Westwood Anaerobic Digestion Plant

Agenda Item No: 7b

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

17 December 2013

REPORT BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING

Subject: Application 13/00090/WASVOC – Variation of conditions 2 and 25 of planning permission 11/00078/WAS to increase throughputs from 49,000 to 65,000 tonnes per year, remove the radial restriction on the area for digestate spreading and increase the catchment area from which waste can be sourced at Westwood Anaerobic Digestion Plant, Bedford Road (A6), Rushden, Northamptonshire NN10 0SQ Applicant: Biogen (UK) Ltd Recommendation: That the application is approved subject to the conditions in Appendix A to this report.

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with professional planning advice on any issues, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations relevant to the determination of a planning application.

2. Relevant Priority Outcomes

Perspective Outcome

Customers - to achieve our vision,  A cleaner, greener and more prosperous what will our customers see? county

3. Site Description and Background

Site Description 3.1 The site is located within a rural area in the district of East Northamptonshire and adjacent to the county boundary with Bedfordshire and the Borough of Bedford. The nearest town is Rushden, approximately 4 kilometres (km) to the north-west of the site, with the larger settlement of Wellingborough lying 11km to the north-west, Bedford approximately 18km to the south-east and Northampton 25km to the west. The site is accessed via a previously approved access directly from the A6 Bedford Road.

3.2 The nearest residential properties are located on the A6 Bedford Road approximately 600 metres (m) to the west of the site. The closest settlements are: Knotting approximately 1km to the east; Newton Bromswold 2.5km to the north; Higham Park (including The Avenue residences) 1.5km to the north-west; and Souldrop 1.2km to the south. Development in the immediate area typically comprises dispersed farms, smallholdings and large detached dwellings set at intervals, including along the A6 Bedford Road. West Wood, an area of woodland from which the proposed plant takes its name, is located directly to the south of the application site.

Background 3.3 The applicant was granted planning permission 08/00002/WAS for the construction of an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant in May 2008.

3.4 AD is a process of controlled decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed conditions at temperatures suitable for naturally occurring bacteria to convert inputs to a methane-rich biogas and digestate. In this case the gas produced is used to generate electricity for export to the national grid. The digestate is used as an agricultural fertiliser and can be used as a substitute for manufactured fertiliser products.

3.5 The 2008 application was for 45,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of inputs comprising 41,000 tonnes of organic food chain waste and 4,000 tonnes of energy crops to be grown on the surrounding farmland. Digestate produced was to be applied to the surrounding Bedfordia Group agricultural holdings as a liquid fertiliser and soil improver with the biogas produced to be used on-site to generate 1.5MW of renewable electricity to be fed into the national grid via underground lines.

3.6 Planning permission 08/00002/WAS was granted having regard to the Development Plan at the time of determination which included the Waste Local Plan and the emerging Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). Of particular relevance to the application was Policy 4 of the Waste Local Plan which established the principle for development of local facilities as follows:

1. They deal with 50,000 tonnes or less per annum of non-hazardous waste; and 2. It can be demonstrated they will contribute to a sustainable waste management system for Northamptonshire; and

Such development should comply with one or more of the following:  be located on existing or designated industrial land;  be on derelict, despoiled or brownfield land or building;  contribute to agricultural diversification or to rural regeneration;  be a former or existing mineral working or waste management facility  be on a site linked to rail or water transport; and

Any proposal is required to demonstrate that it is part of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and identify the catchment area the development is proposed to serve. 3.7 It is clear from this policy that the size of the facility and the contribution to agricultural diversification were important to the acceptability of the proposals in land use planning terms on this greenfield site. On this basis conditions on planning permission 08/00002/WAS included a limit on the annual waste throughput to 45,000tpa, a restriction limiting the spreading of the digestate produced to the site’s host agricultural unit and a catchment area of 30 miles from which to source waste inputs. The site was commissioned in June 2009.

3.8 In 2011 two applications were received to vary conditions relating to permitted throughputs, digestate spreading and hours of working. These applications were

approved by the Development Control Committee in January 2012 having regard to the adopted MWDF which had replaced the Waste Local Plan. Conditions on the 2011 permissions limited waste throughputs to 49,000tpa and restricting digestate spreading to land within five miles of the site.

3.9 This latest application sets out that the site currently operates with 49,000tpa of waste inputs and produces approximately 40,000tpa of digestate as well as generating 2.5MW of renewable electricity. During 2013 it has come to the Waste Planning Authority’s (WPA) attention through Duty to Co-operate liaison with other WPAs that there was non-compliance by the applicant in respect to the catchment from where waste was being sourced from. Waste was coming from as far afield as Surrey, Norwich and Glamorgan, which are considerably beyond a 30 mile radius. The applicant was in pre-application discussions with the WPA about a number of proposed variations to the operations, including an increase in capacity, when this non-compliance became apparent. This application seeks to address this non- compliance issue and make a number of other variations to planning permission 11/00078/WAS, including the increase in capacity.

3.10 The applicant also operates other AD facilities in the UK. The closest of these is the operational AD facility at Milton Ernest in Bedfordshire while further AD plants are under construction at Baldock in Hertfordshire and at Atherstone in Warwickshire.

4. Proposals

4.1 This application is to vary planning permission 11/00078/WAS to increase throughputs from 49,000tpa to 65,000tpa, remove the five mile restriction on the area for digestate spreading and substantially increase the catchment area for waste inputs, part of which for a temporary period only.

4.2 The submitted application shows that the site operated to capacity in 2012 and the applicant seeks to increase throughputs to 65,000tpa. Reflecting increases in the efficiency of the processes on site the applicant considers that this increase in capacity could be accommodated using the existing plant and infrastructure on site and therefore no physical changes are proposed. The increased tonnages would however increase Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) trips to the site from an estimated maximum of 20 to a revised estimate of a maximum of 26 deliveries per day (40 to 52 movements per day).

4.3 The increase in throughputs would generate an increase in digestate from 40,000tpa to 52,000tpa. The applicant seeks to remove the restriction requiring this material to be spread on land within five miles of the site. This too has potential to increase HGV movements from the site.

4.4 The existing permission requires waste inputs to be sourced from within a 30 mile radius of the site. The applicant seeks to extend this catchment to the area shown on the plan attached as Appendix B. The plan shows a 15,612 square km area encompassing an area from Wolverhampton to Nottingham in the north and Harlow to Beaconsfield in the south that the applicant proposes would be the regional catchment for the facility, with waste also to be imported from a 2,739 square km area encompassing Greater London and Kent for a temporary period to 31 December 2015. The information submitted with this application highlights that the applicant has been breaching the existing catchment area condition with

approximately 18,000 tonnes or 36% of the inputs coming from outside the permitted catchment in 2012, including approximately 16,000 tonnes of this material arising in Greater London and Kent. The applicant forecasts approximately 14,500 tonnes or 30% of the 2013 inputs will come from outside the permitted catchment.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4.5 The 2008 application was considered to be Schedule 2 development under the EIA Regulations but EIA was not required as the application site was less than 10 hectares (3.45ha), involved less than 50,000tpa (45,000tpa) of inputs, and had no specific sensitivities that would otherwise exceed the “indicative thresholds” set in Circular 02/99 dated 12 March 1999 “Environmental Impact Assessment”.

4.6 In December 2012 the applicant submitted an EIA screening request related to an increase in throughputs to 60,000tpa. A revised request was subsequently received in February 2013 for an increase to 65,000tpa. On 21 February the WPA issued a Screening Opinion explaining that there were no criteria to justify the requirement for EIA to accompany the application.

4.7 On receiving this application for the variations to throughputs, digestate spreading and catchment area the WPA again screened the development. The screening exercise took account of the proposal for an extension to an authorised development listed under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations (2011) and the criteria set out in paragraph 4.5 above. The most relevant changes are to the throughputs and potentially to the cumulative impacts of these proposals in conjunction with other development. While it is acknowledged that Circular 02/99 states that EIA is more likely to be required were new capacity is created to hold more than 50,000tpa, exceeding this threshold is not in itself reason to justify EIA. Having regard to the increased throughputs and taking account of potential cumulative impact it is not considered that the development as changed/extended would have significant adverse effects on the environment to justify the requirement for EIA.

5. Consultation

5.1 The following is a summary of the consultation responses in relation to these proposals:

5.2 Highway Authority (HA) – Firstly the HA expressed some concerns at the incremental changes to the consent which influence the impact of the development. In terms of HGV movements the HA noted that the original application set out estimates of 30 HGV deliveries per day (60 movements) with the subsequent application to increase throughputs decreasing this to 20 HGVs (40 movements). The HA acknowledges that the proposed 26 HGV deliveries (52 movements) are therefore less than was first considered acceptable at this site. Due to the high traffic volume of the A6 the HA considers it would be difficult to discern any increase in movements on the A6 resulting from the proposed changes at the site.

5.3 The HA recognises the argument that fertilisers are already delivered to agricultural units in the area from a variety of sources and that it would be difficult to show that the movement of digestate from the site would directly affect minor road usage.

5.4 In light of previous breaches of condition the HA suggests close monitoring and enforcement where appropriate. The HA suggests a number of mechanisms for

monitoring and to inform any further applications for changes at the site. Despite concerns at the incremental changes and previous breaches of conditions the HA does not however consider that an objection could be sustained on highway safety or capacity grounds.

5.5 East Northamptonshire Council (ENC) Environmental Services – No objection but requested that all measures continue to be in place to prevent odour nuisance from occurring.

5.6 ENC Planning – No comments to add to those from ENC Environmental Services (above).

5.7 Bedford Borough Council – Noted that the proposed increase in capacity would bring capacity in Northamptonshire to approximately 250,000tpa and that total AD capacity in the UK totals some 1 million tpa. Including plants on the outskirts of the proposed catchment the borough estimates the permitted capacity within the wider area would exceed 330,000tpa. In the absence of a market assessment Bedford Borough Council do not consider that it is possible to determine if there is sufficient waste in the catchment to justify the additional capacity proposed.

5.8 Environment Agency (EA) – Explained that the applicant has also submitted an application to vary their permit and that the permit variation won’t be granted if the EA is not satisfied that all appropriate environmental measures are in place and the plant is capable of dealing with the additional loading.

5.9 Rushden Town Council – No objection.

5.10 Wymington Parish Council – Object due to increased traffic and ongoing odour issues.

5.11 Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Parish Council – Object to waste from London and contend that the facility is not sufficiently unique or specialised to justify such a catchment. The Parish request that the condition be varied in accordance with the submitted plan but excluding Greater London. The Parish also raised detailed concerns at the failure of NCC to require an EIA for the proposed variation to 65,000tpa.

5.12 Melchbourne and Yeldon Parish Council – Object on traffic and highway safety grounds, including cumulative impact on the road network in the area from the cluster of waste and renewable energy projects in the area.

5.13 Bletsoe Parish Council – Note that increasing throughputs and the catchment area would increase traffic on the A6.

5.14 Councillor Harwood (ENC – Higham Ferrers Lancaster Ward) – Responded with concerns at ultimate tonnages due to the incremental increases, disregard of the proximity principle and odour issues associated with spreading.

5.15 No responses were received from:

 Knotting and Souldrop Parish Council  Newton Bromswold Parish Council  Bedford Borough Council Highways

6. Public Advertisement and Neighbour Notification

6.1 The application was advertised in the Northamptonshire Telegraph on 10 October 2013. In addition a site notice was erected at the entrance to the site and direct notifications were sent to the 13 local residents who responded to the 2011 applications.

6.2 Three representations were received from local residents objecting to the proposals and raising concerns about the potential of these changes to exacerbate existing issues. The respondents raised a number of concerns including odour, noise, lighting and landscaping matters and corresponding amenity impacts. Traffic and highway safety concerns are also put forward in relation to increased HGV movements. Issues were also raised around the changes to the principle of the original application and the operation being an industrial rather than agricultural operation that is unsuitable for the location, particularly given the heritage assets at the site.

7. Development Plan Policies

7.1 The most relevant development policies to this application are listed below. The MWDF reflects national policy and guidance.

7.2 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) (May 2010)

Policy CS1: Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity Policy CS9: Encouraging sustainable transport movements Policy CS14: Addressing the impact of proposed minerals and waste development

7.3 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011)

Policy CMD1: Development criteria for waste management facilities (non-inert and hazardous)

7.4 Although not an adopted statutory document, the MWDF Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Development and Implementation Principles (adopted September 2011) is also a material planning consideration as is the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Partial Review (Minerals and Waste Local Plan) Proposed Submission Document (September 2013) which has been subsequently submitted for examination (November 2013).

8. Assessment

8.1 The main issues to consider in determining this application are: i. Whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan;

ii. Whether there are any traffic and highway safety matters, amenity impacts or cumulative impacts which would be significant and would justify refusing the application. Development Plan 8.2 The original permission for this facility (08/00002/WAS) was granted having regard to the Waste Local Plan (March 2006) and the emerging MWDF. The full suite of MWDF documents were adopted prior to determination of the 2011 applications for variations to the throughputs, digestate spreading restrictions and operating hours. The report on the 2011 applications concluded that the development was acceptable in principle having regard to the local Development Plan policies. There have been no significant changes in the MWDF since decisions were made on the 2011 applications, although the WPA is currently going through a Partial Review of the MWDF with the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) being submitted to the Secretary of State on Wednesday 27 November for its independent examination.

8.3 The applicant has put forward a detailed case for how they consider these latest revisions accord with the Development Plan. Rather than reassessing the principle of the subject site this report focuses on an assessment of the proposed changes and how they accord with policy.

8.4 For the purposes of this assessment the application can usefully be split into three interlinked topics, namely catchment area, throughputs and digestate. The principle of each topic is discussed below in the order in which they arise in an operational sense. The corresponding impacts of the proposed changes are discussed in the subsequent sections of this report.

Catchment Areas 8.5 Condition 25 of planning permission 11/00078/WAS is titled Proximity Principle and requires that all waste imports to the site originate from locations within a 30 mile radius of the site. The condition was originally driven by the requirements of the Waste Local Plan with the subsequent reason for the condition on planning permission 11/00078/WAS referring to contributions to sustainable waste management in Northamptonshire and minimising the transportation of waste and its movement across WPA boundaries having regard to Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy and Policy CMD1 of the Control and Management of Development DPD. As discussed in Section 4 of this report the applicant seeks to expand this catchment significantly.

The principle of catchment areas is established in the Core Strategy, with further policy guidance in the Control and Management of Development DPD. Box CS3 of the Core Strategy sets out the broad categories for catchment areas and establishes the functional role of different waste management facilities. The MWDF SPD on Development and Implementation Principles sets out in Table SPD3 levels of catchment and their indicative areas. The areas have been calculated based on average regional and county areas in the wider area. The former approach of using radial catchments has been discontinued.

Table 1: Indicative Catchment Areas from Development and Implementation Principles (SPD)

Catchment level Covering the area of ... Indicative area (km2) National England or an equivalent geographical area within Great Britain. 130,000 Regional East Midlands or an equivalent geographical area. 17,000 Sub-regional Northamptonshire or an equivalent geographical area. 3,000 Up to two adjacent LPA areas or an equivalent geographical Local 1,000 area. 8.6 The existing 30 mile catchment equates to an indicative area of approximately 7,250 square km which suggests a facility of sub-regional to regional significance. Excluding for a moment the applicant’s temporary proposals relating to waste from an area including Greater London and Kent, the applicant is now proposing to approximately double the existing catchment to 15,612 square km which would suggest a regional facility. Including the extended area this catchment would increase by a further 2,739 square km to 18,351 square km (see Appendix B).

8.7 The crux of the applicant’s case for an enlarged catchment area is based on the premise that their AD operations and associated activities should be classified as advanced treatment rather than preliminary treatment as currently defined in the Development Plan. There is no direct link between catchment levels and the classification of a facility as preliminary or advanced treatment and it is therefore necessary to assess whether these proposals meet the criteria established in the MWDF for a regional catchment.

8.8 Firstly the applicant puts forward a case based on the analysis of the dictionary definition of preliminary. The Control and Management of Development (CMD) DPD defines both advanced and preliminary treatment and these definitions are considered to be more relevant. An analysis of the CMD definitions suggests the biological processing element of the operations at this site constitute preliminary treatment while the generation of electricity for the grid is a waste to energy process that would be in accordance with the definition of advanced treatment.

8.9 It is also helpful to look at the definition of AD in the Core Strategy and to try and appreciate the context within which it was written. The definition in the glossary includes reference to commercial applications of AD to date mainly being applied to the treatment of sewage sludge and cattle slurry and also makes reference to the same process within landfill sites. Sites such as the subject facility typically deal with food waste and in this instance generate electricity and digestate in a manner which has advanced markedly from a more traditional view of AD.

8.10 It is considered that the overall nature of the development and the significant level of investment involved justify it being regarded on balance as advanced treatment.

8.11 Acceptance of the operations as a form of advanced treatment does not in itself justify a larger catchment and it is necessary to assess whether the development would meet the regional catchment criteria. The criteria for a regional catchments is listed in the Control and Management of Development DPD and it is helpful to set these out in full:

 Waste to be managed on site originates from within the East Midlands or an equivalent geographical area.  The facility is of a specialised nature specifically relating to the waste to be managed or the nature of the processes involved; on the basis of its specialised role the facility is one of only one or two within the region (or identified area).  Waste to be managed does not include untreated / unsorted municipal solid waste (MSW), construction and demolition waste (C&D), or green waste.  The facility supports the waste hierarchy and is not for the disposal of waste, unless disposal forms the last available option. 8.12 The applicant has set out a catchment area that equates to a regional catchment, but with an extended area to include Greater London and Kent for a temporary period to 31 December 2015. In addition the applicant has explained that imports do not include untreated/unsorted MSW, C&D, or green waste and it is clear that the facility supports the waste hierarchy through recovery of waste rather than disposal. In terms of recovery the applicant predicts that the increase throughput of 16,000tpa would enable the site to produce 3MW of electricity in total to power approximately 5,400 homes (up from 2.5MW and 4,500 homes as set out in the previous application). In addition, the digestate can be used by the agricultural industry as an alternative to manufactured fertilisers.

8.13 The facility is not one of only one or two within the region, as already within Northamptonshire there are two operational AD facilities with two further permissions in place for sites in South Northamptonshire. The WPA is also currently processing an application for an energy from waste facility in Corby that includes AD. The growth in AD is reflective of Central Governments commitment to increasing energy from waste through Anaerobic Digestion through the ‘Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan’ published in 2011 by the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

8.14 The proposals to source waste from Greater London and Kent would push the catchment above 18,000 square km and for a further two years would exceed the indicative 17,000 square kilometre area afforded regional facilities. While there could potentially be scope for facilities to come forward that could justifiably fall between the indicative areas for regional and national (130,000 square km) catchments this facility is not considered to be of a nature that would justify a larger catchment. As discussed above the operation is not one of only one or two in the region and while a regional catchment for the facility is accepted in principle it is not considered justifiable to extend the catchment beyond this indicative area. Support for this stance is provided in the SPD.

8.15 The SPD does provide for some instances where a proposal could be demonstrated to (for example) have a regional catchment area even though the area extends beyond what would be considered to be regional. Paragraph 3.7 of the SPD specifies that this could be acceptable where a proposed facility would form part of an operational network and some minor components of the existing operational network (e.g. a transfer station) falls outside the regional area. In this case the location of the applicant’s existing AD facility at Milton Earnest and others under construction at Baldock and Atherstone are not minor components of the existing operational network, as they are equivalent facilities to Westwood. When operational the applicant’s facility at Baldock would accept the waste from Greater London and Kent.

8.16 An element of the drive for the establishment of the principle of catchment areas in the MWDF was to set out that the under the former regional planning regime, Northamptonshire being in the East Midlands was not required to make allowance to take London’s waste. This was in contrast to Waste Planning Authorities in the East and South East regions which were required to make allowance for London’s waste. Wording in the MWDF Core Strategy and the Proposed MWLP maintains that there is no requirement for Northamptonshire to take a proportion of London’s waste and notes that London should still endeavour to take responsibility for the waste produced by its community.

8.17 Given the argument for the operations as advanced treatment and compliance with three of the four criteria for a regional catchment it is necessary to assess whether there are other factors that could justify variations to the catchment area.

8.18 The market and how it works is capable of being a material planning consideration and the applicant has attempted to justify how the operation of the market supports their application. As one of the first operational AD facilities in the UK the applicant has seen the market evolve significantly in the last four and a half years and claims that market dynamics mean that they require a relaxation of the catchment area condition to compete in the developing waste market, especially as the majority of other facilities in surrounding counties are not affected by catchment area conditions.

8.19 Economics typically dictate the movement of resources and in this respect it is generally accepted that waste will tend toward the nearest treatment facility, all other things being equal. Policies establishing catchment area controls on the movement of resources are relatively unusual but the MWDF has established the need for catchment area controls in Northamptonshire and establishes sound reasons around sustainability and self sufficiency.

8.20 The applicant was fully aware of WPA’s catchment area policy and the condition on the original permission prior to proceeding with the development but the condition has not been complied with. Nevertheless there should be some recognition of waste treatment as a relatively new market and that some flexibility should be applied where the impacts are not unacceptable. The argument that the market will continue to evolve with movement of waste decreasing as networks of advanced treatment facilities develop across the UK is a valid one.

8.21 The proximity principle is established in the revised Waste Framework Directive but national policy provides limited direction on the specifics of catchment area policy. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies but local authorities are required to have regard to the relevant policies in the framework. The NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, subject to mitigation of adverse impacts. For decision taking, this means that proposals for development that accords with the development plan shall be approved without delay.

8.22 On balance it is considered that the operations at the site constitute advanced treatment. There are grounds to accept that in this particular case the principle of a regional catchment is justified despite there being several such facilities operational across the region with others permitted and pending consideration. In coming to this conclusion the WPA has taken account of the MWDF, the operation of the waste market and has had regard to the waste hierarchy and the principles of

sustainable development in national and local policy. It is acknowledged that in time the market and the development of a network of treatment facilities will help reduce the catchment area for this facility. In the meantime the facility provides a significant contribution to waste treatment in the area.

Throughputs 8.23 Catchments are closely linked to waste arisings and capacity and to assess this application it is important to assess the need for biological waste treatment capacity (AD and composting) and advanced treatment capacity in the county. As set out below there is a shortfall of advanced treatment and composting and anaerobic digestion capacity in the county to address waste arisings.

8.24 Northamptonshire currently produces almost 3 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of various types of waste including approximately 360,000tpa of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and in excess of 1mtpa of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste. This waste is either disposed of to landfill or it is re-used, recycled, composted or recovered through other forms of treatment.

8.25 Estimates for C&I waste for Northamptonshire in 2011 show that 210,000 tonnes was recycled or composted, 550,000 tonnes recovered and 290,000 tonnes disposed of to landfill. Figures in the Northamptonshire Joint Municipal Waste Strategy show that 49% of this material was disposed of to landfill in 2011 with just 3% treated prior to disposal. The balance of 48% was recycled or composted. A significant shift from disposal to treatment is expected by 2016 following the procurement earlier this year of the residual waste treatment contracts.

8.26 Figures in the Proposed MWLP set out the latest waste arisings and capacity requirements for the county. For the purposes of these statistics composting and AD are addressed together with the figures suggesting there is a significant excess in permitted AD and composting capacity in the county to 2031. Table 6 of the Proposed MWLP shows indicative capacity requirements of 170,000tpa in 2016, increasing to 190,000 in 2031. Table 7 of the proposed MWLP shows current composting and AD capacity of 400,000tpa with a corresponding capacity surplus of 230,000tpa to 210,000tpa in 2016 and 2013 respectively. In reality there is however significantly less operational capacity in the county due to several permissions not being implemented in part or full to date. This has corresponding impacts on capacity requirements.

8.27 There is currently 236,000tpa of permitted AD capacity, excluding an industrial fruit processing facility in Corby. The sites contributing to this capacity are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Permitted AD capacity in Northamptonshire, November 2013

Site Permission Permitted throughput Biogen (UK) Ltd near Rushden 11/00078/WAS 49,000tpa (operational) Fernbrook Bio Ltd near Rothwell 11/00067/WAS 49,000tpa (operational) Barry Howard Waste Management Ltd near Crick (research facility) DA/05/0292 15,000tpa (operational) Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd near Chelveston 08/00003/WAS 48,000tpa (AD not operational) Tamar Energy Ltd near Roade 13/00072/WASVOC 45,000tpa (not implemented) Material Change Ltd near Helmdon 11/00045/WAS 30,000tpa (not implemented)

8.28 There is also a current application for an energy from waste facility at Shelton Road in Corby which includes proposals for 67,000tpa of AD capacity. Of these facilities only the applicant’s site and the facility near Rothwell are operational. The Fernbrook Bio facility has at times experienced operational difficulties and while it has a permitted capacity of 49,000tpa it has not operated at this volume.

8.29 Composting sites in the county also operate significantly below permitted capacity. Waste returns submitted to the EA and accessed by the WPA via the EA’s Waste Data Interrogator show that actual composting throughputs in 2012 amounted to approximately 110,000 tonnes.

8.30 When the operational capacities for AD and composting are analysed in conjunction with the lack of any operational advanced treatment capacity for non-hazardous waste in the county it is clear that there is less than 200,000 tonnes of operational biological and advanced treatment capacity in the county with a corresponding shortfall in capacity. The additional 16,000tpa of capacity proposed by the applicant is therefore considered to be accepted in principle. It is considered reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of waste arisings forecast for advanced treatment could similarly be treated using AD.

8.31 The applicant does not propose to undertake any physical changes at the site to facilitate the increased throughputs which could be accommodated in the existing plant and equipment. Subject to securing the additional waste inputs, the facility could therefore increase throughputs in the short term and well in advance of other permitted facilities in the county becoming operational. It is relevant that Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy supports intensification of existing sites if required to meet indicative waste management capacities and subject to assessments showing a facility meets environmental, amenity or other requirements.

8.32 As discussed above there is a surplus of permitted AD capacity but a shortfall in operational capacity. This is particularly significant in combination with the absence of operational advanced treatment capacity in the county. Potential developers will need to be clear that there are sufficient waste arisings available within their permitted catchments prior to implementing these permissions. The WPA is under no obligation to only permit facilities up to predicted capacity and this analysis of permitted capacity but yet operational shortfall is clear justification for this approach.

Digestate 8.33 While the applicant made a strong case in 2008 that digestate would only be used on the adjoining farmland the WPA considers that there are no policy grounds on which to maintain this point or indeed the condition limiting the spreading of digestate to a five mile radius of the site. There are no particular circumstances in this case that would justify such a condition. The WPA would not typically seek to control the destination of exports from a waste site and no such controls are on facilities in the county which produce a similar product, for instance the operational AD facility near Rothwell or the sludge treatment centre at Billing Sewage Treatment Works. While concerns have been raised regarding the potential for digestate export to generate additional HGV movements from the site these have been assessed by the Highway Authority and there are considered to be no highway safety grounds to support the retention of this condition. Concerns regarding spreading and odour are discussed further later in this report but are not grounds to maintain the restriction on the area for digestate spreading. There are

however clear sustainability and economic benefits to be gained using the digestate in close proximity to the site for both the applicant and local farmers and for these reasons it is considered that the digestate produced will in the first instance be used on the surrounding land, particularly where it is served by the existing piped distribution network.

8.34 In this instance the applicant has set out that the digestate produced meets a standard whereby it is considered fully recovered and is classified as biofertiliser rather than waste. Subject to meeting certain criteria it is therefore no longer subject to waste management controls. End users of the material rather than the producers of the digestate are responsible for managing matters such as application rates, impacts on soil function and potential for water pollution. On this basis the spreading itself is outside the applicant’s control and should not be addressed by condition. This is discussed further with regard to odour.

Impacts 8.35 As well as citing issues with the principle of the development various arguments against this application have been put forward by respondents on the grounds of the impacts of these changes. These primarily relate to concerns around the following topics: traffic and highway safety, amenity (particularly odour but also noise, lighting and landscaping), and cumulative impacts. Concerns have also been raised around the need for EIA and the incremental growth of this site. Each will be addressed in turn with the exception of EIA which is addressed in section 4 of this report.

Traffic and Highway Safety 8.36 The original application set out an anticipated 30 HGV deliveries per day (60 movements) to facilitate inputs of 45,000tpa. The application was approved subject to a provision of a central turning lane and widening of the highway. These were completed as required.

8.37 The applicant estimates a maximum of 26 HGV deliveries per day under these latest proposals, up from 20 HGV deliveries per day under the current operations. The response from the Highway Authority notes that the high traffic volume of the A6 would mean that it would be difficult to discern any increase in movements on the A6 itself resulting from these additional 6 HGV deliveries.

8.38 The Highway Authority considers that there are no traffic or highway safety grounds to refuse this application. The WPA is particularly conscious that the site is accessed from a purpose built access to the A6 with any impacts of the small increase in HGV movements likely to be negligible in the context of this high volume route. In addition the predicted movements are less than those originally set out in the 2008 application and it is not considered that additional digestate movement would raise any traffic or highway safety issues. On balance it is considered that there are no traffic or highway safety reasons to justify refusal of this application having regard to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy. Issues around sustainability have been addressed earlier in this report and it is in the interests of the applicant to source waste from local sources wherever possible. On this basis it is also considered that these proposals are also acceptable having regard to Policy CS9 relating to sustainable transport movements.

Amenity, including odour, noise, lighting and landscaping/visual amenity 8.39 Policy CS14 of the MWDF Core Strategy requires the environmental and amenity impacts of mineral and waste development to be addressed to ensure that local amenity is protected. Three local residents and a number of parishes have raised objections or concerns to the applications based on their potential to increase amenity impacts, particularly with regard to odour, noise and lighting and landscaping as well as traffic generation. The issues raised will be assessed below.

Odour 8.40 There are two aspects to consider relating to the potential odour impacts from the proposal to increase the throughput at the site; firstly relating to the AD plant site; and secondly in connection with the spreading of digestate.

8.41 In respect of the AD plant and as addressed with regard to previous applications, the site is not considered to be located close to residential properties or settlements and the current buildings and plant at the site were designed and constructed with measures to mitigate and control odour. This includes: automated doors which are only opened to receive waste; negative air pressure within the reception building; and a bio filter to deal with air expelled from the building. The movement of waste from the reception building to AD tanks and from there to digestate storage is through enclosed pipe work. That said, odour is experienced locally on and directly adjacent to the site. However, the odour mitigation measures are considered appropriate and it is considered that there would be no justifiable reason to refuse the increase in waste throughput through the existing buildings and plant. It is recommended that the existing odour monitoring controls are maintained. It is considered relevant that the EA and Environmental Services at ENC have not objected to the planning application.

8.42 The majority of odour concerns raised relate to the odour impacts of spreading the digestate from the plant. It is acknowledged that the spreading of digestate can result in a short term release of odour. However, the spreading of agricultural fertilisers, including digestate from this AD plant, is not development which requires planning permission. It is common practice for farmers to spread farm manures, sewage sludge and other material on land as a form of fertiliser. As discussed with regard to digestate the WPA cannot reasonably condition the area for the spreading of digestate and equally odour arising from this process is beyond the WPA’s control. Depending on the particular circumstances, odour control from spreading operations falls to either the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting regime or to Environmental Health at the relevant Borough or District Council if the spreading operations do not require an Environmental Permit.

8.43 Overall, it is considered that the increased throughputs are unlikely to increase odour and it is not appropriate for the WPA to address odour from digestate spreading. The latter is however considered unlikely to increase as a result of these proposals with the spreading of digestate already being regular agricultural practice. Subject to an update of the conditions relating to odour on planning permission 11/00078/WAS it is considered that are no environmental or amenity impacts relating to odour that would justify refusal of this application having regard to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.

Noise 8.44 Concerns have been raised in one representation about noise from site operations. Under planning permission 11/00078/WAS the import and export of material and the outside movement of waste is restricted to between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday, 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and 08.00 and 16.00 on Public and Bank Holidays (excluding Christmas day). Further conditions establish noise monitoring requirements and noise limits.

8.45 The respondent complains that the site operates outside their permitted hours and that reversing beepers adversely impact on their amenity. The applicant has responded and pointed out that they are entitled to operate longer hours than those described above with only vehicle movements of waste restricted. The applicant has also explained difficulties in controlling the specification of reversing alarms on contractor’s vehicles delivering waste to site. The applicant has however undertaken to review operational procedures to determine if anything can be done to reduce this potential impact. It is important to note that this is an operational site and aside from increased throughputs there should be no change to the operations on site. To address noise it is recommended that a scheme of noise monitoring and control measures is submitted and that existing conditions relating to noise from plant and machinery are updated in line with the WPA’s standard conditions. Subject to these conditions it is considered that the proposals are acceptable having regard to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.

Lighting 8.46 An external lighting scheme has been approved at the subject site and the applicant maintains that operations are in accordance with the approved details. It is acknowledged that there is no restriction on the hours of operation of the permitted lighting and that therefore there is scope for the lighting to be operated outside the hours permitted for deliveries. Nevertheless, subject to appropriate management it is considered that the operation of the lighting in accordance with the approved scheme and the distance from sensitive receptors should ensure no adverse impacts on amenity having regard to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.

Visual amenity/Landscaping 8.47 Landscape planting can be an important tool to restrict impacts on landscape and visual amenity having regard to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy. The applicant in responding to representations has undertaken to review the condition of the landscape planting and the recommended conditions retain the requirement for the landscaping to be in accordance with the details approved under planning permission 08/00002/WAS.

Cumulative Impacts

8.48 Some concerns have been raised around the potential for cumulative impacts from this operation and others in the area. The response from Melchbourne and Yelden PC points to four waste sites served from a short stretch of the A6 in Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire as well as two wind farms and two solar farms. Based on the nature of the impacts of the subject site it is not considered that there are any grounds which would justify refusal of this application on the grounds of cumulative impacts.

9. Conclusions

9.1 This application is to vary planning permission 11/00078/WAS to increase the waste throughputs from 49,000tpa to 65,000tpa, remove the radial restriction on the area for digestate spreading and increase the catchment area from which waste can be sourced at the existing Westwood AD Plant near Rushden. The applicant has set out that improved efficiency of operations at the site means that no physical changes would be required to accommodate the increased throughputs. The increased tonnages would however increase HGV deliveries from a maximum of 20 to a maximum of 26 per day. The larger throughputs would also increase digestate production from 40,000tpa to 52,000tpa.

9.2 Planning permission 11/00078/WAS requires that waste inputs are sourced from within a 30 mile radius of the site which effectively encompasses an area of 7,500 square km. The applicant is seeking to expand the catchment area to a regional catchment encompassing an area of approximately 15,600 square km. In addition the applicant proposes to source waste from a 2,750 square km area of Greater London and Kent for a temporary period to 31 December 2015. The application highlights that the applicant has been operating in breach of the existing catchment area condition with approximately a third of its waste currently coming from outside the permitted area.

9.3 Objections have been received from a number of parish councils in the area and from three local residents. The main concerns raised relate to traffic, odour, noise and cumulative impacts but issues have also been raised about the incremental increases in the scale and nature of the operations as well as the revisions to the catchment area. No objections have been received from the relevant technical consultees including the Highway Authority, the Environment Agency and East Northamptonshire District Council.

9.4 The assessment of this application focussed on three key principles (catchment areas, waste capacity and digestate) and the impacts of the proposed changes. On balance it is considered that the proposals are acceptable having regard to the local Development Plan policies, in particular Policies CS1, CS9 and CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010) and Policy CMD1 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Control and Management of Development DPD (July 2011). In particular the operations at the subject site constitute advanced treatment and when assessed against the criteria for regional catchments in the Control and Management of Development DPD it generally satisfies these and on balance the overall nature of the development and the significant level of investment involved justifies a regional catchment. The proposed imports from Greater London and Kent extend the regional catchment area identified but are considered acceptable for a temporary period to 31 December 2015. The principle of a digestate spreading restriction has also been assessed and is not considered reasonable and the condition should be removed, and from a sustainability viewpoint much of the digestate will still be utilised on land close to the AD plant. The potential impacts of these changes have also been assessed and subject to recommended conditions there are no traffic and highway safety, amenity or cumulative impacts to justify refusal of this application. The application should therefore be approved with the conditions listed in Appendix A.

10. List of Appendices

Appendix A – Proposed planning conditions Appendix B – Submitted indicative catchment area plan ref BIO.2013.1

Author: Name: Phil Watson Team: Planning Services Contact details: Tel: 01604 366638 Fax: 01604 366065 Email: [email protected] Background Papers: N/A Does the report propose a key decision is NO taken? If yes, is the decision in the Forward N/A Plan? Will further decisions be required? If so, NO please outline the timetable here Is this report proposing an amendment to NO the budget and/or policy framework? Have the financial implications been NO. There are none relevant to the cleared by the Strategic Finance Manager determination of the planning application (SFM)? Name of SFM: N/A Have any capital spend implications been N/A cleared by the Capital Asset Investment Group (CAIG) Has the report been cleared by the NO but cleared by Assistant Director relevant Corporate Director or ACE? Environment and Planning

Has the relevant Cabinet Member been NO consulted? Has the relevant scrutiny committee been NO consulted? Has the report been cleared by Legal NO Services? Have any communications issues been N/A cleared by Communications and Marketing? Has an Equalities Impact Assessment NO. There are no equal opportunity been carried out in relation to this report? implications relevant to this application. Are there any community safety These are considered in the report. implications? Are there any environmental implications: These are considered in the report. Are there any Health & Safety NO Implications: Are there any Human Resources NO Implications: Are there any human rights implications: This planning application has been processed in accordance with the prescribed Town and Country Planning legislation and regulations. These afford individuals the rights to have their say on the development proposed and for the impacts of the development to be

assessed having regard to the potential for impact on any individual, and the decision to be made taking into account any views expressed. The most relevant parts of the Human Rights Act are: Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial); Article 8 (Right to Privacy); Article 10 (Freedom of Expression); and Protocol No1 which entitles every person to peaceful enjoyment of his/her possessions. Constituency Interest: Electoral Division: Rushden South

Agenda Item No: 7b - Appendix A – Proposed planning conditions

Commencement of Development

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Waste Inputs

2. The development hereby permitted shall not exceed a total annual throughput of 65,000 tonnes per annum.

Reason: To define the scale of the facility in the interests of amenity protection and highway safety having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

Waste Types

3. The developer shall ensure that systems are in place to ensure that the site accepts and processes only food-chain waste of a non hazardous nature and that systems are in place to deal with any prohibited wastes delivered to site.

Reason: To restrict the waste types in the interests of amenity and the environment having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

Hours of Working

4. Operations involving the importation of waste, removal of non compostable waste and the outside movement of wastes on site hereby permitted, shall be restricted to between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 on Mondays to Fridays, 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and 08.00 and 16.00 on Public and Bank Holidays (excluding Christmas day).

Reason: To ensure that Heavy Goods Vehicle movements are restricted to reasonable hours in the interests of amenity having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy (May 2010).

Noise

5. Noise generated from operations on the site shall be controlled in accordance with a scheme of monitoring and control measures to be submitted in writing to the Waste Planning Authority within three months of the date of this permission. The scheme shall take account of the baseline levels established in the Environmental Quality report dated 27 April 2009 submitted on 21 July 2009 in relation to planning permission 08/00002/WAS. In any event LAeq shall not exceed the LA90

(background) by more than 3 dBA or more than 5 LA (Max) above 82 dBA in any one hour at night time. Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

6. Noise level monitoring shall include the following indices for day and night times:

a. Daytime (7am-11pm): LAeq (1 hour); LA90 (1 hour) & LA (Max)

b. Night time (11pm – 7am): LAeq (5 min); LA90 (5 min) & LA (Max) Reason: In the interests of amenity protection having regard to Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy DPD (May 2010).

7. The noise mitigation measures identified at paragraphs 1.32 to 1.35 of the Environmental Report submitted with planning application 08/00002/WAS shall be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development.