DOCSLIB.ORG

APP/L3055/V/09/2102006 26 May 2011 Dear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APP/L3055/V/09/2102006 26 May 2011 Dear Victoria Redman Our Ref: APP/L3055/V/09/2102006 Bond Pearce LLP 3 Temple Quay Temple Back East Bristol BS1 6DZ 26 May 2011 Dear Ms Redman, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77. APPLICATION BY VEOLIA ES NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LIMITED LAND AT FORMER RUFFORD COLLIERY, RAINWORTH, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG21 OET. APPLICATION REF: 3/07/01793/CMW 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, R W N Grantham, BSc(Hons), MRSC, MCIWEM, who held a public local inquiry which closed on 26 October 2010 into your client’s application for the construction and operation of a waste combustion/Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) together with ancillary infrastructure, including a waste bulking/transfer station, administration/visitor centre, landscaping and creation of new internal haul road, on land at the former Rufford Colliery, Rainworth, Nottinghamshire, NG21 0ET, in accordance with application reference 3/07/01793/CMW, dated 29 November 2007. 2. It was directed on 18 March 2009, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the application be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the relevant planning authority, Nottinghamshire County Council, because the proposal may conflict with national policies on important matters. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission be refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector's report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 4. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Information which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (IR6, IR45-46, and IR1095). The Secretary of State considers that the Christine Symes Tel: 03034441634 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU environmental information as a whole meets the requirements of these regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application. Matters arising following the close of the inquiry 5. Following the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State of State received representations dated 15 April 2011 from Nottinghamshire County Council, and 12 May 2011 from Veolia Environmental Services and Harworth Estates (supported by a number of other organisations). The Secretary of State has given very careful consideration to the issues raised in these representations, and he is satisfied that there is no need for him to refer back to parties for representations prior to reaching his decision. Copies of the representations are not attached to this letter, but will be made available on request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy considerations 6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan includes the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) (2009), the extant policies of both the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan (WLP) (2002) and the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (NSLP) (1999). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that relevant polices are those listed in the statement of common ground (with the exception that LP policies DD1, DD4, NE7, NE9, NE11, NE12, NE13 and PU2 have been replaced with publication of the Core Strategy) - key policies of which are set out in IR34-37. Since the inquiry closed the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (CS) has been adopted and also forms part of the development plan. The Secretary of State notes that issues relating to the CS have been addressed in the Inspector’s Report, and is satisfied that there have been no significant material changes to the document which would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties prior to reaching a decision. 7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the parties’ comments on the implications of the Cala Homes judgement of 10 November 2010 ([2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin)) relating to the status of RSSs do not introduce any relevant new evidence (IR12, 17 and CD119). Like the Inspector, he considers that the Government’s intention to revoke the RSS should be afforded limited weight given the stage of development it has reached in the Parliamentary process (IR1171). 8. Other material considerations include the national planning policy documents listed in section C of the IR documents list (see IR page 257), the waste strategy and legislation documents listed in sections D and F of the documents list, and documents relating to the Habitats and Birds Directives listed at IR54-56. Circular 11/95, Use of Conditions in Planning Permission, Circular 05/2005, Planning Obligations, and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, are also material considerations. 9. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the update to Planning Policy Statement 10, which was published on 30 March 2011. He does not consider that there has been any material change in those policies to the extent that it would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision. 10. Very little weight has been afforded to the Nottingham Waste Development Framework, and its Waste Core Strategy, for the reasons set out in IR38. 11. The Secretary of State has taken into account the principles set out in the documents referred to in IR54-90 in determining this application. Main Issues Nature conservation 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on nature conservation as set out in IR1097-1156 and IR1288-1289. For the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR1105-1106, the Secretary of State agrees that, whilst the application site is within an area not currently identified as a Special Protection Area, there is merit in following a (Conservation of Habitats and Species) Regulation 61 approach towards considering the impact of the ERF scheme on the use of this area by the identified Annex 1 bird species (a “risk based approach”) (IR1288). Having carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the proposal on this basis (by way of a “shadow assessment”), the Secretary of State agrees that the effect of the mitigated scheme, in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to be significant, and he cannot be sure that the scheme would not harm the integrity of the area (IR1289). In common with the Inspector (IR1151), the Secretary of State considers that this would be in conflict with the aims of the RSS and with its policy 29. He is of the view that this conflict and the potential for harm to the integrity of habitat used by woodlark and nightjar weighs significantly against the proposal. Landscape and visual impact 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on landscape and visual impact as set out in IR1157-1166 (albeit he recognises that LP policy NE9 is no longer relevant following publication of the CS). He agrees that the ERF building would appear as an isolated, but prominent alien feature in the wider rural landscape, and that it would clearly intrude into the openness of the countryside (IR1164). Development Plan 14. Setting aside LP policy NE9, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the development plan as set out in IR1167-1181 and IR1273-1276, although he does wish to make an observation on a point made by the Inspector about waste capacity at IR1180. On the matter of capacity the Secretary of State is mindful that PPS10 paragraph 10 states that, with regard to apportionment, “spurious precision should be avoided [and] annual rates are not intended to be a detailed forecast but to provide a benchmark”. Also the PPS10 companion guide states that the demonstration of allocated land “is not intended as a rigid cap on the development of waste management capacity”. Bearing this in mind, the Secretary of State does not consider that exceedence of “capacity” per se in policy 38 is necessarily inconsistent. However, he does consider that where ERF facilities are proposed in areas which are not specifically identified for such use, as is the case here, then PPS10 paragraphs 24 and 25 come into play. In such respects it is necessary to be consistent with PPS10 – a matter addressed in paragraphs 16 and 17 below. Alternative sites 15. For the reasons given in IR1182-1189 and IR1277, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appraisal of alternative sites was not robust (IR1189). PPS10: Planning for sustainable waste management 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on PPS10 as set out in IR1190-1220 and IR1278-1281, except with respect to the specific point identified below. He agrees with the Inspector that given that the proposal is not consistent with an up-to-date plan, considerations of need are not ruled out in this case (IR1279). He also agrees that the availability of landfill capacity does not add any urgency to this proposal (IR1280), although he recognises that local authorities are required to divert biodegradable municipal waste from landfill under the EU Landfill Directive. 17. As for whether the proposal should be deemed waste disposal rather than recovery, the Secretary of State has had regard to the lack of guidance in support of the definition of recovery operation R1 under Annex II of the EU Waste Framework Directive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land at Blacksmith's Arms
    Land off North Road, Glossop Education Impact Assessment Report v1-4 (Initial Research Feedback) for Gladman Developments 12th June 2013 Report by Oliver Nicholson EPDS Consultants Conifers House Blounts Court Road Peppard Common Henley-on-Thames RG9 5HB 0118 978 0091 www.epds-consultants.co.uk 1. Introduction 1.1.1. EPDS Consultants has been asked to consider the proposed development for its likely impact on schools in the local area. 1.2. Report Purpose & Scope 1.2.1. The purpose of this report is to act as a principle point of reference for future discussions with the relevant local authority to assist in the negotiation of potential education-specific Section 106 agreements pertaining to this site. This initial report includes an analysis of the development with regards to its likely impact on local primary and secondary school places. 1.3. Intended Audience 1.3.1. The intended audience is the client, Gladman Developments, and may be shared with other interested parties, such as the local authority(ies) and schools in the area local to the proposed development. 1.4. Research Sources 1.4.1. The contents of this initial report are based on publicly available information, including relevant data from central government and the local authority. 1.5. Further Research & Analysis 1.5.1. Further research may be conducted after this initial report, if required by the client, to include a deeper analysis of the local position regarding education provision. This activity may include negotiation with the relevant local authority and the possible submission of Freedom of Information requests if required.
    [Show full text]
  • Inkersall Road Solar Farm
    PROPOSED INKERSALL ROAD SOLAR FARM NEAR STAVELEY, DERBYSHIRE LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR LOW CARBON JUNE 2020 PROPOSED INKERSALL ROAD SOLAR FARM LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Planning Policy Context 3.0 Assessment Methodology and Criteria 4.0 Site Description and Proposals 5.0 Landscape Baseline 6.0 Landscape Effect 7.0 Visual Assessment 8.0 Mitigation Measures and Residual Degree of Effect 9.0 Cumulative Assessment 10.0 Conclusion References Figure 01: Survey Site Location Figure 02: Heritage Assets Figure 03: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Figure 04a: Potential Visual Receptors PROW Figure 04b: Potential Visual Receptors RRE Figure 05: Viewpoints Figure 06: Landscape and Biodiversity Scheme Figure 07: Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility Appendix A: Landscape Setting of Listed Building – Inkersall Farm Appendix B: Selected Panoramas Report Ref D34.19 No: Hilary R Ludlow Author: MSc CMLI, CEnv Scientific Steven Weber check: BSc MCIEEM Presentation Zoe Lewis check: BA (Hons) Date: June 2020 LANDSCAPE SCIENCE CONSULTANCY LTD 2 | Page L:\LSC\D34.19 Staveley (Inkersall) LVIA\D34.19a Inkersall LVIA update\Reports & Drafts\Inkersall Road Solar Farm - LVIA - FINAL.doc PROPOSED INKERSALL ROAD SOLAR FARM LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd (LSC) was commissioned to conduct a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment at Inkersall near Staveley, Derbyshire in relation to proposals for a solar farm, hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Development’ within the ‘Survey Site’. The assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline and assesses the sensitivity to change and considers the effect of the Proposed Development on the landscape and its visual resources over a wider area centred on the Survey Site which is defined by the anticipated visual envelope – hereafter referred to as the ‘Study Area’.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING COMMITTEE Tuesday
    03.04.18 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE Tuesday, 3rd April, 2018 Present:- Councillor Brittain (Chair) Councillors Hill Councillors Davenport Callan P Barr Elliott Brady Simmons Wall Catt Sarvent The following site visits took place immediately before the meeting and were attended by the following Members: CHE/17/00891/REM - Reserved matters application for access; appearance; landscaping; layout and scale of CHE/17/00456/OUT - outline planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and proposed construction of 2 four bedroom detached dwellings with garages - amended elevations received 29.01.18, amended site layout received 23.02.18 at 20a Avondale Road, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S40 4TF for Saint Developments. Councillors P Barr, Brady, Brittain, Callan, Catt, Davenport, Dickinson (ward member), Elliott, Hill, Sarvent, Simmons and Wall. CHE/17/00814/OUT - Erection of six 2 bedroom flats (re-submission of previously approved application CHE/17/00251) – amended indicative plans received 12.03.2018 at land at Chester Street, Chesterfield, Derbyshire for Woodleigh Motors Ltd. Councillors P Barr, Brady, Brittain, Callan, Catt, Davenport, Elliott, Hill, Sarvent, Simmons and Wall. CHE/18/00024/FUL - Proposal - five detached dwellings and garages - revised plans, habitat survey and ecological assessment rec'd 01/03/2018 at land at Breckland Road, Walton, Chesterfield, Derbyshire for Peppermint Grove. 03.04.18 2 Councillors P Barr, Brady, Brittain, Callan, Catt, Davenport, Elliott, Hill, Sarvent, Simmons and Wall. CHE/17/00800/FUL - Retention of external works and conversion of first and second floor to three self contained residential units at 2 York Street, Hasland, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S41 0PN for Mr Nigel Chadwick.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the East Midlands Contents
    Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the East Midlands Contents Summary 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review 7 3 Initial proposals for the East Midlands 11 Initial proposals for the Lincolnshire sub‑region 12 Initial proposals for the Derbyshire sub‑region 13 Initial proposals for the Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, 14 Rutland and Northamptonshire sub‑region 4 How to have your say 19 Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, 23 including wards and electorates Glossary 39 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the East Midlands 1 Summary Who we are and what we do What is changing in the East Midlands? The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial The East Midlands has been allocated 44 non‑departmental public body which is constituencies – a reduction of two from responsible for reviewing Parliamentary the current number. constituency boundaries in England. Our proposals leave seven of the 46 The 2018 Review existing constituencies unchanged. We have the task of periodically reviewing As it has not always been possible to the boundaries of all the Parliamentary allocate whole numbers of constituencies constituencies in England. We are currently to individual counties, we have grouped conducting a review on the basis of rules some county and local authority areas set by Parliament in 2011. The rules tell into sub‑regions. The number of us that we must make recommendations constituencies allocated to each sub‑region for new Parliamentary constituency is determined by the electorate of the boundaries in September 2018. They combined local authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesterfield, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
    Chesterfield, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Chesterfield Borough Council, Bolsover District Council and NE Derbyshire District Council March 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 8 1 .......... Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 The need for a SFRA .......................................................................................... 16 1.2 SFRA Objectives ................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Planning Policy ................................................................................................... 17 1.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 24 1.5 The Study Area ................................................................................................... 24 2 .......... Flood Risk ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.1 Responsibilities ................................................................................................... 28 2.2 Planning Policy Statement 25 ............................................................................. 31 2.3 Flood Mapping ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Agenda Item No. 8(J) Derbyshire County Council
    Public Agenda Item No. 8(j) Derbyshire County Council CABINET 26 July 2016 Report of Strategic Director – Economy, Transport and Communities SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRAVEL STRATEGY (HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE) (1) Purpose of Report To seek approval for the Council’s Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy and to publish this strategy on the Council’s website. (2) Information and Analysis The Council has a statutory duty to produce a Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy. On 8 September 2015, the Cabinet Member – Highways, Transport and Infrastructure approved the publication of a Statement of Intent outlining the Council’s commitment to develop and produce this Strategy by 31 August 2015 (Minute No. 120/15 refers). A copy of this Statement is attached under Appendix 1 to this report. The requirement to produce a Strategy was set out in the Department for Education’s recently re-issued home to school travel and transport guidance. The guidance requires local authorities to: • Promote the use of sustainable travel and transport, and • Make transport arrangements for all eligible children There are five key elements to the duty and these cover schools, academies and free schools for compulsory school aged children (5-16). These require the local authority to: 1. Undertake an assessment of the travel and transport needs of children, and young people within the Authority’s area. 2. Audit the sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the Authority’s area that may be used when travelling to and from, or between schools/institutions. 3. Develop a strategy to deliver sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the Local Authority Area, so that the travel and transport needs of children and young people are best catered for.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 to 2020 Assisted Areas Map: Consultation Stage 2
    Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1 2014-2020 ASSISTED AREAS MAP Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1 DECEMBER 2013 1 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1 Contents 1. Foreword from the Minister of State for Business and Energy ............................................................3 2. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................4 3. Background to the Update of the Assisted Areas Map ........................................................................5 4. How to Respond and Make Any Queries.............................................................................................8 5. Confidentiality & Data Protection .........................................................................................................9 6. Analysis of Responses and Government Response to the First Stage Consultation ..........................9 7. Responding to the Consultation.........................................................................................................20 8. What Happens Next?.........................................................................................................................20 Annex A: Principles for Government Consultations...............................................................................22 Annex B: The Draft Assisted Areas Map for the
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the East Midlands Region
    Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the East Midlands region June 2021 Contents Summary 2 Who we are and what we do 2 The 2023 Review 2 Initial proposals 2 What is changing in the East Midlands region? 2 How to have your say 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 4 2 Background to the 2023 Review 5 The rules in the legislation 6 Timetable for our review 7 Stage one – development of initial proposals 7 Stage two – consultation on initial proposals 8 Stage three – consultation on representations received 8 Stage four – development and publication of revised proposals 9 Stage five – development and publication of the final report and recommendations 9 3 Initial proposals for the East Midlands region 10 Initial proposals for the Derbyshire sub-region 11 Initial proposals for the Leicestershire sub-region 12 Initial proposals for the Lincolnshire and Rutland sub-region 14 Initial proposals for the Northamptonshire sub-region 15 Initial proposals for the Nottinghamshire sub-region 17 4 How to have your say 19 How can you give us your views? 20 What do we want views on? 21 Appendix: Initial proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates 22 Glossary 47 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the East Midlands region 1 Summary Who we are and what we do The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and impartial non-departmental public body, which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The 2023 Review We have the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all the Parliamentary constituencies in England.
    [Show full text]