forms an integral part of the County’s future waste plans and while they did not object to the 2011 application, they wish to object to this application, which they believe does not benefit the interests of the public, but represents a commercial operation that involves unacceptable risks to the water environment, public health, and which would be seriously detrimental to the enjoyment of the amenities of this area of the Green Belt, and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
65. The Parish Council do not support the proposed tonnages (previous application proposed 25ktpa MSW, now increased to 40ktpa), as recycling rates have increased.
66. The Parish Council state that there is already significant congestion at busy times involving traffic accessing the civic amenity site, including its queuing back on to the A413 road. They would like to see the A413 widened in this area, to create longer feed-in lanes from both directions, and consideration being given to traffic lights, to maximise the free flow of all traffic.
67. The Parish Council do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient benefits or that this could not be delivered by an alternative development in a less sensitive location, or in a much smaller development. They consider the proposal remains contrary to Green Belt policies and that no very special circumstances have been shown to outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt, and the significantly adverse impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They also state that it would have a significantly adverse impact on the amenity of local residents, and on the setting of the Ivy House Grade II Listed Building.
Environment Agency
68. The EA believe that the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) is satisfactory in terms of fluvial flood risk and state that whilst the site lies on a historic landfill, they are satisfied that the groundwater quality issues can be dealt with through conditions, including those set out below.
69. The EA highlight the County Planning Authority’s requirement to consider if the sequential test is passed and if so, they have no objections to the proposed development subject to their recommended conditions, including:
1) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
2) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority: a) A preliminary risk assessment, b) A site investigation scheme, c) The results of the site investigation, detailed risk assessment, an options appraisal and remediation strategy; and d) A verification plan
3) No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
4) No development should take place until a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination, including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
5) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority.
6) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority.
7) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
8) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme of all water quality control features shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
9) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a landscape management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
The Highways Authority
70. The Highways Authority do not think there are any major issues with the application, although they make the following comments:
1. Junction Capacity Assessments
Whilst it was agreed that no growth would be added to the base line flows when carrying out the percentage impact assessment, as this would give a more robust result, future growth should be applied to the base line flows used in the junction capacity assessments. If no growth was applied to these assessments then the flows going through the junction would be less and the capacity results would not reflect the likely scenario. In order to give a representative assessment of junction capacity, growth needs to be applied to the base line flows and I will therefore require the applicant to do this.
I would therefore require the applicant to obtain a growth factor for 2019 using TEMPRO and apply this to the base line flows for junction capacity assessments that cover 2019. This will then reflect the methodology used for the assessments carried out in 2011.
2. Junction and Access improvements
I note that the applicant is proposing to relax the radius of the main access junction onto the A413 to adequately accommodate the swept path of larger vehicles. The TA also states that widening of the access road will take place but at present I am unable to locate a plan that clearly shows this proposed widening. I require the swept path analysis for this current application so that the areas of widening are clearly identified and it will then be clearly demonstrated that the access road width is adequate.
As part of the previous 2011 application two box junctions were proposed, one at the proposed site access and another at the existing access to the Amersham depot to ensure that vehicles do not wait in these areas and interfere with the free flow of traffic through the site. The plans submitted as part of this current 2014 application show a box junction at the proposed site access but no box junction at the Amersham depot access. As per the previous application, I will require the provision of a box junction at the Amersham depot access as well as the proposed site access.
3. Site Access Junction
The proposed access to the WTS joins the access road at an angle which will mean that drivers will have to look back over their shoulder in order to see vehicles approaching from the left, if they will be able to see them at all. This will result in very low visibility levels and will be detrimental to the safety and convenience of vehicles using the proposed site access and also people using the access road in general. The alignment of this junction will also restrict vehicles from turning left out of it should they wish to do so. The alignment of the junction will therefore need to be straightened so that it joins the access road at more like 90 degrees and the plan should demonstrate that adequate visibility can be achieved.
I am also concerned about how the alterations to the access road result in normal cars not being guided away from the weigh bridge to the south west of the proposed access. The existing layout will naturally guide cars away from the weigh bridge and into the Household Recycling Centre and the proposed layout should continue to do so. This will therefore need to be considered and amended accordingly.
4. Access to Car Park within site
The access to the car park which comes of the site haul road does not benefit from a width that will allow opposing vehicles to pass. This could result in vehicles trying to enter the car park from the main haul road stopping suddenly if another car is attempting to exit the car park and this could lead to a rear end collision, possible involving a 16.5m articulated vehicle. This situation is not acceptable in safety terms and I will therefore require this car park access to be widened to 4.8m in order to allow opposing vehicles to pass.
5. Footway Provision
The submitted plans show a new footway provision that links to the existing bus stop adjacent to the main depot access and continues into the depot, along the main haul road and into the application site. I would be grateful if the applicant could confirm the width of this footway and I would point out that this footway provision should achieve a width of 2m so that it can be used safely and conveniently and will reduce the need for pedestrians to enter into the carriageway.
6. Signage
Details of proposed signage both on the Highway and within the depot should be submitted. These should include: - warning signs along the A413 on each approach to the main depot access junction - the existing sign on the A413 opposite the depot access to be amended to include “Waste Station”
- “No Waiting In Access Road” sign located on the main access road opposite the Amersham depot access - “Heavy Plant Crossing” signs either site of the new access to the application site
7. Conditions
The following conditions should be attached to any forthcoming consent: - Operational Hours - Number of operational days - Number of daily vehicle movements - The direction in which larger goods vehicles should leave the site (Left along the A413 towards Aylesbury) - Construction Management Plan - Visibility splays for the proposed access junction
Natural England
71 Natural England object to this development. They have identified a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Chilterns AONB, because they believe the development would have a negative impact upon the landscape features of the AONB. In this respect, they refer to the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 64 and 115:
“The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 64 states: ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.’ Paragraph 115 states: ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in ... Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.’”
72 They support the comments from the Chiltern’s Conservation Board that the plans have not been changed significantly enough that they would come close to reducing the serious localised impacts on views in the AONB within that area let alone further afield in the AONB. It is recognised that while there have been some amendments to the siting of the Waste Transfer Station within the site and amendments to the building dimensions it is still a large bulky structure which would be very evident in the landscape.
73 Natural England recognise that the use of tree planting to screen the Waste Transfer Station would help in the long term, however they consider that this would be a number of years down the line, meaning there would be years where the structure and its associated lighting and other ancillary structures were still visible. They welcome the use of roofing materials known to help reduce glare or contribute to masking a building (such as matt or textured).
74 Following a visit to the site, they maintained their objections based on the impact on the AONB. They appreciate the changes the applicant has made from the original application, particularly in relation to the siting, building materials and colour. However, they believe the scale is inappropriate, particularly the height, in this location. They would like to see a building more in keeping and better screened.
English Heritage (now Historic England)
75 English Heritage provided the following response:
“Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2014 notifying English Heritage of the application for listed building consent/planning permission relating to the above site. On the basis of the information provided, we do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be notified to English Heritage under the relevant statutory provisions, details of which are enclosed.
76 If you consider that this application does fall within one of the relevant categories, or if there are other reasons for seeking the advice of English Heritage, we would be grateful if you could explain your request. Please do not hesitate to telephone me if you would like to discuss this application or the notification procedures in general.”
77 The enclosed details to which they refer, is headed “APPLICATIONS REQUIRING NOTIFICATION TO ENGLISH HERITAGE - WHEN ENGLISH HERITAGE MUST BE CONSULTED ON PLANNING AND LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATIONS”. It goes on to list such applications, which include:
78 English Heritage must be notified of the following planning applications (by virtue of sections 67(3), (4) and 73(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended, paragraph 8 of Circular 1/2001 Arrangements for Handling Applications - Notification and Directions by the Secretary of State, and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010): (a) Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the setting of a grade I or II* listed building; or (b) Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the character or appearance of a conservation area and which involves: (i) the erection of a new building or the extension of an existing building where the area of land in respect of which the application is made is more than 1,000 square metres; (ii) the material change of use of any building where the area of land in respect of which the application is made is more than 1,000 square metres; or (iii) the construction of any building more than 20 metres in height above ground level. (c) Development likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument (Schedule 5 paragraph (o) of the (Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010) (d) Development likely to affect any garden or park of special historic interest which is registered in accordance with section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (register of gardens) and which is classified as Grade I or Grade II* (Schedule 5 paragraph (p) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010) (e) Development within 3 kilometres of Windsor Castle, Windsor Great Park, or Windsor Home Park, or within 800 metres of any other royal palace or park, which might affect the amenities (including security) of that palace or park (Schedule 5 paragraph (m) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010)”
79 English Heritage provided the following further explanation:
“Unfortunately we cannot advice in this instance. As I am sure you are aware specialist conservation advice regarding the setting of a grade II listed building is normally given by the conservation team in the relevant local authority. In this case it should be Catherine Murray at Chiltern DC whom I presume has been consulted as part of the application process. We are only consulted on cases affecting the setting of grade I and II* buildings, our purpose is to complement rather than supplant the Local Authority’s advice on issues affecting particularly important buildings. We do not have the resources to extend our remit, being a very small organisation (we have two staff covering all of Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire) and if we start advising beyond our statutory remit in cases such as this the question would arise as to why we would engage in this particular case rather than in other contentious cases where Local Authorities or residents would no doubt like to hear our views. Hence we are careful to stick to our remit and only offer advice outside of this in very special cases where we have particular technical knowledge that the Local Authority’s conservation team do not have and the conservation team particularly ask for our input. I suggest that you contact Catherine Murray for conservation advice in this instance. “
Chiltern District Council Listed Building Officer, Catherine Murray
80 The HBO raised objections to the 2011 application, however, in response to consultation on this application, she does not see adequate reason to raise objection purely on Listed Building grounds as long as conditions address the landscaping, lighting, noise and odour, and vehicle issues highlighted in their response. The Historic Building Officer notes that measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of noise, odour and dust, with conditions presenting means of containing any adverse effect, and that vehicle movements south past the Ivy House would not necessarily impact on the viability if suitably spread throughout the working day.
81 She provides the following information and commentary:
“Revised assessment of the significance and setting of the Ivy House:
I append my previous assessment of the significance of the listed building and the contribution made by its setting below, but acknowledge the new evidence provided by the applicant’s revised assessment to indicate that the listed building originated as The Crown Inn, and that it was built on a slip of land owned by the Weller family (of the Amersham brewery) at a date after 1840, with the original Ivy House formerly on the opposite side of the road. This information does not alter the assessment of the importance of the building as an isolated inn relating primarily to the road, but could cast some doubt on my previous interpretation of the building as designed to relate to the views across the valley. I would not, however, regard the rural surroundings as purely fortuitous to the setting, but continue to consider that they form part of the historic setting, and that they contribute to the historic character of the building, its aesthetic appeal and its viability as a public house.
In terms of the potential for harm, the applicant’s revised assessment still claims that the inter-visibility between the proposal site and the listed building lies in views from the car park of the public house. This does not take account of wider views of the Ivy House and the proposal site in association, or address the issue I previously raised of harm to views of both as seen in combination from the roadway and footpath to the south of the Ivy House, and from the South Bucks Way footpath as it runs along the opposite side of the Misbourne. I previously noted the harm as “considerable”, and
would agree that the use of “substantial harm” within the decision notice has not proved consistent with terminology as it has evolved from PPS 5 and the introduction of the NPPF.
Impact of the revised proposals:
Compared with the previous proposals, the Transfer Station has been reduced in size and re-aligned, and is to be clad with alternative materials. It is still very large, and I would welcome further reduction in bulk consistent with a more specific local catchment for the rubbish, as argued elsewhere. However, the bulk is now aligned much more closely with the road and the denser tree screening along it. In my estimation only the upper 2 to 3 metres of the 30 metre-wide gable end will be visible above the main lower tree screen to the south east, with the taller poplars helping to break views of the long elevation as seen from the public footpath beyond the Misbourne. I note, however, that a programme of consolidating the existing tree belt would be necessary to provide adequate screening in the longer term. The new alignment also accords better with the axis of the valley and the road, imposing less on the meadow bottom that the previous diagonal arrangement. The black timber cladding, brick panels, and olive-green metal roofs and roller doors now proposed will appear more matt and less intrusive to the rural setting than the previous shiny light metal cladding, without presenting undue conflict with the functional character of the proposed building. Lighting is also to be more limited, with potential to require use only within working hours. I therefore do not consider that the revised proposal presents the same degree of visual harm as before, or the same potential for the appearance of the Transfer Station to deter trade from the listed public house, with impact on its viability. I note that measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of noise, odour and dust, with conditions presenting means of containing any adverse effect, and that vehicle movements south past the Ivy House would not necessarily impact on the viability if suitably spread throughout the working day. While I would again welcome further reduction as consistent with more restricted use of the site, I do not see adequate reason to raise objection purely on listed building grounds as long as conditions address the above landscaping, lighting, noise and odour, and vehicle issues.”
Chiltern District Council Environmental Health Officer
82 Chiltern District Council Strategic Environment / Environmental Health Officer recommend a number of conditions to be applied. They are summarised as:
1) Waste Classification: No hazardous waste shall be used, stored or treated on site.
2) Noise/vibration: Prior to any development commencing a noise management plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the monitoring evidence demonstrates that the design measures have failed a second plan must be submitted and approved including remedial measures to further mitigate the impacts.
Prior to any construction works taking place we would encourage the contractor to submit an application to obtain prior consent under Section 61 of COPA 1974 Section 61. In any event should piling be required the contractor must submit a written method statement before commencing piling activities for approval by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating how best practicable means will be achieved to minimise noise and vibration impacts.
3) Odour: Prior to any development commencing, an odour management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
4) Dust and Odour: Prior to any development commencing full details of the dust and odour suppression to be installed in the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
5) Dust: Prior to any development commencing, a dust action plan, in respect of both the construction and operational phases of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
6) Protection of water resources: The Chiltern District Council Strategic Environment Team and Environmental Health Officer comment that the site is located in close proximity to the River Misbourne. The Chilterns Chalk Streams Project aims to conserve all major chalk streams in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to encourage enjoyment and understanding of them. Significant work is undertaken by local groups to preserve and enhance this resource and therefore the following condition is required (based on the existing historical contamination on the site) in consultation with the Environment Agency. The District Council include the following condition in their response.
Prior to any development commencing, a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sustainable drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and no alterations shall take place thereafter.
7) Contaminated land: A full investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
8) Contaminated Land: A detailed remediation scheme must be prepared, and is subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
9) Remediation Scheme: The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10) Contaminated Land: In the event that contamination is found at any time, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
11) Sustainability: In order to improve the environmental characteristics of the main building, we would recommend the use of a green (bio) roof. This would assist biodiversity, air quality and reduce the volume of surface water runoff.
Chiltern District Council Tree and Landscape Officer
83 The District Tree and Landscape Officer does not object to the proposed development provided that the boundary vegetation is largely retained and improved in accordance with the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan. The following comments are provided:
“The site appears to have been largely neglected for many years after use as a landfill site and the land is generally fairly flat with banks at the edges. The central part of the site is more open with dense bramble growth but there are some scrub and wooded areas, particularly around the edges of the site. There is a belt of planted black poplars along the south eastern edge of the site but most of the other vegetation appears to have developed naturally over the last thirty or forty years and includes a wooded area on the north western side adjacent to the access road to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre. This area is developing from scrub into woodland and includes willow, ash, birch, cherry, hawthorn, blackthorn, elder and hazel.
The proposed access to the site would be from the access road to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and would be through a bank and part of this wooded area. It would involve the loss of a clump of willow as well as some cherry, hawthorn, elder and ash but the trees are not high quality specimens.
The proposed building is now situated towards the boundary with the A413 but is still largely within the more open area in the central part of the site. A large bund is shown on the north-western side of the building towards the London Road Cottages with a smaller bund on the south-eastern side. The whole of the central area would be cleared removing much of the bramble along with some shrubs and small trees.
There are some differences in the landscaping proposals between the Proposed Site Plan, and the Ecological Proposals and Ecological Enhancements plan about what landscaping would be retained and what would be replaced. However the Ecological Proposals and Ecological Enhancements plan is the more thorough document and is likely to be the more accurate of the two. Most of the wooded areas towards the boundaries of the site are shown to be retained and the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan refers to woodland enhancement with the aim of developing a lowland beech woodland. The main species to be planted would be beech and oak but the plan proposes a greater proportion of sessile oak rather than pedunculate oak whereas the latter would be the typical species of the area. It also mentions planting the climax species (presumably the beech and oak) at 8m centres within a mixture at 2m centres but this would not work with the proportions shown. Some woodland edge planting and some shrub planting is also proposed with the shrub planting mainly on the proposed bunds.
The plans also show the creation of a wetland/attenuation pond at the edge of the wooded area to the south of the site and the planting of wet woodland around this pond. New mixed native hedgerow planting is shown beside the access road to the transfer station. Overall the principles behind the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan appear to be sensible but some of the detail needs more attention.
I have no objections to the application provided the existing vegetation around the boundaries of the site is largely retained and improved in accordance with the principles in the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan.”
Chilterns Conservation Board
84 The Chilterns Conservation Board recognises that changes have been made to reduce the scale of the building from the previous application (2011), however, despite the changes the Board objects to the current planning application for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal still involves the construction of a very large waste transfer building (about 55m long, 30m wide and 10.4m high) as well as other buildings and structures, all of which would be much more visible in the landscape than any of the application site at present. The buildings would constitute incongruous features in the landscape. The Board suggests that further reductions in the scale of the building ought to be investigated.
(2) The Board notes the changes that have been made to the appearance of the waste transfer building. However, the use of glass panels in the upper parts of the walls would be likely to lead to the spillage of light out of the building into the wider landscape. Should the Council ultimately decide that the application should be approved then the Board considers that this element of the design should be removed.
(3) In the drawings that have been submitted the colour of the opening doors and roof appears at odds with the other materials and colours used. Should the Council ultimately decide that the application should be approved then the Board considers that a much darker colour should be stipulated for the doors and roof.
(4) The drawings that have been submitted with the application mention a “‘multi’ style brick” for the walls without any detail being given for what this may eventually look like. At present it appears as a single block of solid colour, which is not the appearance that would result from the use of a multi brick. Should the Council ultimately decide that the application should be approved then the Board considers that very careful note should be taken of the advice in the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide Supplementary Technical Note on Chilterns Brick in order to ensure that the development meets the purpose of the Chilterns AONB (the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area).
(5) The use of the waste transfer station would bring about a significant level of traffic generation and the cumulative impacts of this development when taken with the neighbouring site would neither conserve nor enhance the natural beauty of the AONB.
(6) The Board is aware that the former use of the site is landfill. It is possible that this might lead to problems with the construction of the buildings and should be properly investigated and reported as part of the application. This does not appear to have taken place thus far.
(7) The use of floodlights would lead to light pollution, particularly during the winter months.
(8) The application proposes the installation of a significant amount of 3m high palisade fencing and acoustic barriers that could be up to 3m high (or higher). A significant proportion of the acoustic barrier would also be sited on a bund that would be approximately 4m high itself. The fencing and barriers would add to the intensity of use of the site and thus its visual impact, to the detriment of the AONB.
(9) The landscaping, planting, screening and bunding are all meant to ‘provide a dense and fast growing’ habitat (Design and Access statement). Any landscaping associated with the site should be provided in order to enhance the site and its surroundings. The Board considers that what has been proposed is seeking to hide the buildings on the site as much as possible, rather than enhance the site and its surroundings.
(10) The Board considers that the development would lead to detrimental impacts on users of the rights of way, both immediately adjacent to the site and those on more distant footpaths.
(11) The site is immediately adjacent to the River Misbourne and the development would involve discharge of water from the site to the river. The River Misbourne is a chalk stream sited on a very important aquifer. Chalk streams are a globally rare resource and very great care is needed in connection with developments that may affect this particular water environment. Any water collected on site should be properly treated prior to discharge, and any flows emanating from the site should only be of clean water.
(12) The application proposes a major form of development within the Chilterns AONB. The Board considers that paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF apply and in this instance the Board notes that the applicant has failed to include any assessment which seeks to address the issues as required by paragraph 116.
(13) The Board considers that the proposal would be in conflict with the purposes of the AONB and that the proposed development would not be in accordance with the Chilterns AONB Management Plan or the development plan for the area.
(14) The Chilterns Conservation Board considers that, as the proposal fails to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB and fails to increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB, the application ought to be refused.
85 The applicant made the following amendments to the proposed development in response to these comments, which the Conservation Board welcomes: • Removal of ‘Reglit’ panels from side elevations (southeast and northwest) of the WTS (in response to the Conservation Board’s point no. 2). • Doors and roof to be coloured black, rather than the originally proposed olive green (Conservation Board point no. 3). • Matching of the varied effect of the Bucks Multi Brick as specified in the Chilterns Flint and Chilterns Brick Supplementary Technical Notes (Conservation Board point no. 4).
The Chiltern Society
86 The Chiltern Society objects to the planning application for the following reasons:
Contamination
87 Haydon W. Bailey BSc PhD CGeol FGS, Geological Adviser to the Chiltern Society seriously questions the location. He comments that there are two potential issues at this location. Firstly the proximity of the ground water aquifer to the surface and hence the waste transfer site and secondly the potential for accidental spillage on the waste transfer site and run off into both the surface water flow of the River Misbourne
and the underlying Lewes Chalk aquifer. He considers it difficult to envisage how either or both of these issues can be mitigated against within the plans for this site.
88 From a hydrogeological stand point the transfer station is being proposed in an environmentally sensitive area. Any surface run off would almost certainly percolate through the underlying land fill, potentially picking up additional impurities en route and would finally leach into the underlying Lewes Formation chalk.
89 They comment that it might be assumed that if the original land fill was more than 50 years old then any impurities might already have been leached out. In this location the Lewes Formation would act as the local aquifer, given that the underlying New Pit Marly Chalk is less permeable than the overlying Lewes Formation and any ground water flow would be preferentially through the latter.
90 It is difficult to provide a precise depth for the chalk aquifer below surface at this location, however the valley fill alluvium in a nearby public water source borehole just to the south of the site, shows in situ Chalk at 4.50m below surface. Even allowing for existing landfill above this of 5 – 10 metres thickness, the aquifer would be within 15 metres of the surface.
Green Belt/AONB
91 This proposal, would indisputably have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and thus is by definition inappropriate development.
92 The Chiltern Society comment on the need to demonstrate very special circumstances that outweigh this harm. The importance of protecting the Green Belt given great weight in the NPPF and draft revision to PPS10. The allocation of this site in the adopted Bucks Waste Strategy cannot override these national policies. The Chiltern Society are not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated these very special circumstances.
93 The Chiltern Society acknowledge and accept that the Waste Strategy requires a second WTS, and they still believe the applicant needs to show a smaller facility would not suffice and that a better alternative for this or a smaller facility does not exist elsewhere in the area.
94 The Chiltern Society seek a WTS that allows onward transfer by rail to a EfW plant.
95 They comment that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the AONB and request further adjustments to design and landscaping.
96 To summarise, in the absence of further evidence that a smaller facility on this or an alternative site will not suffice, the Chiltern Society object to this application on the grounds of impact on the Green Belt and AONB.
97 Applicant’s response to comments by Haydon W. Bailey:
“We agree that the transfer station is being proposed in an environmentally sensitive area, indeed this is clearly stated in the Environmental Statement. However, we disagree with Dr Bailey’s statement that “Any surface run-off would almost certainly percolate through the underlying fill, potentially picking up additional impurities en route and would finally leach into the underlying Lewes Formation chalk.”
“Because the site is being proposed in a sensitive area, great care is being given to the design of a surface water management and drainage system. Plans for this have been submitted with the Environmental Statement, and reference to the issue of site drainage can be found in Chapter 12 (Flood Risk and Drainage), and Appendix 12.1 (Flood Risk Assessment). We would also draw the attention of Dr Bailey to drawing ST13628-020, “Proposed Drainage Strategy and Surface Water Management Plan”, in Appendix 12.1. This drawing indicates numerous key mitigation measures which will be put in place in order to prevent surface run-off and accidental spillages percolating into the underlying fill.
“Dr Bailey refers to two potential issues and taking these in turn, we respond as follows: i) The proximity of the groundwater aquifer to the WTS would be an issue if little consideration was being paid to surface water management and drainage. As referred to above, clearly this is not the case.
ii) The potential for accidental spillage at the site flowing off-site into the River Misbourne and into the underlying Lewes chalk aquifer has been addressed by the drainage strategy and mitigation measures therein, as outlined in the above references.
“We would also add that the plans for the site are being critically appraised by the Environment Agency who, as lead regulator in matters relating to risks to controlled waters, would object to the scheme unless risks to these receptors are addressed properly, and comprehensive mitigation measures against accidental pollution are provided in full.
“In addition, on the issue of water percolation through the underlying fill of the former landfill and picking up impurities (as raised by Dr Bailey), the plans for the WTS indicate that once the site is operational this issue will be improved, because the development will act as a barrier to rainwater percolation and leachate formation. Currently, rainwater percolates through the former fill and could be picking up impurities en route thereby potentially contaminating the underlying chalk aquifer. This is most unlikely to happen following the development of the site and introduction of a surface water drainage scheme, thus removing one of the potential pollution pathways. “
BCC Ecology
98 The County Ecologist initially responded to say that he did not feel in a position to recommend approval for the following reasons:
• River Misbourne - A monitoring regime is required in order to ensure that where it is recognised that water quality has been impacted downstream of the proposal site, measures are prescribed in order to remediate any negative impacts. As well as monitoring to be specified within the overall monitoring and management plan, it is recommended that remedial measures are outlined should the development be identified as having a negative impact upon the riverine habitat.
• Bats – They request detail as to how the proposed dark zones will be created and compliment the landscape and ecological proposals, stating that dark zones will be created regardless of management intervention and therefore question the merit of this inclusion. Nonetheless, there remains clear potential to promote dark zones and improved habitat corridors to the south and north east of the site where bat activity was most frequent. They strongly recommend that the provision of integrated bat
features be revisited, as per previous discussion, into the eastern end of the proposed building, adjacent to the tree line to the proposed pond and River Misbourne. Furthermore, they request that the Lighting Plan provides model output of light spill, which needs to be addressed to ensure that proposed dark zones truly are dark at the appropriate periods and that there are no concomitant impacts to visual impacts of the site through inappropriate lighting.
• Badgers – Recommend that a condition be applied requiring the submission of a Method Statement to outline the measures that will be implemented in order to protect known badger populations. An update badger survey is likely to be required by Natural England as part of the licence application process, as the current badger survey is now out of date.
• Trees – A Tree Protection Plan is required, which clearly demonstrates the trees that will be removed and retained and the protection measures that will be in place during construction.
• Ecological Enhancement - The Landscape Proposals and Ecological Enhancements will need to be further developed to provide confidence that opportunities will be taken to increase biodiversity across the site i.e. achieve biodiversity net-gain. A Landscape Ecology and Management Plan (LEMP) shall be developed.
99 Following meetings and correspondence between the applicant, Planning Officer, Ecology Adviser and Landscape Consultant, including a request from the Ecologist to carry out a Biodiversity Impact Assessment, the applicant submitted the Biodiversity Impact Assessment calculator, the County Ecologist provided the following comments:
• Biodiversity Offsetting Assessment – The Biodiversity Impact Assessment calculator and commentary indicates a 0.77 gain for biodiversity in the absence of a green roof, therefore the County Ecologist is satisfied that a biodiversity net-gain can be achieved within the site boundary without the additional benefits that could be gained for biodiversity. The management plan must clearly demonstrate how the broad- leaved plantation woodland will be enhanced to a ‘Good’ status as proposed within 15 years.
• Landscape and Woodland Management Plan and Ecological Enhancement Strategy- This strategy should be secured via a condition for the perpetuity of the development. This must be amended to include features for bats.
BCC Landscape Officer
100 The following comments and requests were made by the Landscape Officer:
a) The site is bordered by dense vegetation, although the composition is not particularly good, being made up of deciduous species, predominately secondary regrowth Salix (willow) to the south and west boundaries. Planting should be reinforced on the site, and consideration to evergreen species to screen operations and reduce light spill. Consideration of planting is especially sensitive adjacent to the houses where this is sparse and along the river valley.
b) A detailed planting plan is required at a scale 1:100, showing species type, sizes (height spread, girth, pot size) and planting densities. Grass/seeded Remedial surgery to any notable trees. Topsoil/planting medium (depth and specification).
c) A management plan for the scheme should address the protection of existing and proposed planting and provide maintenance regimes for cutting planting, managing the woodland and watercourses (if part of the site).
d) Landscaping structures surfaces - Happy overall, but would like to see more information/drawings on services that are proposed, including how run off works (into a trap/drain and where) and they hope not into the River Misbourne.
e) Lighting Plan - Providing the positions of lights, their specifications and also depicting the predicted extent of light spill.
f) Green Roof - The WTS is effectively covering a large proportion of the site in hard standing, in order to offset this, the Landscape Officer would urge the building to accommodate a green roof that will benefit wildlife. They comment that a green roof could provide an opportunity to incorporate sustainable water capture and given the site’s former history this would eliminate the need to add new services and therefore disturbing the landfill. However, they also comment that if the biological impact assessment shows slight or negligible benefit and the cost of the green roof prohibitively high, then they would not pursue this.
BCC Flood Management Team
101 The Flood Management Team has no objections to the proposed drainage design for the London Road Waste Transfer Station. They were very pleased to see the level of detail provided in the proposed drainage scheme, as well as the consideration made to sustainable drainage and were happy to see that the first section of proposed access drive will be drained to the Thames Water sewer instead of using a pumping devise which could have caused flooding issues if it failed.
102 The Flood Management Team noted that further details were to be decided at the detailed design stage and therefore asked that the following condition be imposed:
“Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the SuDS drainage scheme should be submitted to and approved in writing by the County planning authority. The details should include, but not be limited to detailed drawings and cross-sections of: (i) The proposed impermeable filter drains (ii) The proposed circular storage attenuation pipe (iii) The proposed rainwater harvesting tank (iv) The proposed permeable gravel surface and belowground impermeable lined stone blanket layer (v) The proposed open SuDS feature (detention pond)
Details submitted pursuant to this condition should achieve flood prevention up to and including the 1 in 100 year rainfall event plus allowance for climate change.”
103 Following a request from the EA, the applicant made an amendment to the FRA in that the Operational Yard would drain into the foul system. Following this amendment, the Flood Management Officer confirmed that she was satisfied with the amended FRA and did not wish to change her comments.
BCC County Archaeologist
104 Following consultation of the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER), the County Archaeologist concluded that the proposed development would not affect a heritage asset recorded on the HER. He also stated that, on present evidence, the application site is not thought to have significant potential to include as yet unidentified heritage assets of archaeological interest.
BCC Strategic Access Officer (Rights of Way)
105 The Strategic Access Officer highlights the strategic aim in terms of public rights of way and walking access in the area of the Waste Transfer Station (WTS), as set out in the MWCS. He states that any new pedestrian link that could connect London Road East (A413) with the Public Footpath 16 Amersham, running alongside the River Misbourne, would significantly add to the strategic network of rights of way and afford more circular walking options, especially for residents in Amersham. He acknowledges that a full connection is outside the control of the applicant, but states that if a partial route can be achieved that connects most of the way, utilising a footway alongside the access road that might also contribute to improved pedestrian access to the waste transfer station, it would provide the basis for any future opportunity that may arise for a walking connection across the River Misbourne to Footpath 16 Amersham.
106 The Strategic Access Officer would support any recommended condition from highways development control requiring the applicant to fund a new publically accessible footway alongside the current vehicular access to the Waste Transfer Station. The temporal availability of this pedestrian route would need to be decided and may be restricted to the daily opening hours of the site for security reasons.
107 However, following the applicant’s investigations into options for a footpath link, which were unsuccessful, the Strategic Access Officer now believes that providing a right of way alongside the A413 would not provide much benefit as it “doesn’t go anywhere”. He believes that whilst it is regrettable they cannot pursue the option for a footpath connection further.
BCC Minerals and Waste Policy Team
108 The Minerals and Waste Policy Lead Officer, provided the following comments:
“This site is an essential part of the County Council Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS12 for handling municipal solid waste, since it will transfer MSW collected by the Chiltern District Council for recovery by the energy from waste facility being constructed at Greatmoor, Calvert. The Strategic Waste Complex at Calvert is set out in policy CS11 in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. Policy CS12 sets tests for the waste transfer station at London Road Amersham, and requires that the design and layout of the site must respect the character and appearance of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including complying with Policy CS21- Chilterns AONB.
“Policies CS21 and policy CS20 state that a Waste Transfer Station at London Road Amersham is cited specifically as ‘will be permitted…’ The existing London Road, Amersham site is in an existing waste management use. The proposal therefore has no Green Belt policy test to satisfy. [The application of Green Belt policy does fall to be addressed when determining this application and therefore is considered later in this report.] However there are issues that a Waste Transfer Station proposal must
satisfy concerning the design and layout of the site in relation to the character and appearance of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”
109 Other policies that) the Minerals and Waste Planning Policy Team Lead Officer considers relevant to this application are BMWLP policies 28 (Amenity) and 29 (Buffer Zones) and BMWCS Policy CS22 (Design and Climate Change).
110 The Minerals and Waste Policy Officer provides some comment upon the application details, including the following advice regarding the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW):
“This proposed development will help to better recover local authority collected waste, by reducing the number of traffic movements involved in its movement, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced, and will provide a waste management facility in line with the proximity principle. It will assist the County Council to recover more value from local authority collected waste by subjecting it to energy recovery from waste incineration at the energy from waste facility being constructed at Greatmoor near Calvert. The proposal therefore complies with the NPPW at paragraph 1.”
111 He also refers to paragraph 4, 5 and 7. Paragraph 4 states that planning authorities should “give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land…” The Policy Officer comments that “The application site is previously developed land, and therefore complies with NPPW at paragraph 4.”
112 With regards to the criteria set out within paragraph 5, he comments as follows: “Whether the proposed development complies with paragraph 5 of the NPPW will especially depend upon the outcome of the technical studies submitted within the Environmental Impact statement, concerning noise and traffic. However, the site is already allocated in principle in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, for use as a waste transfer station.”
HS2 Team – Sarah Gibson
113 No formal response yet received.
Thames Water
114 Thames Water have made the following comments:
“There are public sewers crossing or close to the development. In order to protect public sewers and to ensure that Thames Water can gain access to those sewers for future repair and maintenance, approval should be sought from Thames Water where the erection of a building or an extension to a building or underpinning work would be over the line of, or would come within 3 metres of, a public sewer. Thames Water will usually refuse such approval in respect of the construction of new buildings, but approval may be granted in some cases for extensions to existing buildings.
Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation.
A Trade Effluent Consent will be required for any Effluent discharge other than a 'Domestic Discharge'. Any discharge without this consent is illegal and may result in prosecution.
Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.”
Affinity Water, Developer Services Team
115 Affinity Water responded that the applicant should be aware that the proposed development site is located within an Environment Agency defined groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) corresponding to Chalfont St Giles Pumping Station. This is a public water supply source, comprising a number of Chalk abstraction boreholes, operated by Affinity Water Ltd.
116 Affinity Water raised some concerns regarding the potential of contamination of groundwater from the construction and operation of this development. In particular their concerns were:
• The River Misbourne is a highly sensitive receptor; the site is located within a Source Protection Zone 2 and also within the surface water Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ). • The hydrology section in the Environmental Statement (ES) in section 10.58 stated, “The risk assessment concluded that there was a pollution risk to the principal aquifer beneath the Site but, given that the adjacent river is not in hydraulic continuity with the aquifer, the river is unlikely to be a receptor to contamination migrating via groundwater.” At Affinity Water, recent studies have been undertaken on the River Misbourne. Signal tests undertaken as part of these studies have indicated that the River is losing water downstream from Amersham. This indicates that any contaminant that is released into the river will have the potential to infiltrate into the chalk aquifer. In response to this statement, this may be applicable to the site of the development; however, there is still the potential for surface water to infiltrate into the Chalk aquifer if a contaminant reaches the River. • The chalk is unconfined, heavily fractured in this area and features a complex karstic nature. It is also extremely weathered due to previous glacial action, with clay filled pipes and swallow holes deeply eroding into the chalk surface. An Affinity Water desk study identified a swallow hole within very close proximity to the site. Swallow holes can act as direct pathways between the surface water and groundwater especially during periods of heavy rainfall, resulting in bypass recharge. They would like clarification that this risk has been fully explored and appropriate preventive measures have been identified. • A Ground Investigation report completed in 2007 identified exceedances of ammoniacal-nitrogen and also other parameters including: boron, nickel, zinc, chromium, copper, benzene, some heavy-end hydrocarbons, fluoranthene and benzo(a)pyrene. Affinity Water would like to know if additional monitoring and remediation be carried out to ensure that these compounds do not infiltrate into the chalk aquifer? • Chalfont St Giles pumping station will be the receptor of any pollutant infiltrating into the aquifer, as it is located down-hydraulic gradient from the proposed site and could be significantly impacted if the appropriate protection is not put in place.
117 Affinity Water would appreciate assurance to be given against each of the concerns that have been raised prior to the approval of this application.
118 They would also expect regular monitoring before, during and after construction to ensure that there has been no release of contaminants into the ground. The construction and operation of the proposed site should be done in accordance with the Environmental Permitting regulations Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly reducing the groundwater pollution risk.
119 Following a response from the applicant and discussions with the Planning Officer, Affinity Water provided the following further comments:
“In response to our highlighted concerns with regard to swallow holes and contamination and after reviewing the Environment Agency conditions set, we would like to support the conditions and are content that they cover our concerns at this stage of the process.”
Buckinghamshire Badger Group
120 No response received.
BBOWT
121 No comments due to resources.
National Planning Casework Unit, Department for Communities and Local Government
122 The NPCU have not provided a formal response to the consultation, but they have asked if the application was being presented to the Committee meeting on 3 March and when the Officer’s report would be available.
Representations
Waddesdon Parish Council
123 Waddesdon Parish Council oppose the application, on the grounds that it will create even more HGV traffic on the A41 through Waddesdon. They consider that this type of traffic is already at levels that are incompatible with a rural lifestyle and any additions should not be allowed without mitigating action being planned and implemented.
Chalfont St Peter Parish Council
124 Chalfont St Peter Parish Council object to the proposals on the following grounds:
(1) Traffic - Additional traffic that would be generated on the A413, which passes through the middle of the Chalfont St Peter village, with waste from South Bucks and potential commercial and industrial waste.
(2) Water Pollution - Concerned about potential pollution to the aquifer from the construction works which would be felt downstream in Chalfont St Peter.
(3) Question the need for the WTS with the success of the additional recycling now being achieved.
Great Missenden Parish Council
125 Great Missenden Parish Council object on the grounds of increased traffic on the A413.
The Wasters Residents Group
126 The Wasters Residents Group are an association of residents who object to the application on the following grounds:
Green Belt and AONB • This development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Nothing has changed since the previous application was refused.
Need • Current and projected waste streams demonstrate that the objective managing Buckinghamshire’s waste to 2026 through bulking waste that cannot be recycled and onward transportation to the incinerator at Calvert, can be achieved using the one waste transfer station currently under construction at High Heavens. • There is no need for a waste transfer station handling 50,000 tonnes of residual waste. The existence of 30,000-40,000 (whichever maximum figure is correct) of residual MSW cannot be evidenced. The availability of the C&I waste stream cannot be evidenced and is contingent on building market share.
No very special circumstances/exceptional circumstances • There are no exceptional circumstances that justify building and inappropriate development on the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB. There are greener alternatives available should one WTS become temporarily out of use and there is no justification in terms of reduced waste miles (or cost) through proximity to waste arisings.
Conflict with national and local planning policies • Waste Transfer Stations should not be built within 50 metres of any well, spring or borehole used as a source of water for human consumption. This development will cause unacceptable risk to this highly sensitive water environment, as the site is above a major aquifer that is a source of drinking water for the Home Counties. • The proposed development is contrary to national and local plans that protect the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB and is contrary to national policy that prioritises the use of brownfield sites over greenfield. • The proposal is contrary to policies that protect the amenity of residents as the development is unacceptably close to Nos 1-4 The Cottages; and, the intensified use of the Depot for the Joint Waste Contract will result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on residents who are already experiencing disturbance. • The Ivy House is a heritage asset and this development in the near vicinity will cause substantial harm to its historic setting. • It is contrary to the provision of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and to the thrust of current and proposed EU waste management policy that is moving towards waste management more by recycling and improved recovery technologies and less by incineration or landfill.
Reliance on the allocation of LRE within the M&WCS is flawed • The allocation of London Road East within the Mineral and Waste Core Strategy should not be relied upon in making decisions regarding this planning application.
The site was mis-described and other more suitable sites were not included in the search.
Alternative sites exist • Alternative and more suitable sites exist. The current site search appraisal is fundamentally flawed.
Impact upon a major aquifer • This development will cause unacceptable risk to this highly sensitive water environment, as the site is above a major aquifer that is a source of drinking water for the Home Counties. Under the National Planning Policy Guidelines, BCC has a duty of care and has to be absolutely certain that the development will not cause unacceptable risk to public health before it grants planning permission. • I object to building a WTS on Green Belt land right next to the London Road Depot. It is a nonsense to claim that a WTS is needed to save residual waste miles, when an equivalent mileage is incurred transporting recyclable waste.
General comments • The claim that there is 40,000 tonnes of residual MSW arising in the catchment area of this WTS is totally without foundation. • The increase in MSW in this application is not explained. • The design capacity of the WTS is greater than 50,000 tpa. • The site is not previously developed land. • This is not an essential facility.
Fullers Pub
127 The Managing Director of Fuller’s Inns, states that the reasons for rejection of the application in 2012 are still applicable and have not been addressed by the applicant and he further objects for the following reasons:
• This is an industrial development on Greenbelt land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This was a reason for rejection last time and as no Exceptional circumstances have been proven then this is still applicable today. There cannot be exceptional circumstances as both parties have admitted that they can handle all the Household Waste through the High Heavens Waste Transfer Station which has already received planning permission and is under construction. This site is only required because FCC/BCC wish to have Commercial waste to make a profit and this type of facility should not be permitted in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. • The proposed building is very slightly smaller than the original proposal, however, it is still significantly larger than is required for the local domestic waste. • The noise, odour, fly and vermin infestation will affect our public house and Inn, the Ivy House, causing a great loss in trade, popularity and reputation, which has taken time to build up. This will be made much worse in the heat of the summer, which is when our trade is at its highest. This is a listed Inn and of special interest on a historic turnpike road. Our customers will not want to sit outside nor have windows open if such a facility is operational. This will not only impact our business but also work in the area and the amenity for the public. Our Tenants will undoubtedly suffer and as so many public houses are finding it difficult to remain open this further difficulty could be catastrophic for their business. • Rat and vermin infestation will be extremely difficult to control, which will also greatly impact in the trade to our pub.
• The increase in noise from increased road traffic will affect people staying in the bedrooms of our Inn, and also affect the tranquillity that people are used to in the Ivy House. The additional traffic will make it both more difficult and dangerous for customers to access our car park, for guests walking to the Inn from either the South Bucks Way, Golf Course or the local housing.
128 The Ivy House is approx. 200 metres away from the proposed development; it is a well-used local amenity by walkers and golfers, as well as our regular trade. The Waste business will have a big negative effect on our business and we at Fuller’s highly object to this commercial development in a most inappropriate setting.
Amersham and District Residents Association (ADRA)
129 ADRA make the following comments:
Need - The need for a Waste Transfer Station in Amersham is questionable in view of declining trends in the amount of non-recyclable domestic waste. They consider it staggering to see the decline in planned capacity for the unit in just three years - from 120,000 tons per annum (tpa) in the 2011 application to 50,000 tpa in 2014.
Alternative sites - If the proposed unit at High Heavens is not capable of handling this extra capacity, then alternatives to London Road must be more effectively and fairly evaluated. There seems to be no reason why the site at London Road depot, which encroaches on both Green Belt and Chiltern AONB is preferred to, say site 4 – Land to the West of Beaconsfield HWRC. The latter is also in the Green Belt but not an AONB.
Traffic: The applicant has not made any attempt to alleviate the traffic that may build up while trying to turn right into the depot from the A413. The waiting area is short, and the vehicles are long. The situation will be further aggravated when the heavy HS2 Construction vehicles add to the traffic.
ADRA are unable to track any figures for vehicles turning right in the traffic survey. The Highway Department’s comments on the previous application need to be updated to reflect the HS2 impact as well.
Odour - ADRA are pleased to note in the Design and Access Statement a proposal for a dust and odour suppression mist system, which they believe should be conditioned.
Amenities of residents in cottages 1-4 - The tranquil amenities enjoyed by the residents in these cottages will be affected by noise and bulky visual intrusion.
Cllr Timothy Butcher, Local Member for Chalfont St Giles
130 Councillor Timothy Butcher objects on the following grounds:
• Green Belt/AONB – Considered inappropriate in the Chilterns AONB and the Green Belt, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. • Impact on users of South Bucks Way and Harewood Downs Golf Club • Traffic or Highways - The additional traffic and effects are significantly understated in the Transport Assessment. Whilst this identifies loaded vehicle movements, there is no mention of the balancing empty movements. Thus the
number of vehicle movements is twice that identified. In addition there is an assumption that 9 loaded bulker movements a day represents one per hour. It is extremely unlikely that these will be evenly spread throughout the day. It is much more likely that these will be concentrated as a morning and afternoon peak. The route for these vehicles is identified as using the A413 between Amersham and Calvert although there is no analysis of the traffic on the section between Amersham and Wendover. The A413 is already expected to be overloaded with construction traffic for HS2, and this will add to that problem for his parishioners who rely on this road for travel to work, school, hospitals and shopping.
Cllr Aaron Emmett, Amersham Town Council
131 Cllr Emmett objects to the proposed development, stating that it is poorly located for many reasons, primarily due to transport accessibility. Further, he states the facility is not needed for the local community, he believes it is a commercial venture and there are better sites within industrial environments, not in the green belt.
The Amersham Society
132 The Amersham Society object strongly to the proposed development for the following reasons:
(1) The site is in the green belt and in a Government designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Such a large industrial site would be out of character in this setting and would be a permanent scar on the landscape. (2) The special appeal of Amersham town as a visitor attraction would be damaged. (3) Local residential properties would devalue. (4) Toxins from such an enterprise are bound to raise health concerns. Waste material would attract vermin into the local residential area. (5) Seepage from the operation would endanger Misbourne River wildlife and furthermore would contaminate drinking water. (6) Local roads are inadequate for the increased volume of HGV traffic which would be generated by the day to day operation. Being a largely rural residential area, the safety of pedestrian and light traffic movements would be at added risk from this disproportionate amount of industrial traffic movements. (7) Industrial operations of this nature are usually built on industrial estates where there is infrastructure in place to accommodate the relative composite processes. There are little or no such established facilities in or near the proposed site. (8) Why, after a similar application being refused consent in 2012, is it now being presented again? Is it because Buckinghamshire County Council hopes through perseverance to ride roughshod over the inhabitants of Amersham and the people in the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty they hope the application will succeed? (9) It simply is not good enough to attempt justification for an application to build a Waste Transfer Station with a capacity to handle 75,000 tonnes when there is a requirement for a capacity of only 30,000 tonnes. 45,000 tonnes would be commercial waste at a commercial value; behind the concept there is clearly a profit motive in the proposed venture with a cock a snook attitude to the taxpayers and to the majority of local people who hold the Chilterns in priceless esteem. We understand profit motive but not at any cost.
Little Chalfont Community Association
133 Little Chalfont Community Association object to the application, for the following reasons:
Impact on the Green Belt and AONB – Whilst smaller in size it does not detract from the fact that it is on Green Belt land and in an Area of Natural Beauty. It remains visually detrimental and does not improve or enhance the Green Belt or AONB objectives, as required by MWCS Policies CS20 and CS21. Further, there continue to be no very special circumstances that justify making an exception to these polices.
Impact on Residential Amenity – There are 4 cottages located within 51m and elevated from the proposed site. This is contrary to policy that a WTS should be 250m away from residential housing and we are very concerned that noise and odour will have a significant impact on amenity, particularly for 1-4 London Road.
Grade II Listed Building (The Ivy House) – There is certain to be a negative impact on a treasured listed building and pub/restaurant in terms of landscape and visual impact and ‘setting’ impacts.
Need – The WTS at London Road is not required at all. High Heavens WTS has enough capacity to deal with all waste in the relevant Districts. Capacity requirements for municipal waste are not expected to grow. Research strongly suggests that additional capacity over and above that available at High Heavens will not be required.
Benefits not outweighed - The benefit of a WTS being built in London Road is that domestic waste can be collected and processed nearer to its local source, saving transport cost. However, that figure is trivial and nowhere near meeting a ‘very special circumstances’ test.
Contamination/Pollution – Refer to Policy CS19: Protection of Environmental Assets of Local Importance. The River Misbourne will be impacted upon at site clearance stage as well as after completion. We do not believe that mitigation measures proposed are adequate. There are risks of contamination.
Transportation – Unacceptable increase in HGV traffic in villages, increased risk of accidents. The site is not well located, but on a busy road close to Cokes Lane junction. It will be made busier and more dangerous. Concerned with size of bulker lorries and the number.
Amersham Old Town Community Revitalisation Group
134 Amersham Old Town Community Revitalisation Group object to the application on the following grounds:
a) BCC have NO duty to dispose of Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I). To do so would be a commercial enterprise for which no case can be argued within the green belt/AONB. b) We understand that there is adequate capacity at High Heavens to handle all the MSW from the 3 authorities in the south of the county. Indeed there is excess capacity of 10,000 tonnes per annum, and this is without the projected reduction in requirement owing to ongoing improvements in recycling. c) Green Belt/AONB: o There is no very special circumstance and there is no case for need.
o The size of the proposal is not minimal since the previous application was for 25 000 tonnes, and this is for 40 000 tonnes. As the requirement is going down due to increased recycling, for what is the extra capacity intended? o Other non green belt/AONB sites have not been given due consideration. d) The four dwellings fronting the site were built before 1955 (maps show this). They have not been built with knowledge of this plan, and the quality of life in this rural location must be taken into account. e) Impact on the setting of the Ivy House Listed Building - a rural wayside hostelry is significant partly because of its rural setting. This must not be despoiled. f) We have major concerns about serious issues which would affect the well-being of our residents: o The provision and quality of our water supply. o Potential disturbance to an old landfill above an aquifer. g) Highway considerations: o Safety, no street lighting, inadequate pavements o Object to increased vehicle movements along this road with no highway solutions offered.
Public Representations
135 At the time of writing, 895 representations have been made in response to this application. 892 raise objections, 3 are in support and one neutral.
136 The principle causes for objection are summarised below:
Green Belt • Inappropriate/ unacceptable development in the Green Belt • Should be located outside of the Green Belt and in an industrial area • Significant harm to the character and appearance of the Green Belt • No exceptional circumstances that justify this inappropriate development on Green Belt land • Does not keep the Green Belt countryside safe and protected • Inappropriate scale in Green Belt
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) • Inappropriate development in the AONB • Size of the building is inappropriate • Eyesore on the landscape • Harmful effect on the AONB • Out of character in an area of natural beauty • Inappropriate scale in AONB
Impact on Amenity of Residents and Businesses • Too close to local residential properties • Noise • Odour • Water Pollution • Lighting • Vermin • Rubbish falling off lorries around the site and on the roads • Noise, pollution and disruption caused will diminish peoples quality of life • Poor air quality
• Risk to public health
Highways Impacts • Large numbers of HGV’s • Increase danger on road, which would lead to accidents and congestion. Already a dangerous road with a number of fatalities. • Impact upon cyclists and pedestrians and users of bus stop with no footpath. • Increased traffic on already busy road • Increased noise levels • Combination with HS2 construction traffic • Limited visibility on the A413 • Dangerous junction at Cokes Lane • How could vehicles be prevented from using narrow Cokes Lane? • Applicant can’t control route and times of lorries. • Poor condition of the road will be made worse.
Inappropriate Site • Brownfield / industrial site should be used instead • Other suitable sites are available, i.e. Wapseys Wood, land next to Beaconsfield HWRC. • Proposed site does not have an “industrial and waste management character”
Need • This facility is not needed, as High Heavens can provide the necessary capacity • The purpose of the site is not simply to serve local domestic needs, since a high proportion of the waste seems to be commercial waste from outside the immediate area. • Chiltern DC have made huge strides in increasing recycling rates
Impact on Listed Building • Impact on the setting of the Ivy House
Environmental Impact • Contaminated land – impact upon the River Misbourne • Contamination into the Chiltern aquifer, a source of public water • Detrimental to wildlife, including protected species such as bats and red kites • Impact of lighting and noise on wildlife • Impact on the landscape • Potential damage to flora and fauna
General Comments • Unnecessary • Waste of public money
137 The main reasons for support are: • The site is the least objectionable because it has a history of waste use • The site has been used as a waste site for many years • Very little disruption caused by existing use of the site/depot
138 The neutral comments received from a civil engineer and member of Misbourne River Action, particularly address the issue of contamination of the River Misbourne and the underlying aquifer, stating:
“I am persuaded by the arguments that, if anything, the "capping" of the existing contaminated material provided by the new construction would provide better defence against leaching into the aquifer than exists at present; that the proposed activities post-construction do not involve handling of liquid waste and that the existing activities at the adjacent site are similar in nature and have not resulted in fuel contamination. Moreover, I am confident that the limited risks of a relatively small fuel or silt contamination incident during construction can be readily managed.
Nevertheless, I wish to draw your attention to an opportunity to both further reduce the perceived risks and simultaneously provide an element of betterment. The late John Norris, was recognised or his deep knowledge of the Misbourne and other Chiltern chalk streams. Mr Norris firmly believed that previous work on and adjacent to the Misbourne water course past the old sewage works site (now balancing tanks since the 1950's) and around the bends to the South of the old tip site (i.e. the site of the proposed WTS) made a significant contribution to the well documented losses of flow in the Misbourne between Amersham and Chalfont St Giles during periods of low flow. On the basis of this theory, supported by flow measurement, a project was developed by The Chiltern Society and others and approved by the Environment Agency to line a few hundred yards of river with a buried bentonite mat. This was put forward for Heritage Lottery funding in 2012 but was unsuccessful and has not been progressed. The attached graph produced by Mr Norris indicates the hypothetical effect of this section of lining, which would also provide a valuable prototype for evaluation of this treatment by the EA and others.
The proposed WTS would discharge surface water run-off via a settlement lagoon and reed beds (which, incidentally, need considerable development from the notional facility noted on the drawings submitted with the Planning Application), into the river at a suitable outflow structure. It is here that the perceived risk is highest and I suggest it could be further mitigated if the development was to include installation of the lining as previously designed. The further upstream the outfall was placed, or the lining extended, the greater the potential gain. Apart from reducing the theoretical likelihood of infiltration of possibly contaminated water into the ground, any increase in flow downstream due to reduction in bed loss would obviously assist with dilution.
I therefore urge you to consider requiring development of the outfall arrangement to incorporate a substantial section of bed-lining in accordance with the details previously developed.”
Discussion
The Main Statutory Duties which apply
139 The following main statutory duties apply when considering the planning application.
140 In dealing with the application the Council is under a duty to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, to local finance considerations so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (Section 70(2) Town & Country Planning Act 1990).
141 The Council is to determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
142 The development plan, so far as material, consists of:
• Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2004 – 2016, adopted June 2006 (MWLP) – Saved Policies • Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2016 – 2026, adopted November 2012 (MWCS) • Chiltern District Council Local Plan (September 1997, alterations May 2001, consolidated September 2007 & November 2011) • Core Strategy for Chiltern District (November 2011)
143 In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. (S66 (1) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).
144 The effect of sections 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is to create a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission in the event of a finding that a proposed development would cause harm to the setting of a listed building. If it is found that the proposal would harm the setting of the Ivy House listed building, that harm must be given considerable importance and weight.
145 Section 40(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 provides that every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.
146 Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) provides:
“Without prejudice to the preceding provisions, a competent authority, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Directives so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions.”
147 Article 12 of the Habitats Directive provides protection for European Protected Species which include all species of bats.
148 The application site lies within an area of outstanding natural beauty and as a result the duty imposed by section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 applies. In exercising or performing any functions in relation to or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, the Council shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.
149 The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are need and principle; Green Belt; the Chilterns AONB; Landscaping and Visual Impact; Impact on Amenity; Impact on the Ivy House Listed Building; traffic and highways; Ecology & Biodiversity; Water Environment; sustainability and climate change.
Need and Principle
150 The MWCS provides the strategic policy framework and provision to 2026 for minerals and waste planning in Buckinghamshire. The two main challenges are to provide sufficient sand and gravel to and to move quickly away from an over-reliance on landfill.
151 The vision, as set out in the MWCS, is for the waste generated within Buckinghamshire to be reduced to a minimum and where it does arise for it to be managed within Buckinghamshire. It goes on to say that this should be achieved by maximising the use of existing facilities and providing new facilities “in the right places to meet local needs.”
152 In order to deliver the vision, Strategic Objectives have been developed, which include the following which are pertinent to this application:
SO6: Spatial Distribution of Waste Development
153 To enable strategic waste capacity to be provided in the county to co-locate facilities, minimise waste movements and make the best use of a limited number of site opportunities.
SO8: Transportation of Waste
154 To utilise planned improvement in transport infrastructure and enable the development of new strategic waste transfer facilities which will improve connectivity between the north and south of the county and enable the more efficient movement of waste.
SO9: Protection of the Green Belt and AONB
155 To protect the Green Belt from inappropriate minerals and waste development and the Chilterns AONB within Buckinghamshire from unnecessary minerals and waste development.
SO10: Protecting and Enhancing the Environment
156 To conserve and enhance the human, historic and natural environment, by minimising and mitigating potential negative impacts and by seeking positive benefits from minerals and waste development in the county.
157 Policy CS/LP1 sets out the Council’s positive approach reflecting the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. It goes on to say that applications that accord with the policies of the MWCS will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
158 The Waste Planning Strategy sets out that the Council will plan to be net self- sufficient, meaning that it aims to provide sufficient facilities for an equivalent amount of waste to that generated within the county. It also seeks to meet prevailing targets for increased recycling and diversion from landfill. The proposed development would assist the Council in meeting its aim to be net self-sufficient and in diverting waste from landfill, in that it would provide capacity for up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum to be bulked and transported to a strategic waste treatment facility.
159 The Waste Strategy also allocates land for a single Strategic Waste Complex (SWC) at Calvert Landfill Site (which includes the approved EfW facility, currently under construction), with “linked waste transfer stations at High Heavens Waste Complex, High Wycombe; and London Road Depot, Amersham.”
160 The MWCS sets out the anticipated waste arisings for each of the four main categories of waste, being Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I), Construction and Demolition waste (C&D) and Hazardous waste. Those
relevant to this application are MSW and C&I. The Waste Strategy sets a target to recycle and compost 60% of MSW by 2025 and estimates that 372,000 tonnes will need to be managed in 2026, comprising 112,000 tonnes being sent for energy recovery. In terms of C&I waste, the MWCS adopts a target of 65% to be recycled and composted by 2026, with 178,000 tonnes to be sent for energy recovery. This is a total of 290,000 tonnes of additional capacity required by 2026 (see Policy CS9). The MWCS acknowledges that the existing facilities in the county provide recycling, composting, waste transfer and landfill capacity. However, it recognises that there is a need for significant additional new and alternative capacity and supporting infrastructure during the plan period (to 2026).
161 The Council has been through an extensive process to determine the most appropriate strategy for residual waste management provision within Buckinghamshire. The outcome of this process was that a “Strategic Waste Complex” (SWC) would satisfy the preferred option of ‘fewer, larger’ facilities, provide opportunities for co-location of major waste treatment facilities and meet a substantial amount of the waste needs of the county. As part of the preparation of the Core Strategy, a site selection process was undertaken, which identified Calvert Landfill Site, in the north of the county, as the most appropriate site to accommodate an SWC. The details of this process are not addressed in detail within this report. In line with Policy CS11: Strategic Waste Complex at Calvert Landfill Site, a planning application for an Energy from Waste facility, including incinerator bottom ash processing, air pollution control residue treatment and ancillary development at Greatmoor Farm, Calvert Landfill Site was submitted in February 2011 (ref: 11/20000/AWD) and planning consent was granted on 27 July 2012. This facility is currently under construction and is anticipated to start commissioning in September/October 2015, being fully operational by March 2016.
162 Paragraph 5.51 of the MWCS states that “the proposed SWC at Calvert Landfill site requires key strategic infrastructure to ensure that the movement of waste is as sustainable as possible…”. It goes on to say that the most important are an access road and the WTS’s to serve the SWC, as set out in Policy CS12 (see below). It is envisaged that the WTS would serve the Greatmoor EfW, by receiving locally collected waste from smaller (typically 5 tonnes) Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCV’s), which is then bulked-up into larger vehicles (circa 20 tonne payload), before being transported the waste the circa 30 miles to Greatmoor for treatment/recovery. This reduces the number of waste miles travelled, i.e. the miles that a larger number of small vehicles would be required to carry out if they were to travel directly to Greatmoor, and therefore also reduces the associated environmental and climate change impacts, in line with the proximity principle
163 Further, paragraph 5.54, states:
“Accordingly, two road served transfer stations will be required in the south of the county at which waste from a number of sources would be assembled for bulk transfer to the SWC. The Core Strategy allocates the London Road Depot, Amersham and the High Heavens Waste Complex, High Wycombe for this purpose. Both sites are favourably located for the county’s Primary Road Network and Strategic Inter-urban Routes. The two Waste Transfer Stations (WTS’s), between them, will provide good geographic coverage of the constrained area of southern Buckinghamshire that they will serve whilst being proximate to Calvert.”
164 As referred to above, policy CS12 of the MWCS, details the “Essential Infrastructure” deemed necessary to support the SWC at Calvert Landfill Site, thereby providing a
suitable network of facilities to deliver sustainable waste management (NPPW), which includes the allocation of a Waste Transfer Station at London Road Depot:
“The following essential infrastructure will be required in advance of an SWC at Calvert Landfill site becoming operational: 1) a new access road linking the site to the A41, on an appropriate route to be provided by the developer of the Calvert Landfill Site; 2) sites for linked waste transfer stations at London Road Depot, Amersham [the application site] and High Heavens Waste Complex, High Wycombe. The design and layout of each site must respect the character and appearance of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including complying with Policy CS21 – Chilterns AONB;
165 Development proposals in sub-paragraphs 1) and 2) above will be required to satisfy the following criteria: a) proposals will be progressed in accordance with prevailing national and local flood risk policy, promoting the safe and sustainable management of risk; b) opportunities should be taken to integrate new development successfully within each site and within the surrounding landscape in ways which contribute to nature conservation enhancement, the protection of landscape character and the improvement of recreational opportunities for the benefit of users of the site and adjoining communities; and, c) the design and layout of each site should satisfy the criteria of Policy CS22 – Design and Climate Change including the submission of a Sustainability Statement to support proposals.”
166 The new access road, required by section 1) of policy CS12 and permitted under the EfW consent ref: 11/20000/AWD in July 2012, has been constructed and is being used to serve the construction of the EfW. Further, the WTS required at High Heavens Waste Complex was permitted in July 2012, reference: CC11/9003/CM. This facility is currently under construction, due to be completed in September/October 2015 ready for commissioning alongside the EfW at Greatmoor.
167 Both the High Heavens Waste Complex and London Road Depot sites were safeguarded for possible WTS’s in the “saved” Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policy 15 (although this policy has since been replaced by policies CS10 and CS12). This was extensively tested at the Local Plan Inquiry in 2005, with both sites being accepted by the Inspector. Following further studies and assessments undertaken as part of the preparation of the Core Strategy, both sites were still considered suitable for WTS’s, therefore they are both allocated under section 2) of Policy CS12, as set out above and are therefore supported in principle.
168 The policies and supporting information within the MWCS set the basis for the need for strategic facilities within Buckinghamshire, as part of the plan process it was deemed that the most sustainable option for Buckinghamshire would be the provision of a SWC at Calvert Landfill Site, with supporting infrastructure at High Heavens Waste Complex and London Road, Amersham. The site has been allocated and therefore it is accepted in principle, subject to satisfying the criteria identified in the policy and other factors which are specific to the proposal.
Waste Tonnages
169 The application before us seeks planning permission for a WTS to serve up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The applicant sets out that this would comprise approximately 40,000 tpa of MSW from household collections in the Districts of
Chiltern and South Bucks, as well as up to 10,000 tpa of C&I waste from Buckinghamshire and beyond.
170 Many objections have been received from both consultees and members of the public with regard to the proposed tonnages and whether a facility of this scale is necessary. The figures set out in Policy CS9 of the MWCS make it clear that there is an outstanding need for a facility to treat MSW and C&I within Buckinghamshire, which the proposed development would contribute towards.
171 According to the Waste Tonnage Flows published by the County Council’s Waste Management Team, the estimated figure of MSW from CDC and SBDC for 2013/2014 was 38,546 tonnes. The WTS is proposed to serve CDC and part of SBDC and therefore the appropriate figure is 28,251tonnes (CDC + 50% SBDC – see the table below). Based on an estimate of 28kpa of MSW, the proposed capacity of the proposed WTS of 50ktpa would allow for an additional 22ktpa, of which 10ktpa would be C&I and 12ktpa is contingency. This contingency of 12ktpa is considered acceptable given the uncertainties in predicting waste streams particularly those relating to C&I and that it would provide some contingency in the event that the High Heavens WTS was unavailable for any reason.
CDC & CDC & All 3 CDC SBDC WDC 50% SBDC Districts SBDC Actual figures 20,757 20,875 42,324 41,632 31,194 83,956 for 2012/13 Estimate for 17,956 20,590 38,416 38,546 28,251 76,963 2013/14 Estimate for 16,785 17,293 37,106 34,078 25,431 71,184 2025/26 Table 1: Predicted Waste Tonnages as taken from BCC Waste Management Waste Tonnage Flows dated 22 January 2014.
172 Questions have also been raised by objectors as to whether this need can be met by the already permitted WTS at High Heavens. The High Heavens WTS has planning permission for 130,000 tpa (70ktpa MSW, 60ktpa C&I), which allows for the receipt of MSW from Wycombe, South Bucks, HWRC wastes and C&I wastes. In addition, it would provide sufficient contingency to also receive MSW from Chiltern District, which it would be required to do during planned or emergency maintenance or during other periods of downtime at the proposed LRE facility. Likewise, the proposed LRE facility would provide contingency for downtime at the HH facility, although to a lesser extent due to the lower capacity.
173 Therefore, it appears that the facility at High Heavens would have the capacity to provide contingency measures for the proposed WTS at LRE, it could comfortably receive all of the MSW generated within Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks District. Whilst this is proposed as a short term solution, it is not appropriate to provide for the long-term needs of southern Buckinghamshire, mainly due to the potential environmental impacts involved in transporting waste in small RCV’s from the furthest parts of South Bucks and from Chiltern District. This would not be in accordance with the proximity principle (NPPW) and the general principles of sustainable development.
C&I Waste
174 Lastly, questions have been raised by objectors as to whether the County Council should provide waste management facilities for C&I waste at all and whether this facility would actually serve C&I waste as more than ancillary.
175 As the Waste Disposal Authority, the County Council has a responsibility to provide sufficient facilities for the treatment and disposal of MSW for the equivalent amount of waste generated within Buckinghamshire, this is known as net self-sufficiency. As such BCC Waste Management Team have a contract with FCC Environment Buckinghamshire Ltd (FCCB) in relation to the Greatmoor EfW and up to two WTS’s. The contract requires a minimum tonnage from BCC of 100,000 tonnes per annum, it is the intention that the remainder of the 292,500tpa capacity would be provided by third party waste, which could be MSW from neighbouring authorities as well as from C&I sources
176 As Waste Planning Authority, the County Council has a requirement to determine planning applications which fall within their remit, which includes applications for minerals and waste development.
177 Therefore, in the capacity as Planning Authority, the County Council must determine the application before us on its merits, which is for a WTS to serve both the MSW and C&I waste streams. As discussed above, Policy CS9 of the MWCS sets out the waste management capacity requirements of Buckinghamshire, which include for the MSW, C&D and C&I waste streams. This policy states that there is a need for 453,000 tonnes of additional C&I waste capacity, of a total of 956,000 tonnes, by 2026. According to these figures, C&I waste comprises some 47% of the total amount of waste to be managed within Buckinghamshire. Policies CS11 and CS12, which specifically refer to the SWC at Calvert Landfill Site and the allocated WTS’s at High Heavens Waste Complex and London Road, Amersham, do not make mention of the waste streams that they are intended to serve. However, the supporting text to Policy CS12 states that “although some residual commercial wastes may also use the allocated WTS facilities, it is expected that the majority of these wastes will be bulked at existing commercial WTS’s or direct delivered to the SWC at Calvert Landfill Site.” It is my understanding that C&I wastes that are bulked at source would be direct delivered to the EfW at Calvert, as well as those that originate from within a close proximity to Calvert. However, any C&I wastes generated within closer proximity to either of the WTS’s would likely travel to High Heavens or London Road, whichever is the closest, for bulking and onward transfer to Calvert. At the current time, such contracts have not been agreed and therefore it is impossible to provide the exact sources and tonnages for this waste stream, however, in order to comply with the proximity principle and to reduce travel times, costs and environmental impacts, the County Council and FCC would encourage that wastes be delivered to the nearest appropriate facility wherever possible. Further, the application states that the development would receive circa 10,000 tpa of the total 50,000 tpa to be transferred, just 20% of the total throughput. I appreciate the objectors view that with a lower anticipated MSW, the C&I element would rise. If planning permission is granted, it is recommended that a condition to limit the total throughput of the facility to 50,000 tpa be placed on the consent.
Scale of WTS Building
178 The WTS building is proposed to measure 55m x 30m and 10.4m high, which is a reduction from the 2011 application (60m x 34m and 11.9m high). The building has been designed to accommodate the 50,000 tpa proposed throughput and the size of
vehicles which it is proposed to serve. The overall height of the building has been designed to provide internal clearance requirements for the safe operation of internal equipment, including the minimum height clearances for tipping vehicles and for the loading shovel. The width of the building is partly set by the size of the bulking bays required to store the waste, to provide sufficient space for the manoeuvring of vehicles and to provide a sufficient number of doors for vehicles to deliver and collect the waste.
179 Further, the WTS must accommodate multiple vehicles at the same time, including RCV’s delivering waste and bulkers collecting waste, hence 5no. vehicular access doors and the length of the building. Allowing multiple vehicles to deposit/collect waste at the same time, increases the efficiency of the facility, reduces queuing within the site and therefore reduces the chances of queuing onto the access road, and reduces the amount of waste being stored within the building overnight.
180 Whilst the size of the WTS building has reduced between the 2011 application and this application, the scale of the reduction may not be considered to be directly proportional to the reduction in the tonnage proposed. This is because such a facility has a minimum scale required to operate effectively, in other words, a facility with a throughput of, for example, 10,000 tpa would still need to accommodate the size of vehicle entering the building, allow for multiple vehicles , provide an operational area for turning vehicles, provide welfare facilities and weighbridge facilities and landscaping features etc. The applicant considers that the smallest scale that the proposed development could viably operate is as reflected in the application before us. The applicant also states that the scale of the development is largely in keeping with similar examples elsewhere, as set out below:
- Amersham (this application) - 50,000tpa; 55m x 30m (1650m2); 8.4m to eaves - Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire – 60,000tpa; 65m x 30m (1950m2); 12m to eaves - Greengairs, North Lanarkshire – 60,000tpa; 60m x 40m (2400m2); 10m to eaves - Bayley St, Tameside – 80,000tpa; 60m x 40m (2400m2); 10.5m to eaves - Fernhill, Bury – 110,000tpa; 62m x 42.5m (2635m2); 10.5m to eaves
181 Based on the proposed throughput, the required clearance for vehicles and equipment, and the comparable dimensions of other similar waste management facilities, the proposed WTS building is of an appropriate size and scale.
Conclusion to Need and Principle
182 Policy CS9 sets out the additional waste management capacity needs within Buckinghamshire up to 2026 for MSW, C&I and C&D waste streams. The tonnages anticipated for MSW and C&I make it clear that there is a need for additional waste management facilities within the County. Further, Policy CS12 allocates the site at London Road, Amersham as being required for a WTS to serve the EfW at Calvert. Despite increased recycling rates, the predicted waste tonnages for the southern Districts indicates that there is a need for a transfer facility for approximately 28,251tonnes of MSW, with additional capacity being provided for C&I waste (for which accurate predictions is not available) and contingency allowing for increases in house building, uncertainty in tonnages and to provide capacity for downtime at the High Heavens WTS.
Green Belt
183 The proposed development site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, which covers 88% of Chiltern District. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Green Belt serves five purposes: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
184 The 2011 application was refused on four grounds, one of which was conflict with Green Belt policy, as it was considered that:
“The development would be inappropriate in and would affect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt …The applicant has not demonstrated that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Very special circumstances do not therefore exist to justify making an exception to these policies;”
185 Since the determination of the 2011 application, the MWCS has been adopted, for this reason and as the most up-to-date policy document which forms part of the Development Plan for the area, its policies must be given significant weight.
186 In line with the NPPF, Policy CS20 of the MWCS relates to the protection of the Green Belt, stating that:
“Waste management facilities in the Green Belt that would conflict with the purposes of designation will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated there are no suitable alternatives sites in Buckinghamshire beyond the Green Belt and that very special circumstances exist to necessitate their siting within the Green Belt.”
187 This approach is consistent with national policy as set out in NPPF. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence (paragraph 79 of the NPPF). Openness means the absence of buildings or development1. The NPPF states that if the proposed development constitutes ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt it is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. Substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Further, any development within the Green Belt must be designed to minimise its impact on the openness of the Green Belt in terms of design, scale, nature and location.
188 The proposed development of the site for a Waste Transfer Station, which includes the construction of new buildings, is regarded within the NPPF as inappropriate development within the Green Belt and is not one of the listed exceptions. However, Policy CS12 of the MWCS, specifically allocates the sites at High Heavens and London Road, Amersham (the site of the proposed development) as being required for WTS’s to serve the SWC at Calvert. Therefore, Policy CS20 sets out:
1 Timmins v. Gedling [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin) at paragraph 26. The judgment was upheld in the Court of Appeal
“Exceptionally, Waste Transfer Stations will be permitted within the Green Belt at High Heavens Waste Complex and London Road Depot, Amersham in order to deliver the county’s waste strategy as set out in Policy CS12 – Essential Infrastructure to support the Strategic Waste Complex (SWC) at Calvert Landfill Site.”
189 The use of the word “exceptionally” means it is a listed exception to the requirement in the first paragraph under “Waste” of Policy CS20. Further, as the site is allocated within Policy CS12, the use of the site as a WTS despite its location within the Green Belt has been accepted in principle. Both Policy CS12 and CS20, have been thoroughly tested through the Plan process, including via an Examination in Public, which includes consideration of the views of both the public and Council by the Planning Inspector, and which culminated in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy being adopted in November 2012.
190 Chiltern District Council object to this application on several grounds, including Green Belt. They acknowledge that the site is allocated within the Core Strategy at CS20 and refer to Policy CS12 regarding “Essential Infrastructure”. However, they go on to comment that they do not consider the proposed development to be “an essential facility”, because the 50,000 tpa capacity is “considerably larger” than necessary. They quote the combined tonnage of MSW from Chiltern District and half of that from South Bucks District (as proposed) as 28,251 tpa, which is taken from Waste Tonnage Flows from the BCC Waste Management Team estimated for 2013/2014. CDC highlights the statement within the MWCS regarding the majority of C&I waste being direct delivered to the Greatmoor EfW and therefore they conclude that this facility is not “essential” and therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt. CDC’s response goes on to say that the development would have a severe detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt, that very special circumstances are not made out as other considerations are not sufficient to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm and therefore that the development is contrary to policy.
191 The issue of the proposed capacity of the WTS is discussed above and whilst CDC is correct in the tonnages quoted and C&I waste being predominately delivered direct to Greatmoor EfW, there is contingency built into the proposed throughput and a justified element of C&I waste. In terms of “essential infrastructure”, the proposed development is listed within Policy CS12: Essential Infrastructure to support the Strategic Waste Complex, and therefore has been identified as being essential infrastructure for the purposes of that policy.
192 It is also necessary to take into consideration, Green Belt policy contained within the Chiltern District Council Local Plan, the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (both part of the development plan) and within the NPPF (a material consideration).
193 Policy CS1 of the CDCS states that Chiltern District aim to protect the AONB and Green Belt by focussing new development on land within existing settlements not covered by those designations. The supporting text refers to the development needs of the District being met without encroaching into undeveloped parts of the Green Belt.
194 The policies of this plan focus primarily on District level developments, such as for new housing.
195 CDCLP Policy GB2 (Development in General in the Green Belt) states that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and there is a general presumption
against such development. The proposed development is not a listed exception as set out within Policy GB2 as it is a new building and not considered one of the listed essential facilities, and it would not conserve or maintain the openness of the Green Belt, its most important attribute. The development is considered contrary to this policy and therefore, it is for the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify why such development should be permitted.
196 In similar terms to the CDCLP, the NPPF, sets out the protection afforded to Green Belt land, stating:
“The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.”
197 It also reiterates past National Green Belt Policy in paragraph 87 by stating that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”
198 Paragraph 88 states that substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
199 The proposed development includes the construction of new buildings, which is defined within the NPPF as inappropriate, unless it falls within one of the exceptions listed in paragraph 89. This includes:
“Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use…which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it…”
200 This requires consideration of whether the proposed development site is ‘previously development land’, which is defined within Annex 2: Glossary of the NPPF as:
“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.”
201 The applicant acknowledges that the site is not previously developed land as defined within the NPPF. The historical assessment of the site carried out by the applicant indicates that part of the site was used as sewage works with filter beds from circa 1925 to the early 1960’s. Environment Agency records show that the entire site, as well as the wider Depot, was used as landfill prior to 1978 and the Depot and HWRC have been used for other forms of waste management use. The EA confirm that the site lies on a historic landfill. Beyond this the details of the sites history are unclear. The site is now scrubland with mature boundary vegetation, it cannot be confirmed whether ‘provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures’, although if it has, it has been very poor quality. It is acknowledged that
the site has a history of past development, including landfill and sewage treatment, however it doesn’t fall within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ as set out in the NPPF. Therefore, it does not fall within the last of the listed exceptions within paragraph 89 of the NPPF.
202 The proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, in that it involves the construction of a new building, which is not a listed exception. It is also necessary to consider whether the development would result in harm to the Green Belt or any other harm.
203 As the proposed development involves the development of the site for waste transfer, which includes the construction of a building measuring 55m by 30m and 10.4m in height, there would be an impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. It is considered that such an impact would be minimised by the layout of the site, design of the development, the existing characteristics of the site and proposed mitigation such as additional landscape planting, however, this does not remove the harm that such a structure will have on the Green Belt’s openness.
204 As discussed above, the proposed development is inappropriate and will result in harm to the Green Belt in terms of openness, therefore should not be approved unless ‘very special circumstances’ exist in that harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. The applicant argues that very special circumstances exist, including: • The lack of suitable allocated non-Green Belt sites in southern Buckinghamshire; • The requirement to find locations for waste management facilities well related to the source of waste arising’s; • The characteristics and availability of the site; and • The wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for this facility in line with MWCS policy objectives.
205 These issues, among others, are discussed below.
Alternative Sites – The applicants “lack of suitable allocated non-Green Belt sites”
206 The applicant is correct in the fact that, apart from the site at High Heavens Waste Complex, there are no other allocated sites in southern Buckinghamshire. The more relevant point to address is whether there are any suitable alternative sites outside of the Green Belt, not just those that may be allocated.
207 Various assessments of alternative sites have been carried out during the course of the Core Strategy Plan process and in the preparation of the 2011 planning application and 2014 planning application (the application considered here) for submission. The most recent of these Alternative Site Assessments was that carried out by RPS in March 2014 with an addendum study carried out in June 2014 (summarised in Chapter 6, full report in Appendix 6.1 and 6.2 of the Environmental Statement), ahead of the submission of this application. The RPS studies culminate in an assessment and comparison of 45 sites, and which conclude that the London Road site compares equally or favourably against the other 4 shortlisted sites and that no site was considered to be significantly better particularly with a view to the sites availability and deliverability together with the fact that it is allocated in an adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy for the intended use. Chapter 6 of the ES sets out an assessment carried out by Wardell Armstrong (WA) of the 5 short-listed sites from the RPS study. There is an element of subjectivity about such a process,
which both RPS and WA have tried to reduce in their methodology, however it could be argued that the development site is not favourable to the remaining 4 sites, as concluded within the WA assessment, but as RPS concluded, the sites are relatively equal, each having their own benefits and dis-benefits. This process proves that there may be other sites available with equal merits to the development site, but that they are not allocated within the Development Plan and therefore are not afforded the same support in planning policy terms.
208 Of the 5 sites short-listed by the applicant, three are located in the Green Belt. The two sites on Raans Road, Amersham are located outside of the Green Belt. Whilst the Site Assessment Matrix within Chapter 6 of the ES, states that there are restrictions in terms of access due to a railway bridge and parking on Raans Road reducing the access to one lane. The railway bridge does provide sufficient clearance for the size of HGV proposed and therefore I do not believe that these issues alone rule these sites out, however they are also limited in terms of their size, both being less than 1ha. These sites do provide an opportunity for waste management use, however, they have constraints, and therefore do not provide a practical or realistic alternative.
Proximity Principle
209 The applicant refers to the requirement to find locations for waste management facilities well related to the source of waste arising’s, as a very special circumstance to justify an exception to Green Belt policy being made. The proximity principle, meaning waste being treated in the nearest appropriate facility, is supported through National Policy (NPPW). The proposed development would indeed allow for the bulking of locally collected MSW, which would then be transported more sustainably for treatment with the Greatmoor EfW. It would serve the southern Counties of Buckinghamshire and allow for Buckinghamshire’s MSW to be treated within a facility located within the County. Notwithstanding, there would be an element of C&I waste that may be transported from outside of the County boundary.
The characteristics and availability of the site
210 Although the site does not accord with the definition of ‘previously developed land’ in the NPPF, the applicant rightly points out that it has a history of waste and other uses, and it doesn’t appear to have been formerly restored (or certainly not to a high standard or for any obvious afteruse). The site is also located within a wider Depot, which includes a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC), Highways Depot and other industrial and waste uses. It is also well screened by existing vegetation and would therefore not result in detrimental impacts in terms of visual amenity.
Wider Environmental and Economic Benefits
211 The wider environmental benefits associated with the diversion of waste from landfill, include a reduction in the release of greenhouse gases which have a significant affect in terms of climate change. In addition, the proposed development would provide supporting infrastructure to the Greatmoor EfW, which falls within ‘energy recovery’ on the Waste Hierarchy, and is therefore supported by the NPPW.
212 The proposed use of two WTS’s to serve the EfW at Calvert would also provide a reduction in the waste miles travelled if waste were to be direct delivered.
Need
213 There is a clear need for additional waste management facilities within Buckinghamshire to meet the additional capacity requirements of 223,000 tonnes of MSW and 453,000 tonnes of C&I waste by 2026, as set out within Policy CS9 of the MWCS. Further, Policy CS12 allocates the site at London Road for a WTS and Policy CS20 makes an exception for a WTS at the development site.
Allocated Site
214 As set out in the case of Veolia v Secretary of State [2015] EWHC 91, such very special circumstances can, and in this case do, include the fact that the site has been allocated for use as WTS, and that the suitability of the site for use as a WTS has been tested and found to be acceptable through the MWCS process.
Harm
215 Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states:
“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reasons of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
216 The proposed development includes the construction of buildings, the largest of which is the WTS building, which measures 55m x 30m and 10.4m high. As set out within the NPPF, new buildings are considered inappropriate, unless they fall within one of the listed exceptions in paragraph 89. As explained above, the proposed development does not fall within one of the listed exceptions and is therefore considered inappropriate development, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. Further, the development is considered to have an impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.
217 In terms of harm to the Green Belt, consideration must also be given to other harm, i.e. landscape character, adverse visual impact, noise disturbance, adverse traffic impact. Whilst the proposed development includes a large scale building, it is not considered to have a detrimental effect in terms of landscape character or visual impact. This is mainly due to the sympathetic design, proposed layout, the nature of the site and proposed mitigation measures. Likewise, potential impacts associated with noise disturbance are anticipated to be sufficiently minimised by noise mitigation, including restricted hours of operation and the construction of acoustic fencing and an acoustic bund.
218 The traffic and highways impacts have been assessed within the ES (see Chapter 13) and whilst the development would result in additional HGV movements onto the highway network, it is not considered that these movements would be sufficient to cause detrimental impacts upon the highway or its users, or to the amenities of local receptors.
219 The harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, is given substantial weight. However, it is clearly outweighed by other considerations, as set out above, and therefore very special circumstances exist.
Green Belt Conclusion
220 The proposed development accords with Policy CS20 of the MWCS in that it is for a WTS at London Road, Amersham, which is a listed exception. The development does not comply with Policy CS1 of the CDCS, as it does not lie outside of the Green Belt. The proposal is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as set out within Policy GB2 of the CDLP and paragraph 87 of the NPPF, and is not a listed exception, however it is considered that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations and that very special circumstances.
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
221 The development site lies within the Chilterns AONB, which covers over a quarter of Buckinghamshire and 72% of Chiltern District. It extends across the centre of the county, stretching from the River Thames in southern Oxfordshire, up through Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire to Hitchin in Hertfordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which applies when determining this application, provides at Section 85(1) that “a relevant authority” is to have “regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty”. The County Council is a relevant authority and the duty applies when determining this planning application. This duty is also reflected in the relevant policies of the MWCS, CDLP, CDCS and NPPF.
222 The development site forms part of a wider ‘depot’, which includes other waste management and industrial facilities, including a Household Waste Recycling Centre. As such, it is allocated for the development of a WTS within Policy CS12 of the MWCS, “Essential Infrastructure” required to support the SWC at Calvert Landfill Site. The supporting text to Policy CS12 (paragraph 5.57) states “in view of the sensitivity of the location of London Road Depot, Amersham and High Heavens Waste Complex within the Chilterns AONB and Green Belt, the design and layout of each site must ensure that the aims of the AONB relating to protection and enhancement of its character and appearance are not compromised. In this respect, the proposals will need to be consistent with Policy CS21 – Chilterns AONB and also take full account of the objectives of the Chilterns AONB Management Plan, including securing opportunities, where possible, to ensure better integration of each site within its landscape setting. Proposals will also need to comply with Policy CS23 – Enhancement of the Environment, which seeks contributions towards features such as wildlife corridors, attractive landscapes, open spaces and recreational routes for the benefit of local communities.” This is discussed in detail below.
223 Whilst Policy CS21 of the MWCS sets out the general rule that proposals that conflict with the purposes of designation will not be permitted in the AONB, it goes on to list the development site as an exception to that rule:
“Proposals for waste development that would conflict with the purposes of the designation will not be permitted within the Chilterns AONB.
224 Exceptionally, Waste Transfer Stations will be permitted within the Chilterns AONB at High Heavens Waste Complex and London Road Depot, Amersham in order to deliver the county’s waste strategy as set out in Policy CS12- Essential Infrastructure to support the Strategic Waste Complex (SWC) at Calvert Landfill Site.”
225 Therefore, despite its location within the AONB, the development of the site for a WTS has been accepted in principle, as it is considered to be necessary to support
the SWC. The remainder of Policy CS21 refers to “other proposals” and is therefore not relevant to the proposed development, however, the supporting text at paragraph 6.29 states that the “design and layout of each site must respect the character and appearance of the Chilterns AONB, including securing opportunities, where possible, for better integration of each within its landscape setting.”
226 According to the Design and Access Statement (DAS), the development has been designed to be in keeping with other buildings within the site vicinity, with consideration to nearby receptors, the AONB, Green Belt and nearby Grade II Listed Building. The design process has taken account of the Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 and the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide. Whilst the operational requirements have dictated the design of the WTS building in terms of size and dimensions, the Design Guide has influenced decisions regarding materials, roof design and site layout. The positioning of the WTS building (the largest built aspect of the development) within the northeast of the site and its northeast-southwest alignment parallel to the A413 are in response to comments and objections raised with regard to the design of the site and WTS building in the 2011 application. Various materials and building designs were considered, including being taken to a public exhibition early in 2014. The final design taken forward to submission incorporates local red brick and cedar clad timber with a curved profiled metal roof. This finish has been designed to incorporate the features of a traditional agricultural barn within the Chilterns, including red bricks and dark timber. As mentioned above, following a request from the Chilterns Conservation Board, the semi- translucent ‘Reglit’ panels have been removed from the northwestern and southeastern elevations of the WTS building. The welfare building and weighbridge office would also be clad in the same materials. A green (wildflower) roof has been recommended by various consultees, although this has not been taken forward to the applicant, mainly due to cost implications and as it is considered the proposal provides a net benefit in terms of biodiversity and therefore a green roof is not necessary in this regard (this is addressed further below).
227 The scale of the building, including its height, have been reduced from the 2011 application, however they are dictated by the operational requirements of the facility, namely the throughput and the clearance requirements of the internal plant and machinery. The applicant also states that they are in keeping with the scale of the neighbouring buildings to the northwest.
228 The following points summarise the changes made to the design of the site and WTS building in particular from the 2011 application to the current proposal:
2011 application 2014 application Proposed throughput 85,000tpa 50,000tpa WTS building position Centre of the site Northeast part of the site WTS building orientation East-west Northwest-southeast WTS size 2,242m2 1,60m2 WTS dimensions 60m x 38m 55m x 30m WTS height 11.85m 10.4m Roof design Pitched Curved Number of vehicular doors 7 5 Colour of doors and roof grey Dark/black Table 2: Comparison of the main differences between the 2011 application and the 2014 (this) application.
229 To further integrate the development within its landscape setting, the site has been designed to minimise hard standing areas and improve and enhance the existing soft landscaping features of the site. Existing scrub and vegetation around the perimeter of the site would be retained and managed to enhance their biodiversity; additional infill planting with hazel, hawthorn and blackthorn would be undertaken; grassland and scrub outside of the operational area would be managed to maximise biodiversity; small wooded areas would be retained and enhanced using species such as Beech, Holly, Birch and Oak; the balancing pond would be planted with marginal vegetation to encourage invertebrates; grassland areas would be established and include wild flowers. These measures are proposed to increase the biodiversity of the area, strengthen links between the site and local wooded areas, and reflect the local landscape character.
230 The LVIA concludes that the visual impact on the AONB and on receptors, such as users of the Public Footpath / South Bucks Way, would be imperceptible to moderate adverse (not significant). It states that “the retention of existing vegetation, design of the building in accordance with the Chilterns Design Guide, together with the proposed screening bunds and additional planting mean that the development will not have a significant visual impact on the AONB and views would reduce in effect as mitigation planting matures.”
231 In accordance with the aims of the MWCS, the CDCS also aims to protect the Chilterns AONB by focussing new development outside of the AONB (Policy CS1). Policy CS22 sets out the principles to be followed in the Chilterns AONB, which include that all proposals must conserve and enhance the special landscape character, heritage and distinctiveness of the Chilterns AONB; and protect the setting of the AONB and safeguard views into and out of the area.
232 The supporting text states:
“While the designation of an AONB means that any development permitted should conserve and enhance the special landscape character of the area, its designation is not a block to all new development. It is accepted that there may be a case for limited development in, or occasionally adjacent to, settlements within the AONB to provide essential community facilities or infrastructure or affordable housing….Any development will be carefully controlled to ensure any impact on the landscape character is kept to the minimum.”
233 One of the reasons for refusal of the 2011 application was on AONB grounds. Whilst the Chiltern District Council response to this application acknowledges that the siting and appearance of the proposed WTS is an improvement to the previous application, they still consider that it is larger than is necessary, would not have the minimum impact necessary, it would neither conserve now enhance the special landscape character and high scenic quality of the AONB and that it has not been demonstrated that the size of the proposal is in the public interest.
234 The Chilterns Conservation Board, whilst recognising that changes have been made to reduce the scale of the building, have objected to the proposed development on numerous grounds (see above). During the consultation process, the applicant has responded to the Chilterns Conservation Board comments and made changes to the proposed development, including removing the Reglit translucent panels from the side elevations and opting for a darker colour for the roof and doors, which the Chilterns AONB Officer has welcomed, despite this he maintains his objection stating that the proposal fails to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the Chilterns
AONB and fails to increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB.
235 The proposed development is not considered to conserve or enhance the special landscape character of the AONB, however the development is for a facility that would serve the District and County in terms of waste management and is considered essential infrastructure within the MWCS (Policy CS12). As such, and taking account of its allocation with the MWCS and being a listed exception to Policy CS21, the principle of such a facility has been established and considered acceptable.
236 The AONB is a valued landscape and must therefore be protected and enhanced as set out with paragraph 109 of the NPPF:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils…”
237 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that ‘great weight’ be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, inter alia. Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major development in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. It goes on to say that consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: • The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; • The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and • Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The Need for the Development
238 The need for a WTS is recognised within the MWCS, in particular in the Waste Planning Strategy (at page 43) and in Policies CS9, CS12 and CS21, as discussed above. In national terms and as set out in the NPPW, there is an ambition to deliver sustainable development and resource efficiency by driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, this involves diverting waste from landfill and increasing energy recovery. The proposed development of a WTS would contribute towards this ambition as it plays its part in the strategic waste management of Buckinghamshire’s residual waste. The local economy may have a minor benefit in the development being permitted, in that it would provide opportunities for the local workforce during construction and operation. Whilst, if the development is refused, there would be a requirement for locally collected residual MSW to travel to an alternative site for bulking (potentially the High Heavens Waste Complex) or to direct deliver to the Greatmoor EfW, both of which would result in increased waste miles with the environmental and financial costs associated with that.
The Scope for Developing outside of the AONB
239 As stated within the CDCS, 72% of Chiltern District lies within the Chilterns AONB and 88% in Green Belt, therefore there is limited land available outside of both of these designated and protected areas for such a facility that would meet the needs of Chiltern District and South Bucks District (i.e. within the search area). Alternative
sites have been investigated through studies undertaken during the Core Strategy Plan process and during the preparation of the 2011 and 2014 applications. These assessments are summarised within Chapter 6 of the ES, which concludes that there are 5 sites of equal standing and that there is not one clearly favourable site above the development site. However, only two of the five sites are located within the AONB. Those that are located outside of the AONB are comparable to the development site in terms of other constraints, albeit they are not allocated within the MWCS.
240 I do not believe that the evidence provided within the application makes sufficient case for there being no scope to develop outside of the AONB.
Detrimental Environmental Effect
241 Despite the large scale of the development, particularly the WTS building, it is not considered that it would result in detrimental environmental effects, particularly when taking into account the nature and characteristics of the site; the sympathetic design of the built aspects; and the measures proposed to mitigate impacts such as visual, noise, odour and dust.
AONB Conclusion
242 The development does not accord with Policies CS1 and CS22 of the CSCS or with paragraph 109 and 115 of the NPPF, as it is located within the AONB and does not conserve, protect and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty. However, it does comply with Policy CS21 of the MWCS in that it is an exception set out within the policy. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that there is no scope to develop outside of the AONB. However, as set out above, there is a demonstrated need for the development and the potential environmental and amenity effects can be mitigated such that they are not considered to be significant. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist, including that it is allocated within the MWCS; the proposals are in the public interest; and therefore the requirements of paragraph 116 of the NPPF are satisfied.
Landscape and Visual Impact
243 Policy GC 4 of the CDCLP, states:
“Existing established trees and hedgerows in sound condition and of good amenity and wildlife value - together with any other existing landscape features of the site which are an important part of its character, such as ponds, should be retained and should be shown on the submitted plans.
“In appropriate cases, planning applications should include landscaping proposals suitable for the development proposed and the characteristics of the site, including details of any service runs and/or changes in ground level.
“Wherever possible the additional landscaping should enhance existing features of wildlife interest and planting should use native trees, shrubs, herbs or grasses where appropriate for the site.”
244 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application (see Chapter 9 of the ES). The LVIA includes an assessment of the proposed development in terms of potential impacts upon the landscape, its character and upon nearby sensitive receptors.
245 The LVIA considers that the overall magnitude of change within the landscape of the site is considered to be medium-to-high initially and therefore the level of effect moderate to substantial adverse (significant). It goes on to say that as the proposed landscape and biodiversity enhancements become established, this would have some positive offsetting effect and it is assessed that by year 5, the magnitude of effects would be at most medium and therefore moderate adverse (not significant).
246 Visual impacts were assessed at the following receptors, considered representation of the nearest sensitive receptors to the site: • Properties 1-4 London Road Cottages, • The Ivy House Public House, • Properties on Amersham Road (A413) south of the development site.
247 Visual impacts are assessed as being adverse but temporary during the construction phase. With regard to the operational phase, the LVIA states:
“The four properties, 1-4 London Road Cottages … are located between 50 to 95m to the north west of the main WTS building, and 90 to 100m to the north east of the site access. The properties are located on the busy A413 road and have existing views of the Chilterns District Council London Road Depot. Existing dense vegetation screens the HWRC located to the south southwest but a gap in boundary vegetation enables views into the northern area of the site to the southeast of the properties. Views from within the properties would be limited by the 4m high acoustic screen bund to very oblique views of the upper levels of the western edge of the WTS, with more direct views from the property gardens. The magnitude is assessed as initially medium and the overall effect moderate to substantial adverse (significant); once the proposed planting is established, by year 5 onwards, views would be predominantly limited to the roofline following leaf fall and the magnitude reduced to low-to-medium during winter and the overall affect moderate adverse (not significant).”
“… a number of other properties within 2km of the site may have upper storey views of the roof of the WTS, especially during the winter months, but views would predominantly be screened by intervening vegetation and/or built development so as not to be prominent. This includes nearby properties on Cokes Lane, The Ivy House Public House (Viewpoint 4 and Photomontage 3) and properties on Amersham Road (A413) south of the development site, none of which would have more than slight to moderate adverse (not significant) effects.”
“The [Public Rights of Way] most affected would be The South Bucks Way which is on the western site boundary (see Viewpoints 2, 3 and 5), however, due to the intervening vegetation screening views this path would only experience at most a medium to low magnitude of change and a moderate adverse (not significant) impact during the winter following construction; reducing to low magnitude and slight to moderate adverse (not significant) effect during the summer. Short-term construction impacts are assessed as low magnitude and slight to moderate adverse (not significant) should they take place during the summer, or, at most medium magnitude and moderate to substantial adverse (significant) should they take place following leaf fall.
“Users of the other PROW within the local area would not experience significant effects due to the existing intervening vegetation, topography and built form limiting views of the development.”
248 Mitigations measures, which are included within the proposed development, to minimise any potential landscape and visual impacts, include: • The relocation of the WTS • Design of the WTS building in accordance with the Chilterns Building Design Guide, particularly with regard to the materials used, shape of the roof and colour of the building materials • Lighting scheme designed to minimise impact on the surrounding area • Acoustic screen bund to be seeded and planted with a woodland understorey mix to mitigate visual impact of the WTS building and operational yard • Screening bunds to mitigate noise and light pollution • Screening provided by the existing boundary vegetation which would be reinforced. • Planting and ecological enhancements to increase biodiversity, strengthen links between the site and surrounding landscape, and provide a naturalistic setting to complement the proposed buildings and reflect the local landscape character.
249 The Landscape Officer raised no objections to the proposed development. The District Tree and Landscape Officer also raised no objections to the application provided that the existing vegetation around the boundaries of the site is largely retained and improved in accordance with the principles in the Landscape Management and Aftercare Plan.
250 Glimpsed views of the upper parts and roof of the WTS building are likely to be available from the A413 on the approach to and at the site access and potentially from the car park of the Ivy House. However, it is not considered that such views would be significant or prominent within the landscape setting, particularly when taking into account the proposed building materials and colours, the existing vegetation which provides significant screening of the site, and the proposed enhancement to the site planting.
251 With regard to the nearest residential receptors, namely 1-4 London Road Cottages, views of the site would be possible from the gardens, but views from inside the properties would be limited by the orientation of the property and its windows compared to the site. Views of the site would be towards the access road, weighbridge and car parking areas, rather than of the WTS building and operational yard. The northwest boundary of the site has substantial existing vegetation that would provide some screening of the development, further, the applicant proposes to enhance this planting and provide further screening by constructing a 4m high acoustic bund.
Landscape and Visual Impact Conclusions
252 The proposed development seeks to retain and enhance the existing boundary vegetation, introducing native species, thereby enhancing the biodiversity and providing additional screening benefits. The existing and proposed planting is considered to provide sufficient screening benefits to the proposed development. Once the proposed planting has become established, visual impacts upon nearby receptors are not anticipated to be significant and can be appropriately mitigated. Therefore, it is considered that the development is in accordance with Policy GC4 of the CDCLP.
Amenity Impacts
253 Saved Policy 28: Amenity, of the MWLP, seeks to protect the amenity of all those who may be affected by the proposed development and states that permission will not be granted where significant adverse levels of disturbance are likely to be generated.
254 Saved Policy 29: Buffer Zones, sets out the requirement for an “adequate buffer zone” to exist or be provided between the proposed development and neighbouring sensitive uses. This relates to the distance between the development and sensitive receptors, which in this case, include the residential properties on London Road, the closest of which is located immediately adjacent to the red line planning boundary of the development site and 50m from the waste transfer building. The supporting text of this policy refers to Supplementary Guidance Note 7, which is a material consideration, and refers to an indicative buffer zone for new permanent waste facilities of at least 250m for waste transfer. At the proposed development site, the imposition of a 250m buffer zone would render the site unusable, as it measures circa 185m x 205m. Considering the nature of the SPG being a material consideration and the complexities of waste facilities, I believe a buffer zone must relate to the development and the site specifics. In this case, whilst the distance between the site and receptors is small, the site has been designed to make best use of existing screening and mitigation; the layout has been designed with the amenities of receptors in mind; and mitigation measures have been incorporated which seek to reduce any potential amenity impacts as much as possible.
255 At paragraph 109, the NPPF states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability…”
256 Specifically relating to noise, paragraph 123 states:
“Planning policies and decisions should aim to: • Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; • mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; • recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and • identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”
257 The NPPW sets out criteria at Appendix B against which the suitability of sites proposed for waste management uses should be tested. In terms of amenity impacts, this includes the consideration of landscape and visual impacts; air emissions, including dust; odour; and noise, light and vibration. The application includes assessments on Landscape and Visual Impact, including lighting (chapter 9); air quality, including dust and odour impacts (chapter 15); and noise and vibration (chapter 14).
258 A large number of objections have been received with regard to impacts upon the amenities of nearby receptors, including the adjacent residential properties on London Road, Amersham Road and the surrounding area; users of the public footpath to the south of the site; users of the Harewood Golf Course; and users of the Ivy House Public House to the southeast.
Odour
259 The Air Quality Assessment states that there would be a moderate adverse odour impact to 4 London Road Cottages, that overall odour impact on surrounding area would also be ‘moderate adverse’ and therefore predicted to be significant. It concludes that further mitigation measures, including measures to minimise the time that waste is stored on site, would be required and would be set out within a best practice odour management plan. In addition, odour would be controlled and minimised via the Environmental Permitting process as regulated by the Environment Agency.
Dust
260 The development without mitigation is considered to have a negligible / not significant impact in relation to dust.
261 The construction phase dust assessment identified that: • The risk of dust soiling effects is classed as medium for earthworks and construction activities and low for trackout; and • The risk of human health effects is classed as low for earthworks, construction activities and trackout.
262 It is proposed that a dust mitigation plan will be written and implemented for the site, which would include measures as set out within the air quality assessment, including the dampening down of surfaces to minimise dust generation, avoiding dust generating activities in windy conditions; storage of materials away from sensitive receptors; use of a road sweeper where necessary.
263 During the operational phase of the development, all waste transfer would take place within the WTS building m which would be fully enclosed and contain a mist air system to ensure dust in controlled within the building. The air quality assessment concludes that the development would result in negligible dust impact at nearby receptors, however mitigation measures would be incorporated within a dust mitigation plan. Further, the operations would require an Environmental Permit from the Environmental Agency, which would seek to control and minimise the generation and release of dust.
Road Traffic Emissions
264 The assessment indicated that roads across the local network would not be ‘affected’ by the proposed development in terms of road traffic emissions, due to the number of movements proposed.
Noise
265 The Noise Assessment submitted with the application (see Chapter 14 of the ES) concludes that the activities carried out during the earthworks and construction phase would have the potential to generate short term increases in noise levels above the recommended noise limits. Given the small distances between the site and the
nearest sensitive receptors, some receptors may experience minor adverse noise and vibration impacts in the short term, albeit they would be temporary and only for short periods. Mitigation measures to minimise these impacts would include restrictions on working hours, the implementation of temporary screening and best working practice and would be likely to reduce such impacts to an acceptable level.
266 During the operational phase of development, the noise assessment concludes that with the construction of a 4m high bund along the northwestern boundary of the site and a 2m high close boarded fence along the length of the access road, the noise levels would be negligible.
267 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO), who advises on issues including those relevant to amenity, has not raised an objection to the application, but recommends that conditions are attached to any forthcoming planning consent to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and the environment. These conditions include a noise management plan; an odour management plan; dust and odour suppression; dust action plan; surface water drainage scheme; contaminated land assessment and remediation scheme; and they recommend the use of a green (bio) roof.
Amenity Conclusion
268 Measures have been designed into the proposed development to mitigate potential impacts associated with noise, dust and odour. In addition, the Environmental Permitting Regulations provide the Environment Agency with sufficient control in terms of such potential impacts. With regard to this, the NPPF states that “local planning authorities should focus in whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes.” Therefore, subject to appropriate conditions being placed on any forthcoming planning consent, including those recommended by the EHO, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of potential amenity impacts and is therefore compliant with policies CS22 of the MWCS, GC3 and GC7 of the CDCLP, Policy 28 of the MWLP, the NPPF and the NPPW.
Impacts on the Setting of the Ivy House, Grade II Listed Building
269 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is to be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The effect of section 66 (1) is that decision makers should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings when carrying out any balancing exercise. Where it is found that a proposed development would harm the setting of a Listed Building it must give that harm considerable importance and weight. The finding of harm to the setting of a Listed Building gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted. That presumption can be outweighed if there are material considerations powerful enough to do so.
270 In this case, the first step is to consider whether the proposal would affect the setting of the listed Ivy House. If it would, consideration must then be given to whether it would cause harm to the significance of the Ivy House as a heritage asset and to what degree. If the harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial harm’, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, as set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
271 Policy CS18: Protection of Environmental Assets of National Importance of the MWCS, refers to the protection of environmental assets of national importance, which includes Listed Buildings. It requires that developments do not lead to a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance, intrinsic environmental value or setting of Listed Buildings. Likewise, at paragraphs 128 and 129, the NPPF sets out the requirement for consideration to be made to any impacts of a proposal on the significance of any heritage assets, including their setting. Paragraph 132 goes on to say that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, also stating that significance can be harmed or lost through development within its setting.
272 As set out within the Cultural Heritage chapter of the ES, in light of the previous uses of the site and the information obtained from geotechnical investigations, it was considered that the site has almost no potential for the presence of previously undisturbed archaeological deposits. Therefore, focus is given to potential impacts of nearby heritage assets and their setting and potential archaeological remains are not considered further.
273 The application site is located approximately 200 m to the northwest of the Ivy House Public House, which is a Grade II Listed Building. The Ivy House is located on the east side of the A413 London Road, facing southwest. According to the applicant’s Setting Study, which accompanies the planning application, the Ivy House was listed in 1982 as an “Early C19 public house of 2 storeys and 3 bays. Flint rubble and painted flint dressings to front elevation. Hipped slate roofed verandah to front of 5 bays on posts with shallow timber depressed arches, returned for one bay to flanks. Ground floor barred sash windows and central entrance. First floor pointed arched windows with barred casements and Y-tracery heads. End stacks and brick dressings to flank elevations. Two storey, 3 bay coach home in flint with brick dressings and cambered arched openings. Slate roof.”
274 Further the historical assessment has demonstrated that it is likely to have been a purposely built public house on a parcel of land, named the Slipe owned by John and William Weller, brewers of Amersham and occupied by William Montague. The building is prominent in views along the London Road. A beer garden is located to the south and a car park situated to the immediate north.
275 The proposed development would not directly impact upon the Listed Buildings, therefore this assessment will focus on the setting of the Listed Buildings.
276 The NPPF defines heritage significance as “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”
277 The Ivy House is considered significant by the District Historic Buildings Officer (HBO) as an early 19th Century road house, associated with the current route and surviving milestones of the Turnpike Road. The HBO considers the rural surroundings “form part of the historic setting and that they contribute to the historic character of the building, its aesthetic appeal and its viability as a public house.” The HBO considers the applicant’s assessment lacks consideration of the wider views of the Ivy House and the proposal site in association, and does not address the previously raised issue of harm to views of both from the roadway and footpath south of the Ivy House, and from the South Bucks Way footpath. Whilst she acknowledges the improved alignment of the building and the reduction in its size compared to the application submitted in 2011, she would welcome a further reduction in bulk. However, she believes that only the upper 2 to 3 metres of the gable would be visible
above the tree screen, therefore views of the development would be very limited. The HBO concludes that there would not be the same degree of visual harm to that which would have been caused by the 2011 application, nor the same potential to deter trade from the listed Ivy House pub and with appropriate conditions to control amenity impacts, the HBO does not see adequate reason to raise objection on listed building grounds.
278 Despite this, the CDC Planning Officer does raise such objections, on the basis that the proposed development would have “a harmful impact on the Ivy House as a leisure facility”. I do not consider that this objection is sufficiently supported, particularly considering the Planning Officers report to Committee on 30th October 2014 states at paragraph 12 “Notwithstanding that the building is larger than required, as a result of its revised siting and design, it is considered that the revised proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and no objections are raised in this respect. As such this previous objection has been overcome.”
279 The setting of the Ivy House includes the rural landscape, the A413 and existing development of residential properties, a golf course and waste management facilities within the London Road Depot, north and west of the development site. The HBO recognises that the buildings scale, alignment and design, along with screening proposed by existing and proposed planting, would result in limited views of the proposed development from the wider landscape setting of the Ivy House. There would be no views of the proposed development from the Ivy House itself, due to the orientation and aspect of the outward facing windows, nor from the garden, which is located to the south side. The only views of the proposed development from the Ivy House would be limited views from the raised car park on its north side. The relationship of the Ivy House with the important aspects of its historic setting, such as the A413 and the rural landscape would be unaffected.
280 Other potential forms of harm, in terms of noise, odour and traffic impacts, are not considered to be significant upon either the Ivy House itself; upon receptors using the Ivy House, either as a Public House or for accommodation; or upon the setting. Such impacts associated with the proposed development have been assessed and are presented within the Environmental Statement. Such issues are summarised above and are therefore not addressed in detail here.
281 The importance of the Ivy House as a Listed Building, viable local business and public serving facility including accommodation is widely recognised, as is its relationship with the surrounding landscape and its historic setting. Its significance is acknowledged within the applicant’s Setting Study and by the Historic Building Officer. Due to the existing nature of the development site and wider depot; the sympathetic design of the proposed facility; the proposed scale of the built aspects of the development; and the limited views that would be available of the facility from outside of the site due to the topography, existing and proposed landscape planting, it is considered that only slight changes would be made to the setting of the Listed Building and the historic landscape, which constitutes less than substantial harm.
Listed Building Conclusion
282 In summary, it is considered that the proposed development does affect the setting of the Ivy House Listed Building, albeit in minor terms. There is harm to the significance of the heritage asset, but it is considered that the harm is less than substantial, therefore paragraph 134 of the NPPF is engaged. As stated above, when carrying out the balancing exercise, considerable importance and weight must be given to the
desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building and therefore to the harm to be taken into account in the balance against public benefits.
283 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states: “Where a development proposed will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”
284 The development of the site for a WTS is proposed in order to provide a facility for the transfer and bulking of household collected residual MSW and C&I waste, for onward transport to the EfW facility at Greatmoor, Calvert in the north of the County. This WTS facility would form part of the County’s strategic waste management solution for MSW and C&I wastes, diverting waste from landfill, moving it up the waste hierarchy to energy recovery, helping meet the county’s targets for both and minimising greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the Ivy House Listed Building.
Traffic and Highways
285 Policy CS22 of the MWCS requires that applicants meet certain criteria, including:
“c) minimising the distance materials are transported by roads by transporting materials in more sustainable ways so as to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions taking into account factors such as residential amenity, proximity to demand, routeing agreements, choice of vehicles and bulking arrangement.”
286 Policy TR2 of the CDCLP states:
“With regard to the highway aspects of planning applications, proposed development should accord with the following principles if planning permission is to be granted: 1. Satisfactory access onto the existing highway network should be provided. Wherever possible, access should be taken from the lowest category of road appropriate to the development. In general, access will not be permitted onto the primary road network, or routes designated as “routes of more than local importance”. 2. The highway network in the vicinity of the development site should have the capacity to accept the additional flow of traffic generated by that development without significantly exacerbating any existing overloading or other traffic related problems. 3. Traffic of excessive volume, size or weight will not be accepted on unsuitable roads, including rural lanes or in conservation areas or residential areas. 4. Standards of road safety for all users should, at minimum, be maintained and where appropriate, improved.”
287 The NPPF states at paragraph 30 that:
“Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestions.”
288 At paragraph 32, it goes on to say that ”…decisions should take account of whether…safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people…Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”
289 All vehicles would access the site would use the existing access from the A413 London Road, which is part of the strategic road network. Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCV’s) would import household collected MSW from Chiltern and South Bucks Districts, as well as C&I waste from Buckinghamshire and beyond, using the local and strategic road network as appropriate. Bulkers would be used to transport the ‘bulked’ waste from the development site to the EfW at Greatmoor, Calvert, using the A413 to Aylesbury, the A41 towards Bicester, and the new access road to the EfW. This route could be controlled by the applicant entering into a suitable Legal Agreement and the imposition of conditions. Such an obligation would be directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
290 The following highways works are proposed: • A new access into the WTS would be created off the existing access road from the A413 to the HWRC. • The access road between the A413 and the HWRC would also be widened to provide three lanes, two lanes in (one for the WTS and one for the HWRC) and one lane out. • The kerb line on the northeast side of the access on the A413 would be widened to accommodate the swept path of HGV’s. • Box junctions would be marked on the access road close to the junction with the A413 and again where at the entrance to the WTS site, to prevent vehicles blocking access to other facilities within the depot. • A new footpath would be provided linking the WTS site with the bus stop on the A413. • Appropriate signage would be provided on the A413 and within the development site. • Parking provision for 8no. cars, cycle parking and parking for HGV’s
291 A Transport Assessment, included within the Environmental Statement, is submitted as part of the application. It sets out the vehicles movements associated with the development; makes an assessment of the proposed movements in relation to the capacity of the local highway; considers highway safety implications; details the proposed access arrangements and proposed highways improvements; and identifies mitigation measures where necessary.
292 The development is anticipated to generate an average of 34 RCV loads / 68 movements (typical payload of 5 tonnes) per day and 9 collection loads / 18 movements (HGV’s/ bulkers with typical payload of 21-25 tonnes). This gives a total average of 86 movements per day. Further, it is anticipated that the development would generate approximately 5 cars/light vehicles / 10 movements per day. The total number of two-way vehicle movements has reduced from 122 movements in the 2011 application, to 96 movements in this application.
293 The junction capacity assessment concludes that the impacts on the local highway network as a result of the proposed development would be negligible. The HGV impact during the construction stage is also considered to be acceptable, as the number of HGV’s accessing the site would be significantly less than during the operational life of the development and there would be no abnormal loads.
294 The TA assesses the capacity of the highway to accommodate the proposed number of vehicle movement associated with the development, taking into account growth factors.
295 The TA states that due to the nature of the development, the majority of trips to and from the site would be by HGV. However, sustainable modes of transport for employees commuting to and from the site are promoted in terms of pedestrian access, cycle access and public transport. In this regard, the development includes the provision of a footpath from the bus stop on the A413 to the site and the provision of cycle parking/store.
296 The accident data reviewed over a 5-year period in the vicinity of the site, indicates that there is no specific highway safety issue.
297 The County Highways Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development, although he has requested that some further detail be provided within the application, including the following:
298 The revised documents incorporate all of the requests from the Highways Officer and therefore he has no objections.
Footpath link
299 Opportunities were explored by the applicant for providing a link footpath between the existing Public Footpath 16/South Bucks Way and the A413, which could then link further with footpaths to the north. Discussions and an on-site meeting were held between the Applicant, their Agent, the County Planning Officer, County Highways Officer and County ROW Officer. Each option would require access over land which is not under the control of the applicant or BCC. These opportunities were investigated by the Applicant, including making contact with Third Party landowners to explore the opportunities for access across their land, however these enquiries were unsuccessful and therefore this opportunity cannot be progressed further at this time. The applicant is willing to assist the Council in providing a footpath alongside the A413, within the highway verge to the north of the site. The Council’s ROW officer does not consider this to be particularly beneficial as it doesn’t link to anything, but this can easily be achieved outside of this planning application as it would be on land under the BCC’s control.
Highways and Traffic Conclusion
300 Despite a large number of objections on transport and traffic issues, the Highways Officer has not raised an objection to the proposed development. The Transport Assessment sets out the anticipated number of movements associated with the development, which it concludes can be accommodated within the capacity of the local highway network and without detriment to highway safety. The proposed highways works are also acceptable to the Highways Officer and therefore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy CS22 part c), Policy TR2 of the CDCLP and paragraphs 30 and 32 of the NPPF.
Environmental Impacts
301 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, Section 40(1) states: “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”
302 Policy CS19 of the MWCS seeks to protect environmental assets of local importance, including Local Nature Reserves, Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, Local Wildlife Sites, locally important recreation and open spaces and waste resources. The
development site does not include any such designations. Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is an area of heath and broadleaved deciduous woodland located 9.3km from the site; Hodgemoor Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an area of ancient semi-natural broadleaved woodland, is located approximately 1.9km from the site; two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) (Brentford Wood and Roger’s Wood) and two Biological Notification Site (BNS) (The Larches and Pollards and Bailey Woods) are also located within 2km of the site. The Ecological Impact Assessment concludes that these are not anticipated to be affected during the construction or operational phases of the development due to the distance between them and the site.
303 Policy CS23 of the MWCS requires that proposals for minerals and waste development must incorporate measures to demonstrate, as appropriate: a) How existing biodiversity habitats will be enhanced, opportunities will be taken to increase biodiversity and contribute to wildlife corridors. Existing habitats are to be retained and enhanced and further enhancements made to biodiversity on site, including through new tree planting; grassland habitats, including wildflower species; log piles and compost heaps. A wildlife corridor is proposed along the southeastern boundary of the site; dark zones are proposed to be created; and bat and bird boxes erected. b) How the design and layout will ensure the positive integration of the site with the wider landscape. The WTS building has been located in the northeast of the site and orientated northwest-southeast along the line of the A413 London Road and the river valley. Existing mature vegetation would be retained and enhanced to provide a visual screen of the site and also allow the development to better integrate with the wider landscape. The design of the WTS in particular, including the roof design and use of materials and colours, have been selected with a view to enabling the development to blend into the site and wider setting, with the local context, site designations and wider landscape in mind. c) The retention of existing rights of way, or where not possible their diversion or replacement. In addition, consideration to opportunities for providing new routes. There are no footpaths on the site itself, although the applicant has given consideration to creating a new footpath which would link the South Bucks Way, to the south of the site, with the A413 and the footpaths to the north. Such a route would require the crossing of third party owned land, conservations with these landowners have been unsuccessful and therefore it is not possible to deliver the proposed link right of way at the current time. The applicant is willing to support BCC in providing a footpath along the northern boundary of the site. d) Consistency with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy, including creating green spaces and links with multi-functional benefits. No publically accessible green spaces would be created as part of this development, however, the landscaping scheme provides a wildlife corridor along the southeastern boundary of the site, which would be further enhanced by providing dark zones and bat and bird boxes.
304 Public Footpath 16 Amersham runs alongside the River Misbourne to the south of the development site in a southeast-northwest direction, this is also known as the South Bucks Way. Consideration is given within the LVIA to views from the footpath, which are considered to be medium to low magnitude as they would be partially screened. Whilst there may be intermittent views of the proposed development from some sections of the footpath, particularly in the winter months when leaf cover is reduced, this is not considered to be significant and therefore the development is not considered contrary to Policy CS19.
Ecology and Biodiversity
305 Policy CS24 of the CDCS refers to the aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity within the District, stating:
“The Council will aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity within the District. In particular • The Council will work with its partners to protect and enhance legally protected species and all sites and networks of habitats of international, national, regional or local importance for wildlife or geology. • development proposals should protect biodiversity and provide for the long-term management, enhancement, restoration and, if possible, expansion of biodiversity, by aiming to restore or create suitable semi-natural habitats and ecological networks to sustain wildlife. This will be in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plan as well as the aims of the Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and the Chiltern AONB Management Plan. • where development proposals are permitted, provision will be made to safeguard and where possible enhance any ecological interest. • where, in exceptional circumstances, development outweighs any adverse effect upon the biodiversity of the site and there are no reasonable alternative sites available, replacement habitat of higher quality”
306 An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been submitted with the application which sets out the baseline conditions, identifies and evaluates the ecological receptors, identifies potential impacts and their magnitude, and recommends mitigation measures where appropriate.
307 Following a desk-based assessment of the site and surrounding area, an extended Phase 1 habitat Survey and specialist surveys were undertaken, including for badgers, bats, red kites, reptiles and trees.
308 The woodland identified on site was considered of local importance as a ‘stepping stone’ within the local area which may enhance connectivity. The section of the River Misbourne adjacent to the site was considered of poor conservation value due to the lack of species richness along the banks and within the channel, however it is considered of County importance as it provides a valuable habitat corridor and has potential to support a diverse range of species. The Ecological Impact Assessment concludes that the site clearance and construction phase has potential to result in minor adverse impact upon the River Misbourne from increased siltation. During operations, increased runoff has the potential to result in increased pollutants, dust and siltation into the river. Measures to minimise any such impacts include the construction of a drainage swale and balancing pond, to be planted with species to encourage sediment drop out and filter nutrients. Refuelling of vehicles would occur off-site or within a designated area with spill interceptors or spill kits. Waste would be contained within the WTS building with drainage systems to ensure leachate is kept away from the water course.
309 Red Kites were identified within the wider survey area but were absent from site. During the reptile surveys, only 1 slow worm was recorded on the western edge of the site. No detailed survey was undertaken for invertebrates because habitats on site were considered of poor quality. The site is considered to be important, within the EcIA, for badgers, bats, reptiles and nesting birds.
310 It also states that the development would result in the loss and disturbance of badger setts, increased collision risk with roadways, loss of foraging habitat and the fragmentation of territories. Further, increased levels of lighting, human activity and levels of traffic during the operational phase have the potential to disturb badgers. This significant adverse impact would be mitigated by appropriate measures including the need for a licence from Natural England.
311 No bat roosts were identified during the surveys, although extensive suitable foraging and commuting habitats exist in the surrounding area. No bat roosts would be affected, however the central area of dense scrub, which provides foraging habitat, would be permanently lost. This minor adverse impact would be mitigated by the planting up of the swale and balancing pond, planting of tree species, planting wildflower species within the grassland habitat, lighting restricted to operational hours and the provision of dark zones.
312 The loss of reptile habitats has potential to harm individual reptiles and the loss of foraging and resting habitat and increased traffic have potential to disturb this species. A destructive hand search of the site would be undertaken by an ecologist and all suitable reptile refugia would be translocated to an alternative suitable location. Passive dissuasion techniques would be adopted, such as gradual strimming of the grassland to reduce the height of the habitat and gently encourage reptiles away from the construction area onto adjacent land. Such measures would take place under supervision and appropriate conditions. In addition, log/rubble piles would be provided and bankside habitats managed to encourage slow worm survival.
313 Nesting birds may be affected by the loss of nesting habitat (dense scrub and grassland), such clearance would be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season and the loss would be mitigated through the provision of nest boxes and landscape planting providing natural nesting habitat.
314 As set out above, in response to Policy CS23 part a), the existing habitats are to be retained, notably the boundary mature vegetation. This planting would be enhanced using native species and additional habitats would be created, including grassland habitats, including wildflower species; log piles and compost heaps. Bat bricks are proposed to be incorporated within the eastern elevation of the WTS building and bird boxes are also proposed be installed on site.
Water Environment and Flood Risk
315 Policy CS22 of the MWCS refers to design issues, as addressed in the design section below, as well as adverse effects on and from climate change, which relate to flood risk and the water environment, specifically parts:
b) ‘Climate proofing’ through resistance and resilience measures: Resistance has been designed in through appropriate SuDS measures.
d) Reduce flood risk: The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that there would be no significant increased risk of flooding as a result of the development on- or off-site.
e) Water environment: The development incorporates a SuDS scheme to mitigate against potential impacts. Waste water would be collected for treatment off-site. Only clean water would be discharged to the River Misbourne following attenuation and interceptors, at the greenfield rate.
316 Policy GC9 of the CDCLP states that the Council will not grant permission for any development likely to generate unacceptable levels of air, water or ground pollution or give rise to pollution problems resulting from the disturbance of contaminated land.
317 Policy GC10 states that the Council will not permit further development in areas at risk from flooding and goes on to say that it will not grant permission for development that would increase the risk of flooding downstream.
318 Policy GC12 states that any development which will detrimentally affect the character of the District’s rivers, will not be permitted.
319 The River Misbourne, which flows past the site adjacent to its southwestern boundary, is a Chalk stream with a porous bed. Chalk streams are rare and therefore this is an important resource. The EA’s online Flood Map shows the majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 1, which has a low annual probability of flooding from rivers (less than I in 1000). However, small sections of the site in the northwest (along the existing access road to the HWRC) and in the southwest (adjacent to the River Misbourne) as being located within Flood Zone 2 (defined as having a 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding) and Flood Zone 3 (defined as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of flooding). The development has been designed so that built aspects and hardstanding are constructed outside of the areas designated as in Flood Zones 2 and 3. In addition, any fencing proposed within floodplain areas would be designed to allow for the free flow of water.
320 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application (see chapter 12 of the ES), which assesses the risks of flooding of the site and the surroundings as a result of the proposed development and sets out the proposed drainage scheme. It is proposed that the existing access road and part of the new access into the WTS would drain into the public sewer, as the access road does currently. Following discussions with the EA the drainage scheme was amended to allow for the surface water from the operational yard to be treated as trade effluent and discharged to the public sewer. This is to mitigate any potential contamination issues. Trade effluent from inside the WTS building would also discharge to the public sewer. In addition, the EA have requested that conditions relating to water quality and drainage (see draft conditions above) be attached to any forthcoming planning consent, which would adequately control such issues. For this reason and the reasons set out above, it is not considered that the development would lead to significant adverse effects upon the character, appearance and intrinsic value of the features listed within Policy CS19.
321 Clean surface water would be attenuated on site using the proposed balancing pond and discharged to the River Misbourne at the greenfield surface water runoff rate, which is considered acceptable by the EA and Flood Team. The attenuation capacity has been designed for storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 year event, including a 20% allowance for climate change, thereby complying with Policy CS22 a).
322 The site is also located within Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 2 and 3 as designated by the Environment Agency. The designation of these zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area. SPZ2 and SPZ3 are the Outer Zone and Total Catchment respectively and therefore at lower risk than SPZ1.
323 A Thames Water public sewer bisects the site and would need to be diverted in consultation with Thames Water during the initial works.
324 The EA have raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions including that the development be carried out in accordance with the FRA, that a contamination risk assessment be carried out and implemented of any remediation measures be undertaken prior to commencement and a monitoring and maintenance plan.
325 The EA also highlight that it is for the planning authority to determine whether the sequential test is passed. Local plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development, as set out in the NPPF (at paragraph 100):
“Local Plan should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by…applying the Sequential Test…”
326 Paragraph 101 goes on to say “the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”
327 The Sequential Test has been passed for the development site, as set out within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Sequential Test Options Appraisal Report dated August 2011. It states “…there is sufficient land available within FZ1 on this site to enable development outside of FZ2. Sequential Test Passed.”
328 The Chiltern Society raise concerns with regard to potential contamination issues arising as a result of the development in terms of water percolating through the underlying fill of the former landfill. That is potentially the situation currently, as rainfall infiltrates into the ground, potentially picking up impurities from the landfilled material as it percolates down to the groundwater. The proposed development would not change this existing situation for the parts of the site to be retained as woodland, grassland or scrub, but it would ‘cap’ the parts of the site that would have buildings or hard surfacing constructed upon it. The drainage scheme provides for the collection of water upon hard surfaces, which is then discharged to the pubic sewer if effluent, or discharged to the River Misbourne via attenuation and interceptors if it is clean surface water. Therefore, reducing the amount of surface water that percolates into the former landfill.
Environmental Impacts Conclusion
329 Where possible identified habitats are protected and enhanced. In the long-term, the management plan sets out the measures for protection of the existing habitats to be retained and those new habitats proposed as part of the development scheme. Whilst it is disappointing that measures such as green (bio) roof have not been incorporated with the proposed development, the views of the County Landscape Adviser is that the scheme is acceptable, subject to conditions as set out above. The County Ecologist did not feel in a position to recommend approval in his initial formal response, however following discussions with the applicant and the submission of a Biodiversity Impact Assessment, he stated that he was satisfied that a biodiversity net-gain can be achieved without the green roof and he requested other aspects be controlled via condition.
330 Based on the lack of evidence of bat activity on site and the proposed mitigation measures incorporated within the proposed development, it is not considered that there would be any deliberate disturbance to bats within the meaning of Article 12(1b) of the Habitats Directive. Therefore Article 12 of the Habitat Directive is not engaged.
331 The built development would be located within FZ1, thereby within the area at least risk of flooding. Further, the development has been designed to minimise potential flood risk and contamination using sustainable drainage systems. It is considered that such issues can be suitably controlled by conditions, as recommended by the EA, County Flood Team and Affinity Water.
332 Therefore, it is considered that the development is compliant with Policies CS19, CS22 parts b),d) and e), and CS23 of the MWCS, Policy CS24 of the CDCS and Policies CS9, CS10 and CS12 of the CDLP.
Design
333 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, as set out within paragraph 56 of the NPPF. Paragraph 58 goes on to say:
“Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments…will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials…; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”
334 As highlighted within Natural England’s response, paragraph 64 of the NPPF, states:
“Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
335 Policy CS20 (Design and Environmental Quality) of the CDCS states that “the Council will require that new development within the District is of a high standard of design which reflects and respects the character of the surrounding area and those features which contribute to local distinctiveness.”
336 The applicant engaged with various consultees and the public in the early design stages of the development. Such engagement provided advice and feedback regarding issues on design, particularly relating to the size and shape of the WTS building, the building materials and colours, as well as relating to the proposed layout of the site.
337 The development has been designed to be in keeping with other buildings within the site vicinity, taking account of the visual impacts of the development on nearby residential properties, as well as the AONB, Green Belt and Grade II Listed Building. Improvements to the design of the site and WTS building in particular were made following the refusal of the 2011 application, such changes include the re-orientation of the WTS building, the scale of the building, the materials and colours, and the roof design.
338 As discussed above, the development has been designed with particular consideration to the AONB, taking into account the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide 2010, which provides guidance on ways in which the outstanding and distinctive qualities of the Chilterns AONB can be conserved or enhanced when building takes
place. This includes for new buildings, extensions, conversions, redevelopment and alterations to streets and public spaces.
339 Policy CS12 of the MWCS requires that a proposal for a WTS at London Road Depot satisfies the criteria as set out in Policy CS22 – Design and Climate Change. This policy sets out the requirement for proposals to include a high standard of design and minimise adverse effects on and from climate change, where relevant.
a) Minimising greenhouse gas emissions and pollution: The proposed development is for a WTS, used to bulk up waste materials for onward transport to the Greatmoor EfW facility at Calvert Landfill Site. The EfW treats residual waste and recovers energy from it. In being part of the infrastructure required to serve the SWC at Calvert Landfill Site, the development contributes to increasing the diversion of waste from landfill, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The potential effects in terms of noise, air and odour pollution at the development site can be mitigated as set out within the Environmental Statement and discussed above. b) ‘Climate proofing’ through resistance and resilience measures: Resistance has been designed in through appropriate SuDS measures. c) Minimising the distance materials are transported by road: The site is proposed to serve the local areas of Chiltern and South Bucks and is proposed to bulk waste materials for onward transport to the EfW at Calvert, in the north of the County, thereby reducing the waste miles travelled. The site is considered to be proximal to the waste streams it would serve and allows Buckinghamshire’s waste to be treated at a facility within the County. Vehicles transporting bulked waste north to Calvert would use the A413 and A41 and avoid the unnecessary use of local roads through villages. d) Reduce flood risk: The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that there would be no significant increased risk of flooding as a result of the development on- or off-site. e) Water environment: The development incorporates a SuDS scheme to mitigate against potential impacts. Waste water would be discharged to the sewer. Clean water would be discharged to the River Misbourne and only at an appropriate rate. f) Landscape scheme: The proposed planting includes native species such as hazel, hawthorn and blackthorn. g) Increasing biodiversity: The proposed landscaping scheme incorporates measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site, such as using native species; introducing wildflower grassland; creating habitats such as log piles and compost heaps; and providing bat and bird boxes. Wildlife corridors are provided, particularly along the southeastern edge of the site. Despite the applicant’s efforts, it is not possible to provide the proposed footpath link at this time. h) Massing and scale of buildings: The scale and massing of the WTS is dictated by the proposed throughput, operational requirements and internal clearance required by plant and machinery. The scale has been reduced from the 2011 application. i) Integration into the adjoining landscape: The development can be considered suitably located in terms of its neighbouring uses and despite it being located within the AONB and therefore an area of high landscape quality, the site itself and its immediate surroundings are not of such high quality. However, the development would be well screened by existing and proposed planting and through the layout, design and proposed materials would integrate well into the local setting. j) Sustainable design and construction: The applicant states that at the detailed design stage, the development would be designed to high standards, using
energy efficient materials and methods of construction. The design would minimise reliance on energy-using equipment, including for heating, cooling, lighting and natural ventilation. The ‘Reglit’ panels proposed within the southwestern elevation of the WTS would maximise the natural light entering the building, thereby making for a better working environment and reducing reliance on artificial lighting. k) Resilience and adaptation to likely effects of Climate Change: Resilience and adaptation are designed into the development through aspects such as the SuDS system, which would provide for sufficient attenuation of surface water including an allowance for climate change. l) This part relates to mineral sites and is therefore not applicable here. m) Renewable energy installations and/or biomass cultivation: The applicant states that it is not realistic to expect such installations for a development of this scale and the Minerals and Waste Policy Officer believes that such installations could only be small in scale.
340 As set out above, objections have been raised on the grounds of design, including from Chiltern District Council, Natural England and the Chilterns Conservation Board. The applicant has responded to the objections raised and, where possible, made amendments to the design of the WTS building including by removal of ‘Reglit’ panels, making changes to the colours of the doors and roof, and by matching the multi-brick.
Design Conclusions
341 The design of the development accords with the relevant guidance, including that contained with the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide, and with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS20 of the CDCS and Policy CS22 of the MWCS.
Further Legislative Considerations
342 Equality Act 2010, Section 149 states: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to- (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
343 The proposal would not have any disproportionate affect upon people with protected characteristics.
Conclusions
344 The proposed development for a WTS on the site at London Road, Amersham is consistent with the allocations made in the MWCS.
345 The development is compliant with MWCS Green Belt Policy. It is considered inappropriate development in accordance with the NPPF and CDLP, however it is considered that very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm.
346 The development is compliant with MWCS policy in relation to the Chilterns AONB. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that great weight be given to conserving the AONB: this development does not conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major development in the AONB except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest. Such exceptional circumstances exist in this case, and it has been demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.
347 Considerable importance and weight is to be placed upon the harm upon the setting of the Ivy House Grade II Listed Building, however it is considered to be less than substantial and that the public benefits of the proposed development are sufficient to outweigh such harm.
348 The amenity impacts associated with the proposed development can be mitigated such that they are not considered significant.
349 The potential environmental impacts are also suitably mitigated.
350 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that as a matter of policy there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The policies in paragraph 18-219 of the NPPF, taken as a whole constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practise for the planning system. This development contributes to all three dimensions of sustainable development namely economic, social and environmental and can be considered to be sustainable development as defined in the NPPF. As the proposals amount to sustainable development and accord with the development plan when considered as a whole, in particular it is consistent with Policies CS12, CS20 and CS21 of the MWCS, they should, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, be approved without delay, subject to the conditions as suggested above.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
These are available on the BCC or CDC website and/or in the Planning file:
Application CM/59/14 and accompanying Environmental Statement
Application CH/2011/60005/BCC and Decision Notice dated 31st July 2012
Consultations responses and representations and Applicants responses
Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2004 – 2016, adopted June 2006 (MWLP) – Saved Policies
Buckinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2016 – 2026, adopted November 2012 (MWCS)
Buckinghamshire County Council Mineral and Waste Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes, June 2006
Chiltern District Council Local Plan, September 1997, alterations May 2001, consolidated September 2007 & November 2011
Core Strategy for Chiltern District, November 2011
Chilterns Buildings Design Guide, February 2010