Development and Regulation Committee
Committee Room 1, Friday, 23 January 10:30 County Hall, 2015 Chelmsford, Essex
Quorum: 3
Membership:
Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor J Aldridge Councillor K Bobbin Councillor P Channer Councillor M Ellis Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves Councillor S Walsh
For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 033301 34583 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 76 Essex County Council and Committees Information
All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.
Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx
There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.
The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.
The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
Page 2 of 76 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)
Pages
1 Apologies and Substitution Notices The Committee Officer to report receipt (if any).
2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members.
3 Minutes 7 - 12 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2014.
4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.
5 Minerals and Waste
5a Cobbs Farm, Goldhanger 13 - 30 To consider Report DR/01/15, relating to the construction of an agricultural reservoir by the extraction and removal from the site of sand, gravel and surplus soils, together with construction of an access, internal road and ancillary buildings, at Cobbs Farm, Maldon Road, Goldhanger, Maldon, CM9 8BQ.
References: ESS/34/14/MAL and ESS/35/14/MAL
5b Wallasea Island 31 - 56 To consider Report DR/02/15, relating to the continuation of the importation of waste to develop a coastal nature reserve and the allowing of modifications to the landform, at Wallasea Island, Rochford, Essex, SS4 2HD.
Reference: ESS/44/14/ROC
Page 3 of 76 5c Colchester Quarry 57 - 64 To consider Report DR/03/15, relating to the extraction of sand and gravel at Colchester Quarry and at Five Ways Fruit Farm, Warren Lane, Stanway, Colchester, CO3 0NN.
Reference: ESS/23/14/COL
6 Village Green
6a Good Easter Sports Field, Good Easter 65 - 68 Application to register land at Good Easter Sports Field, Good Easter, Chelmsford CM1 4RY, as a town or village green. DR/04/15
7 Enforcement Update
7a Enforcement of Planning Control 69 - 74 To update members of enforcement matters for the period 1 October to 31 December 2014 (Quarterly Period 4). DR/05/15
8 Information Item
8a Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics 75 - 76 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. DR/06/15
9 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next meeting will be held on Friday 27 February 2015 at 10.30am.
10 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)
Page 4 of 76 To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.
In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
11 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
______
All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.
Page 5 of 76
Page 6 of 76 28 November 2014 Unapproved 1 Minutes
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 28 NOVEMBER 2014
Present
Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr C Guglielmi Cllr J Abbott Cllr M Mackrory Cllr J Aldridge Cllr C Pond Cllr K Bobbin Cllr J Reeves Cllr P Channer Cllr S Walsh Cllr M Ellis
1. Apologies and Substitution Notices
Apologies were received from Cllr J Lodge (substituted by Cllr Pond) and Cllr Lady P Newton.
2. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Bobbin declared a personal interest in agenda item 5a, Marsh Farm, Basildon, as a local Basildon Councillor.
Cllr Ellis declared a personal interest in agenda item 5a, Marsh Farm, Basildon, as a local Basildon Councillor.
3. Minutes
The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 24 October 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.
4. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking
Persons identified to speak in accordance with the procedure were identified for the following item:
Construction and use of an Anaerobic Digestion Facility Location: Marsh Farm, Vange by-pass, Basildon, Essex Ref: ESS/13/14/BAS Applicant: Mr Alex Sell Public Speaker: Charles Baines speaking for.
5. Marsh Farm, Basildon
The Committee considered report DR/46/14 by the Director for Operations, Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
Page 7 of 76
Minutes 2 Unapproved 28 November 2014
The Committee was reminded that the application sought the construction of an anaerobic digestion facility on an existing agricultural site.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of consultation and representations received were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Need Policy considerations and site location Ecology Landscape and visual impact Impact upon amenity Highways
In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Charles Baines, speaking on behalf of the applicant. Mr Baines made several points: Regarding odour, any emissions are strictly regulated by the Environment Agency. If permission is granted, an EA permit is required, which would make this a “controlled site”, subject to EA monitoring and liable to be shut down if emissions become excessive Aerobic composting has until recently been carried out on the site; and both chicken and cattle manure is already being imported, for use as fertiliser, and stored in the open. By contrast, the anaerobic digestion will be carried out in a sealed and controlled environment, reducing background odours Neither the Highways Authority nor Network Rail has raised objections. The site already uses the A13 for deliveries at the rate of 2 or 3 per hour during harvest; any further increase will be small and seasonal There is a long feeder lane coming off the A13, so there is plenty of room for any vehicles waiting at the level crossing; there is unlikely to be any tailback onto the carriageway Modern, high performance tractors are used, which can accelerate quickly as they rejoin the A13, and these are normally pulling empty trailers.
In response to questions raised by Members, it was noted: The site is situated on a flood plain, but a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency The level crossing is approximately 25 metres from the highway, but there is a long deceleration lane, which allows traffic leaving the A13 to approach the crossing safely. It also provides space for several vehicles to wait safely off the carriageway, should a situation arise when the gates were closed for a longer period than normal The crossing itself is closed quite frequently, as this is part of the London Fenchurch to Shoeburyness line; but there is no intention of restricting either the number of movements or the numbers of vehicles on site at any one time. Nor is it considered reasonable to restrict the length of these vehicles. The HighwayPage Authority, 8 of 76 Highways Agency and Network Rail have no objection. The crossing is CCTV controlled 28 November 2014 Unapproved 3 Minutes
The nett total number of extra vehicle movements is estimated to be 1200 per annum. A substantial number of these will be concentrated within certain periods of the year. Regarding access to the A13, in response to the suggestion that the slip road (i.e. the acceleration lane) is not very long, and is on a corner, making it more difficult for vehicles to join the carriageway: the Highway Authority has considered this and does not have concerns; there is an existing use, and there have been no incidents relating to this junction in the last five years The Highway Authority has not recommended any conditions requiring alterations to the road layout to aid vehicles joining the A13; The silage clamps come under separate legislation regarding potential leakage, and the EA is pleased that the applicant has confirmed that the clamps would be constructed in accordance with the appropriate Regulations. As potential inappropriate development on Green Belt land, it is considered that there are very special circumstances to justify the development in the Green Belt , although the development is very closely linked to agriculture, and agricultural development can be sometimes considered to be acceptable in the Green Belt. As there is a path to the east of the site, screening could be enhanced on this side, to mitigate the visual impact of the development.
A number of points were made by Members: The increase in vehicular movements would mostly involve the addition of slow-moving vehicles to the circulating traffic, which adds to potential risk Only a proportion of the new constructions will be erected on previously developed land, so an indication of the actual amount in percentage terms would have been helpful Only three representations had been made in response to the 151 letters of notification sent out to local residents
It was proposed that planning permission be granted, subject to an additional condition requiring further landscaping details to be submitted for approval.
The resolution, as amended, was proposed and seconded. Following a vote of nine in favour and none against, with Cllrs Abbott and Pond abstaining, it was
Resolved
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:
1. Commencement within 5 years 2. Development in accordance with Submitted details 3. No waste other than those waste materials defined in the application details shall enter the site. 4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, no more than 12,000 tpa of waste shall enter the site. Records of the tonnages of material entering the site shall be kept by the operator and made available to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of a written request. Page 9 of 76
Minutes 4 Unapproved 28 November 2014
5. Details of the materials/colours used on tanks, digesters, CHP and transformers 6. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 7. No development shall commence until an Odour Management Plan (OMP) has been submitted and approved 8. Within 3 months of the acceptance of the first load to feed the digester an odour validation report shall be submitted to the WPA 9. No development shall commence until a Noise Management Plan (NMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the WPA. 10. Within 3 months of the first operation of the development a Noise Validation report shall be submitted to the WPA and Monitoring Noise Levels. 11. No development shall take place until a revised landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. 12. Landscape maintenance
Appeal Update
6. Brook Street, Chelmsford
The Committee considered report DR/47/14 by the Director of Operations: Environment and Economy.
Members were informed that the appeal against the Committee’s refusal to grant planning permission had been dismissed by the Inspector.
The Committee NOTED the report.
Town and Village Greens Appeal Update
7. Mill Lane Green, Walton on the Naze
The Committee considered report DR/48/14 by the Director for Essex Legal Services.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
Members were informed that, following this Committee’s decision to refuse an application to register certain land in Walton on the Naze as a town or village green, a judicial review application had been made, but this has been refused, by judgment of the High Court.
The Committee NOTED the report.
8. Statistics Page 10 of 76 28 November 2014 Unapproved 5 Minutes
The Committee considered report DR/49/14, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth. The Committee NOTED the report.
9 Date and time of Next Meeting
The Committee noted that the next meeting will be held on Friday 19 December 2014 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.55 am.
Chairman
Page 11 of 76
Page 12 of 76 AGENDA ITEM 5a
DR/01/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 23 January 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE Proposal: Retrospective application for a small extension in area (to fit with the field boundary and the Wash Lane crossing) to permission ref APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596/NWF (ECC ref ESS/37/11/MAL) for the construction of an agricultural reservoir by the extraction and removal from the site of sand, gravel and surplus soils, together with the construction of an alternative access, internal road and ancillary buildings. Location: Cobbs Farm, Maldon Road, Goldhanger, Maldon, CM9 8BQ. Ref: ESS/34/14/MAL Applicant: SRC Ltd.
Proposal: Retrospective application for the continuation of the extraction of mineral to create an agricultural reservoir without compliance with conditions 2 (compliance with submitted details), 7 (highway improvements), 8 (visibility splays), 9 (Access via Wash Lane), 10 (wheel cleaning facilities), 12 (surface water management), 20 (overburden stockpiles), 22 (dust minimisation), 24 (landscape scheme), 26 (tree and hedgerow retention), 28 (protected species survey), 29 (soil movement scheme), 30 (machine movement scheme), 32 (soil bunds), 35 (scheme of archaeological investigation), 36 (reinstatement of haul route area) and 37 (aftercare scheme) attached to planning permission ESS/37/11/MAL (appeal ref APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596/NWF) to allow an amended layout, phasing and restoration of the mineral extraction and agricultural reservoir development, required due to application ref ESS/34/14/MAL. Location: Farm, Maldon Road, Goldhanger, Maldon, CM9 8BQ Ref: ESS/35/14/MAL Submitted in conjunction with ESS/34/14/MAL Applicant: SRC Ltd
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 03330136824 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Page 13 of 76
1. BACKGROUND
Planning permission for the ‘construction of an agricultural reservoir by the extraction and removal from the site of sand, gravel and surplus soils, together with construction of an access, internal road and ancillary buildings’ was granted on appeal on 03 May 2012 (planning ref ESS/37/11/MAL. Appeal ref APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596/NWF).
2. SITE
Vehicular access would be via the existing internal haul route off the B1026 (Goldhanger Road) and across Wash Lane into the main reservoir site.
The nearest residential properties are located at Cobb’s Farm itself. Beyond that, the nearest properties are located approximately 150m to the north west along Wash Lane and approximately 300m to the north west at Chappel Farm, with Brick Cottages being located approximately 400m to the north, also along Wash Lane. There are further properties to the east along Blind Lane approximately 585m from the eastern area subject to this proposal. There are some further dwellings to the south on the opposite side of the B1026 Maldon Road at Gardener’s Farm and to the west at Vaulty Manor.
The boundary of Cobb’s Farm extends northwards from the B1026 Maldon Road to Blind Lane and beyond to Little Totham Road. It also incorporates land to the south of the B1026 Maldon Road. The Red Hill SSSI is located to the adjacent east of
Page 14 of 76
this area. Further east, separated by Gardener’s Farm, is the Bound’s Farm area.
Footpath 10 (Goldhanger) crosses the internal haul route.
ESS/34/14/MAL
The application site extends to 1.1 hectares.
It is located in two areas; the first to the adjacent east of the existing permission boundary and the second to the west and north of the existing permission boundary, crossing Wash Lane.
ESS/35/14/MAL
The application site extends to 26.2 hectares, reflecting the size of the existing permitted site (ref ESS/37/11/MAL).
3. PROPOSAL
ESS/34/14/MAL
The application is retrospective; the development having commenced between May and July 2013.
The application site comprises 1.1ha, in addition to the existing permitted site area of ESS/37/11/MAL (appeal ref APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596/NWF).
The application seeks to alter/add to the existing permission in two ways:
The Western Application Area.
The crossing over Wash Lane ‘as built’ differs from that permitted by planning permission ESS/37/11/MAL, which was located approximately 100m to the south of the new location. This permitted southern crossing has not been implemented and would not be used as part of the development.
The Eastern Application Area.
This area (approximately 1ha) has been developed to the adjacent east of the area permitted by ESS/37/11/MAL. The original application boundary did not incorporate the entire field (up to the eastern field boundary), but in reality the entire area has been developed.
It is used principally for the storage of soils, a recharge ditch and a margin to the boundary hedgerow. Also in this area is a modular relocatable building forming a welfare facility, a self-bunded fuel tank and an electrical dewatering pump. These had previously been identified within the original red line area (drawing 1027/CD/1 v1, dated 03-09-2013).
A temporary agricultural access track has been constructed for use by the
Page 15 of 76
farmer on the western side of the bund.
Site visits have identified that the land has been disturbed; however it is not possible to establish whether or not mineral has been extracted and transported from site. If mineral has been extracted, it would have resulted in less than an additional 1,000 tonnes extracted when compared to that permitted under ESS/37/11/MAL.
As this retrospective application is an extension to the existing permitted reservoir which was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) it has been considered that this application also requires the submission of an EIA. A summary of the EIA submitted in support of this application is provided at Appendix A.
ESS/35/14/MAL
Due to the development proposed under application ref ESS/34/14/MAL, the existing permission ref ESS/37/11/MAL is required to be varied to accommodate an amended layout and phasing of extraction and restoration. Additionally, the change in the ‘as built’ location of the Wash Lane crossing means that the approved location is no longer required and the vegetation that has permission to be removed would be retained.
Specifically, the applicant seeks to vary the following conditions:
Condition 2 (compliance with submitted details); Condition 7 (highway improvements); Condition 8 (visibility splays); Condition 9 (access via Wash Lane); Condition 10 (wheel cleaning facilities);
Condition 12 (surface water management); Condition 20 (overburden stockpiles); Condition 22 (dust minimisation); Condition 24 (landscape scheme); Condition 26 (tree and hedgerow retention); Condition 28 (protected species survey); Condition 29 (soil movement scheme); Condition 30 (machine movement scheme); Condition 32 (soil bunds); Condition 35 (scheme of archaeological investigation); Condition 36 (reinstatement of haul route area); and Condition 37 (aftercare scheme).
It is important to note that the applicant has committed not to develop or use the crossing over Wash Lane permitted by ESS/37/11/MAL.
EIA has not been required in association with application ref ESS/35/14/MAL.
Page 16 of 76
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Essex Minerals Local Plan, (MLP), adopted July 2014; the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan, (MDRLP), adopted 2005 (saved policies only); and the Maldon District Local Development Plan (Pre-Submission Draft), (MDLP PS), provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
MLP MDRLP MDLP PS Presumption in favour of sustainable S1 S1 development/Sustainable Development
Provision for sand and gravel S6 extraction
Protecting and enhancing the S10 CC6 N2 environment and local amenity/Landscape protection/Natural environment, geodiversity and biodiversity
Access and transportation/Transport S11 T2 infrastructure in new development
Mineral site restoration and after-use S12
Development Management criteria DM1
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration.
Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.
The level of consistency of the policies contained within the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan has been considered by Maldon District Council (ref Planning Policy Advice Note Version 1.1 dated September 2014).
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states, in summary, that decision makers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of plan preparation; the extent to which there are unresolved objections; and the degree of consistency with the NPPF.
The Maldon District Local Development Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State and the Examination is due to commence on 20 January 2015. The extent to which there are unresolved objections is unknown.
Page 17 of 76
The Essex Minerals Local Plan has been Adopted by Full Council as of 08 July 2014.
5. CONSULTATIONS
MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection. Notes that there are no records of any nuisance-related complaints in relation to the site operations.
ENGLISH HERITAGE – No comments to make.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection or comments regarding groundwater and land contamination, but Flood Defence Consent may be required and notes that retrospective consent cannot be issued, so reminds the applicant of pollution prevention and control measures.
Comment: This advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT – No comments received.
VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES - No comments to make or no comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to:
- The implementation of the Wash lane crossing in accordance with the submitted details; - All vehicular access to be from B1026 (Goldhanger Road) and via the Wash Lane crossing; - Provision of wheel cleaning facilities; - Maintenance of the internal haul route free from dirt and debris; - Relocation of the gates on the eastern side of the Wash Lane crossing to within the applicant’s land ownership; - Submission of surface water management details within 1 month of the date of permission; - HGV movement limits; - Lorry sheeting
And to the provision of a legal agreement requiring a ‘before’ and ‘after’ condition survey of the Wash Lane crossing and the provision of a bond for reinstatement of any damage caused to the Wash Lane crossing.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) - No comments received.
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – Supports the application, subject to a condition to update restoration plans to include more suitable grassland and wetland seed mixes.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Buildings) – No objection.
Page 18 of 76
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – No objection. Comments that listed buildings at Cobbs Farm would not be harmed.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No objection.
PLACE SERVICES (Trees) – No objection.
GOLDHANGER PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
LITTLE TOTHAM PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – MALDON – Heybridge and Tollesbury - Any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
3 properties were directly notified of application ref ESS/34/14/MAL. 5 properties were directly notified of application ref ESS/35/14/MAL. No letters of representation have been received.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Policy Considerations B. Highway Impact C. Amenity & Environmental Impact
A POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In respect of both applications, the application site is not identified as a preferred or reserve site within the Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP). MLP Policy S6 (Provision for sand and gravel extraction), in summary, requires that mineral extraction outside such sites is resisted unless there is an overriding justification and/or benefit; the scale is no more than the minimum essential; and the proposal is environmentally suitable, sustainable and consistent with other relevant policies.
With regard to application ref ESS/35/14/MAL, there is already an existing planning permission relating to the same site (aside from the altered Wash lane crossing). It is therefore considered that the principle of and need for the development has been justified through the grant of that permission. There is no need to further consider these aspects for this application.
With regard to application ref ESS/34/14/MAL, the application is retrospective; the operator having made an error by developing all the way up to the field boundary instead of working to the smaller application boundary. Site visits have identified that the land has been disturbed; however it is not possible to establish whether or not mineral has been extracted and transported from site. If mineral has been
Page 19 of 76
extracted, it is estimated that it would have resulted in less than an additional 1,000 tonnes extracted when compared to that permitted under ESS/37/11/MAL.
It is considered that the development cannot be said to wholly comply with MLP Policy S6. However, the potential additional 1,000 tonnes of mineral is not considered to have any significant impact on the mineral landbank.
The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states, in summary, that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: - economic, social and environmental roles. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, but should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
MLP Policy S1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) MDLP PS Policy S1 (Sustainable Development) reflect the aims of the NPPF.
The applicant has not put forward any economic or social benefits of the development in relation to application ref ESS/34/14/MAL and so, in this respect, the development cannot be said to constitute ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of the NPPF, or to fully comply with MLP Policy S1 and MDLP PS Policy S1.
Environmental and amenity considerations in respect of MLP Policies S1 and S6, MDLP PS Policy S1 and the NPPF will be taken account of further in the report.
B HIGHWAY IMPACT
MLP Policy S11 (Access and transportation) requires, in summary, that minerals proposals must demonstrate no unacceptable impact on the efficiency and effective operation of the road network, including safety and capacity, local amenity and the environment.
MLP Policy DM1 (Development Management criteria), in summary, allows minerals development subject to no unacceptable impact on the safety and capacity of the road network, among other requirements.
MDRLP Policy T2 (Transport infrastructure in new developments) similarly requires safe access to and from the highway and off-site improvements to the highway, among other requirements.
The amended location of the Wash Lane crossing, approximately 100m further north than approved, was discovered via site monitoring. A natural gap in vegetation has been utilised by the developer instead of the approved location.
The new location in itself has not been objected to by the Highway Authority.
However, there are several related highway requirements associated with permission ref ESS/37/11/MAL which have not been implemented, namely that Wash Lane has not been strengthened to accommodate crossing by heavy vehicles; the gates have been positioned within the highway incorrectly and 15m
Page 20 of 76
of bound surfacing has not been placed wither side of Wash Lane within the internal haul road. The Highway Authority therefore has no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and the provision of a bond to ensure that any damage to the Wash Lane crossing could be repaired.
In addition, the Highway Authority considers that the application contains insufficient information to demonstrate that surface water would be prevented from entering the highway and insufficient assurance that vehicular wheel cleaning would take place to prevent mud entering the highway.
In order to address these points, it is proposed that the conditions attached to permission ref ESS/37/11/MAL should be updated to require wheel cleaning facilities, and the submission of details relating to surface water drainage. Two additional conditions are proposed, in the event that permission is granted, to require that no unbound material is located between the wheel cleaning facility and the junction with Goldhanger Road and that the gates are relocated outside of the public highway.
Condition surveys of Wash Lane could be required to be submitted to the MPA within one month of the date of permission (if granted) and within one month of the completion of the development to ascertain any degradation that may have occurred during the period of development. A bond could be required to support this commitment to ensure there would be sufficient funds for any reinstatement to be carried out in the event that the developer refuses to carry out such works.
It is considered that a legal agreement would be the appropriate mechanism to require the surveys and bond, in the event that permission is granted.
The Highway Authority agrees that the imposition of conditions and/or a legal agreement would be one appropriate way of resolving matters.
As stated previously in the report, an additional 1,000 tonnes of mineral may have been extracted from site. In the event that this has been transported from site, it is considered that the resultant additional lorry loads (approximately 30) would not have resulted in any significant additional impact on the highway network.
It is therefore considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions and a legal agreement as stated in the report, the development would comply with MLP Policies S11 and DM1 and MDRLP Policy T2.
C AMENITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
MLP Policy DM1 allows minerals development subject to no unacceptable impact on local amenity and the natural and geological environment, among other requirements.
MLP Policy S10 (Protecting and enhancing the environment and local amenity) requires, in summary, appropriate consideration of public health and safety, amenity and quality of life; consideration of the natural, built and historic environment; as well as appropriate mitigation, no unacceptable adverse impacts and improvements to/enhancement of the environment and amenity where there
Page 21 of 76
is the opportunity.
MLP Policy S12 (Mineral site restoration and afteruse) requires, in summary, that mineral sites are restored at the earliest opportunity using phased, progressive working.
MDRLP Policy CC6 (Landscape protection) requires, in summary, the protection and enhancement of the landscape.
MDLP PS Policy N2 (Natural environment, geodiversity and biodiversity) states that all development should seek to deliver net biodiversity and geodiversity gain.
In terms of landscape and visual impact, the proposed changes are considered to have little impact. The site is well screened. The site welfare unit and fuel tank are less than 3m in height, which is the height of the permitted boundary bunds.
Noise and dust associated with the altered development would not be significantly different from the approved scheme. It is considered that existing conditions relating to these matters could be re-imposed in the event that permission is granted.
Ecology is not considered to have been significantly impacted. The ‘as built’ Wash Lane crossing is stated to have required the removal of no mature trees, something which would have been required to facilitate the approved scheme.
It is noted that the ECC Ecologist has requested the submission of an updated restoration plan to ensure that more appropriate grassland and wetland seed mixes are utilised. It is considered that this could be required via condition in the event that permission is granted.
It is additionally noted that the submitted drawings do not show the northern bund located 10m distant from the northern hedgerow, which is a requirement of details discharged under permission ref ESS/37/11/MAL. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the 10m distance to ensure the protection of the vegetation, in the event that permission is granted.
The resultant changes in phasing and order of restoration, proposed in application ref ESS/35/14/MAL, are not considered to have any significant impact on the environment or amenity. The timescales for restoration would remain as approved.
No representations have been received and the Parish Councils have also not commented.
Maldon District Council has raised no objection and stated that no nuisance- related complaints have been received in relation to the site.
It is therefore considered that impacts on amenity and the environment have been and would continue to be minimal due to the changes to the development proposed in the application. The development is therefore considered to comply with MLP Policies DM1, S10 and S12, MDRLP Policy CC6 and MDLP PS Policy
Page 22 of 76
N2.
Additionally, the environmental strand of ‘sustainable development is considered to have been addressed for the purposes of the NPPF, MLP Policy S1 and MDLP PS Policy S1. The proposal is also considered to be environmentally suitable in relation to the requirements of MLP Policy S6.
8. CONCLUSION
Although enforcement action is an option available to the Mineral Planning Authority, it has been considered that the submission of two planning applications would be the appropriate way to regularise the identified breaches of planning control.
The retrospective changes are not considered to have had significant impact on the environment or amenity and there is not considered to be significant departure from the Development Plan.
There is not considered to be a presumption in favour of the development, since it is not considered to constitute ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of the NPPF. However, this does not mean that planning permission cannot or should not be granted. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In this instance, the lack of impact on the environment and amenity is considered to be a material consideration. Additionally, no objections have been received, aside from the Highway Authority which it is considered could be overcome by the imposition of conditions and/or a legal agreement. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that a grant of permission would result in strengthened planning controls for the development in the future.
There is therefore considered to be partial compliance with MLP Policies S1, S6 and MDLP PS Policy S1 and full compliance with MLP Policies S10, S11, S12 and DM1, MDRLP Policies T2 and CC6 and MDLP PS Policy N2, subject to the conditions and legal agreement outlined below.
9. RECOMMENDED
ESS/34/14/MAL and ESS/35/14/MAL
That planning permission be granted subject to:
A. The completion, within 3 months, of a legal agreement covering the following matters:
i. The completion of a ‘before’ (within a month of the date of this permission) and an ‘after’ (within one month of the completion of the development) study of the Wash Lane crossing to ascertain any degradation that may occur during the period of development. ii. The provision of a financial guarantee to remedy any such degradation that may occur during development, following the results of the ‘after’ study. Page 23 of 76
B. And conditions covering the following matters:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be deemed as commenced from the date of this permission; 2. COM3 - Compliance with Submitted Details; 3. CESS1 - Development shall cease by 20 May 2017; 4. CESS3 - Removal of Ancillary Development no later than 20 May 2017; 5. CESS7 - Revised Restoration in Event of Suspension of Operations; 6. PROD3 - Vehicle Records of Output (Minerals); 7. HIGH1 - Site access road to be implemented in accordance with submitted details. 8. HIGH11 – Visibility splays to be implemented in accordance with submitted details. 9. HIGH2 - All vehicular access to be from B1026 (Goldhanger Road) via the Wash Lane crossing; 10. HIGH4 – Wheel cleaning facilities to be implemented in accordance with the details submitted on 10 Oct 2012 pursuant to condition 10 of ESS/37/11/MAL, in the location presented in plan with ‘Access crossing’ ref IT665/TS/02 v5, dated 26 June 2014 submitted in support of this application; 11. HIGH3 – First 15m of access road to Goldhanger Road (B1026) and east and west of Wash Lane to be kept free of debris; 12. HIGH14 - No unbound materials between the wheel cleaning facilities and the junction with Goldhanger Road; 13. HIGH16 - Surface water drainage management details shall be submitted within one month of the date of this permission; 14. HIGH15 – Relocation of gates adjacent to Wash Lane outside of the public highway, details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the MPA; 15. HIGH5 - HGV Movement Limits 100 movements (50 in and 50 out) per day (Monday to Friday) 50 movements (25 in and 25 out) per day (Saturdays); 16. HIGH6 - Lorry Sheeting; 17. HIGH7 - Pedestrian/PROW Signage; 18. NSE1 – Noise Limits shall not exceed 10dB(A) above the existing background level; 19. NSE3 – Noise Monitoring shall be submitted to the MPA every 6 months; 20. NSE5 – White Noise Alarms; 21. NSE6 - Silencing of Plant and Machinery; 22. VIS2 - Stockpile heights shall not exceed 3m and only to be in the locations identified in the application, subject to the provisions of condition 23; 23. NSC2 – The northern environmental bund shall be moved to allow a stand-off distance of 10m from the northern perimeter hedge and the base of the bund; 24. LGHT1 - Fixed Lighting Restriction; 25. DUST1 - Dust suppression scheme to be implemented in
Page 24 of 76
accordance with details approved on 06 November 2012 pursuant to condition 22 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 26. DUST3 - Spraying of Haul Road; 27. LAND1 – Revised landscape plan shall be submitted within one month indicating grass seed mix for the final reservoir; 28. LAND2 - Replacement Landscaping; 29. TREE2 - Tree protection scheme shall be implemented in accordance with details approved on 06 November 2012 pursuant to condition 26 of ESS/37/11/MAL as amended by the submitted details; 30. TREE3 - Works Affecting Trees Carried out by Hand; 31. ECO2 – Development shall be implemented in accordance with the Badger survey details approved on 29 January 2013 pursuant to condition 28 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 32. LS2 - Development shall be implemented in accordance with the Soil Movement Scheme approved on 20 November 2013 pursuant to condition 29 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 33. LS3 - Development shall be implemented in accordance with the Machine Movement Scheme approved on 20 November 2013 pursuant to condition 30 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 34. LS4 - Stripping of Top and Subsoil; 35. LS5 - Development shall be implemented in accordance with the Maintenance of Bunds details approved on 20 November 2013 pursuant to condition 32 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 36. LS8 - Soil Handled in a Dry and Friable Condition; 37. LS12 - Topsoil and Subsoil Storage; 38. ARC1 - Advance Archaeological Investigation; 39. NSC2 - Within 6 months of the completion of restoration the Wash Lane crossing shall be removed and the hedge and Wash Lane reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted approved in writing by the MPA; 40. AFT1 - Aftercare Scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved on 20 November 2012 pursuant to condition 37 of ESS/37/11/MAL; 41. MIN1 - No Importation; 42. HOUR1 -Hours of Working (General) shall be limited to: 07:00 to 17:30 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays
And vehicles shall not enter the site outside the following times: 07:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would be located ‘adjacent to’ a European site,
Page 25 of 76
namely the Blackwater Estuary SPA, which is approximately 350m away.
The proposal would not be directly connected with or necessary for the management of that site for nature conservation; however the applicant proposes that the development would be one way of maintaining the water levels in the ESA grazing marsh.
Following consultation with Natural England and the County Council’s Ecologist, no issues have been raised to indicate that this development would adversely affect the integrity of the European site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.
It is noted that Natural England provided a consultation response dated 11/08/11 to application ref ESS/37/11/MAL, in which it was considered that the proposals would ensure availability of water to maintain the integrity of the SSSI grazing marsh and were unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the Blackwater Estuary, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
The current application would make amendments to permission ref ESS/37/11/MAL which could not be carried out in isolation. Natural England has responded to this application to state that Appropriate Assessment is not required.
Without prejudice to any planning decision, it is considered that the current proposals would not materially alter the overall impact of the development permitted under ref ESS/37/11/MAL on the European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
In determining this retrospective application, the Minerals Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant. This has been achieved via pre-application discussion, based on seeking solutions to problems noted during site monitoring visits.
The proposals have been assessed against relevant Development Plan policies; all material considerations and consultation responses. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
Page 26 of 76
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
MALDON – Heybridge and Tollesbury
Page 27 of 76
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR: COBBS FARM, GOLDHANGER (Application ref: ESS/34/14/MAL)
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application and examines the main potential impacts associated with the development.
The key subject areas identified are:
• Landscape/visual effects; • Ecology; • Agriculture/soil resources; • Water/Flood Risk; • Archaeology; • Traffic/Highways; • Noise & Dust; • Rights of Way.
The likely significant effects have been described under each subject area and any proposed mitigation/compensation measures have been identified.
Landscape/visual effects
It is noted there has been no changes to the landscape and visual impact baseline assessment. The ‘as implemented’ site boundary, takes development to the natural field boundary rather than an OS grid line. The ‘as implemented’ crossing of Wash Lane reduced the vegetation clearance to less than that required within the permitted location. It is assessed that these changes do not have any further impact on the conclusions of the original landscape analysis, as the perimeter bunds continue to contain views into the site and the completed design of the reservoir remains unchanged.
Ecology
It has been assessed that there have been no material changes to the land or farming activities since the original report was prepared (other than the area which has already commenced extraction).
The extension area comprises the small eastern part of a large arable field. The extension would not affect any hedgerow so there will be no impacts to surrounding vegetation. The original ecological survey was based upon the field units, not the application boundary. This confirmed that the whole field (including the subject of this application) is subject to intensive agriculture so relatively inhospitable for wildlife, with any permanent loss considered insignificant. The restoration scheme identifies additional grassland to increase local reptiles and small mammals’ habitats, as well as field nesting birds, especially sky larks. This would result in a net biodiversity gain.
It is considered within the EIA that the relocation of the Wash Lane crossing is beneficial, resulting from the utilisation of a natural gap in the hedge. This did not require the removal of mature trees and associated hedgerow, as the approved location would have done. The
Page 28 of 76
original gap would be re-planted on completion of the development, as required by condition.
Agriculture
The original agricultural impact assessment considered the use of the entire field up to the boundary, rather the site boundary. Therefore, there is no additional impact.
Water & Flood Risk
Similarly, the original hydrogeological/hydrological assessment and flood risk assessment assumed the whole field formed part of the proposed scheme, and the final reservoir design remains unchanged. Therefore, the impacts are unchanged and the mitigation proposed remains appropriate. The alteration of the position of the eastern recharge ditch is considered to have no further impact to that already assessed.
Archaeology
The archaeological background work covered the whole field and was not limited by the permitted eastern boundary. It is noted that a Written Scheme of Investigation is agreed and the extension area was part of the evaluation and nothing of interest was found.
Traffic/Highways
The traffic baseline position has not changed and the additional 1,000 tonnes of mineral would not impact on the daily number of vehicles permitted or development timescales. The relocation of the Wash Lane crossing is considered acceptable, subject to managing the height of the roadside vegetation. The design of the crossing is considered to be consistent with that permitted. There are no material changes to the traffic numbers and or wheel cleaning facilities, so the original assessment regarding dust and mud on the highway remains robust.
(It is noted here that additional/updated conditions and a legal agreement are proposed as part of the planning recommendation in relation to the access and highway matters).
Noise & Dust
It is considered that the baseline dust/noise findings have not altered since the original approved application. The eastern extension is not considered to bring activities closer to Cobbs Farmhouse, which is the only property that may be affected. There is considered to be no change to the findings of the noise or dust assessments, so the submission of a new assessment is not required. Furthermore, ESS/37/11/MAL imposes noise limits and monitoring requirements, as well as an approved dust scheme, which would not be affected by this application.
Rights of Way
It is considered that there are no additional Public Rights of Way impacts; therefore the findings of the original assessment are still valid.
Page 29 of 76
Page 30 of 76 AGENDA ITEM 5b
DR/02/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 23 January 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Continuation of the importation of waste to develop a coastal nature reserve without compliance with Condition 2 (compliance with submitted details) attached to permission ref ESS/09/14/ROC to allow modifications to the landform design within Cells 1 and 5, including a net reduction of suitable natural waste material in Cell 1 by approximately 450,000m3. Location: Land at Wallasea Island, Rochford, Essex, SS4 2HD. Ref: ESS/44/14/ROC. Applicant: RSPB.
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 03330136824 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000Page 19602 31 of 76
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000Page 19602 32 of 76
1. BACKGROUND
On 09 July 2009 planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was granted for:
The importation by sea of 7.5 million cubic metres of high quality recovered inert material to achieve, by phased extraction and landraising, a change of use from agricultural land to 677 hectares of coastal nature reserve principally comprising mudflats, saltmarsh, coastal lagoons, brackish marsh, coastal grazing marsh, drier grass capable of developing new saltmarsh as sea levels rise together with the development of 5 bird hides, car park and associated off shore unloading facility, conveyor and pipeline, material handling area, sea wall engineering works and modification to Footpath Number 21, to be completed by 2019.
The development is known as the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project.
Permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was subject to 43 conditions and a legal agreement. All of the requirements of the legal agreement and the relevant conditions have been discharged and complied with.
In June 2009 Development and Regulation Committee Members agreed that a previously recommended condition requiring the submission and approval of details to show improvements to the access junction between Creeksea Ferry Road and the application site could not be lawfully imposed. This was because the access junction was located outside of the red line application area and did not lie within land under the applicant’s control; rather it was privately owned. The Chairman of Committee asked the applicant to use best endeavours to resolve the issue with the private land owner.
Accordingly, the developer applied to Rochford District Council for planning permission to alter the access arrangements, planning permission ref 13/00284/FUL was granted on 11 July 2013 and the amended access is now in place.
Additionally, Rochford District Council granted planning permission ref 11/00778/FUL on 16 February 2012 for the permanent retention of a webcam tower in connection with the Wild Coast Project.
On 14 May 2014, application ref ESS/09/14/ROC was made to vary the existing permission, as follows:
Continuation of the importation of waste to develop a coastal nature reserve without compliance with conditions 2 (compliance with submitted details); 39 (cessation of operations and restoration by 31 December 2019); and 40 (removal of construction infrastructure) attached to planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC to allow the importation of suitable natural material and to require cessation of site operations and restoration by 31 December 2025, together with the inclusion of previously agreed non-material amendments to permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC.
Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions and to the amendment of clause 3.4 of the legal agreement to remove the obligation for imported material to be clean, inert and uncontaminated.
Page 33 of 76
2. SITE
Wallasea Island is located in the District of Rochford on the south-eastern coast of the County between the River Roach and the River Crouch.
Burnham on Crouch, in Maldon District, is located across the River Crouch to the north, although the application area is located wholly within the Rochford District Council administrative boundary. Great Wakering, Rochford and Canewdon are the nearest towns. The nearest residential properties are Grapnells Farm and cottages, which are located on Creeksea Ferry Road, approximately 350m from the western edge of the proposed development.
The application site area is 677 hectares. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site leads from Creeksea Ferry Road in the north-west through Grapnells Farm. Access for this application, however, would be by ship via the unloading facility located on the River Crouch to the north of the application site.
Footpath 21 Canewdon is located on the northern boundary of the site and is maintained over the conveyor by the use of a footbridge. The footpath would be permanently closed on the western boundary as a result of the breach of the sea wall at Cell 1. Fifteen km of new permissive paths are proposed across the site.
Wallasea Island has several area designations. It is located within the Coastal Protection Belt, is in the Metropolitan Green Belt, an area at risk from flooding, and parts of the site are designated as sites of National and International Nature Conservation Importance. It is also separated from an area designated as a Wildlife Site by the River Roach to the south and east. Parts of the site cross into the Wallasea Managed Retreat Local Wildlife Site, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area, the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation and the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar Wetlands Site, all of which surround the edges of the river and abut the application site.
3. PROPOSAL
The application is for an overall reduction in the amount of waste to be imported to the site. Specifically, the amount of material in Cell 1 would be reduced by approximately 450,000m3 and the landform design would be altered in Cells 1 and 5.
The application is part retrospective, since the proposed landform is already under construction.
As a result of this overall reduction in imported material, the application also seeks to remove, in its entirety, clause 3.4 of the original S106 Agreement, as amended by clause 2.4 of the Deed of Variation attached to permission ref ESS/09/14/ROC. Clause 3.4 (as varied) currently reads:
‘The developer covenants to ensure that the majority of imported waste material shall be from the Crossrail tunnelling project’.
Page 34 of 76
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been required by the Waste Planning Authority and submitted with the application. Details of the Environmental Statement are set out at Appendix 1.
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Rochford District Development Management Plan (RDDMP), Adopted 16 December 2014, the Rochford District Core Strategy (RDCS), Adopted 13 December 2011, the Rochford District Allocations Plan (RDAP), Adopted 25 February 2014, and the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (WLP), Adopted 2001, provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
RDDMP RDCS WLP
Wallasea Island URV2 Employment Growth ED1 Landfill and landraising for its own W9B sake Need for waste development W3C Development control criteria W10E Green Belt protection GB1 Airport safeguarding W10H Access to waste management sites W4C Public transport T3 Parking standards DM30 T8 Flood control W4A Water pollution W4B Protection and enhancement of the ENV1 natural landscape and habitats and the protection of historical and archaeological sites Coastal protection belt ENV2 Flood risk ENV3 Upper Roach Valley URV1 Light pollution DM5
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, as the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMP) is the overarching National Plan for Waste Management. Additionally, in October 2014, the National Planning Policy for Waste was published, replacing Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management.
Paragraph 214 of the NPPF states that, for 12 months from the day of publication,
Page 35 of 76
decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 20041 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that in other cases, and following this 12 month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.
Since they are considered to fall within paragraph 215, the level of consistency of the policies contained within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (2001) is considered at Appendix 2.
Rochford District Council has carried out its own NPPF compliance review with regard to the Core Strategy. It has found that the Core Strategy is broadly in compliance with the NPPF.
The Rochford District Development Management Document has been adopted as of December 2014.
The Essex and Southend Replacement Waste Local Plan is yet to reach submission stage. Similarly, the NPPF allows weight to be allocated to this document according to the stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with the NPPF.
5. CONSULTATIONS
ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL – No comments received.
MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL – No comment to make.
ESSEX RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
ESSEX BRIDLEWAY ASSOCIATION – Requests that bridleway access is considered within the proposals.
BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY - No comments received.
VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES – No apparatus within the vicinity of the application site.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Comments that there will be no increase in flood risk. It is also noted that the modifications will not impact the sea wall or crest level. There does not appear to be any significant water quality implications and the development proposal does not pose any greater risk to the environment. Informs the applicant that prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 9 metres of the top of the bank/foreshore of any designated a ‘main river’ or formal sea defence, and that local shellfishermen should be informed at the time of the breach of the sea walls.
1 In development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Page 36 of 76
Comment: The full response has been forwarded to the applicant.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No comment to make.
ENGLIGH HERITAGE – No comment to make.
CPRE - No comments received.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comments received.
SOUTHEND AIPORT – No objection.
LONDON CITY AIRPORT – No comments received.
BURNHAM HARBOUR AND MARINA LTD - No comments received.
CROUCH HARBOUR AUTHORITY – No comments received.
ROYAL BURNHAM YACHT CLUB – No comments received.
ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION – Raises concern that the proposed changes would result in the remaining sea walls at Wallasea Island not being maintained. A breach of such walls could lead to inundation of a much larger area, thereby threatening the stability of the Crouch and Roach and its recreational boating interests.
ROACH AREA FAIRWAYS AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE – No comments received.
KENT AND ESSEX INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY – No comments received.
CROUCH AREA YACHTING FEDERATION - No comments received.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY – No comments received.
MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION - No comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No comments received.
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – No objection.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No objection.
BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH TOWN COUNCIL – No comments received.
ROCHFORD PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
PAGLESHAM PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
Page 37 of 76
BARLING MAGNA PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
CANEWDON PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
FOULNESS PARISH COUNCIL - No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford North – Any comments received will be reported.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford South – No comment to make.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
5 properties were directly notified of the application. No letters of representation have been received.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Need & Principle of Development B. Policy considerations C. Environmental impact D. Amenity impact E. Traffic & Highways
A NEED & PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
Principle
The principle of development at Wallasea Island is enshrined in planning policy, as follows.
RDCS Policy URV2 (Wallasea Island) states:
‘The Council will support the RSPB in delivering the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project with the aim of enhancing the biodiversity value of the area’.
RDCS Policy ED1 (Employment Growth) states, in summary, that the Council will encourage development that enables the economy to diversify and modernise, and that the Council will support the development of the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development is appropriate in principle, in compliance with RDCS Policy URV2 and RDCS Policy ED1. The question of whether there is a need for the proposed reduction in fill material and the resultant cell design alterations will be considered further in the report.
Need
Page 38 of 76
WLP Policy W9B (Landfill and Landraising for its own sake) states that landfill or landraising for its own sake, without being necessary for restoration, will not be permitted. Landfill outside of the preferred sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that satisfactory restoration cannot otherwise be achieved. Landfill will not be permitted at a scale beyond that which is necessary for the restoration of the site.
This application is for landraising and is not strictly for restoration purposes, but rather land alteration; however WLP Policy W9B is the relevant policy.
The need to utilise inert waste to achieve the objectives of the project was confirmed during the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC (and the need for ‘suitable natural materials’ was further confirmed through determination of permission ref ESS/09/14/ROC).
The risk of an unmanaged breach of the sea wall was considered to be high without significant private investment. This meant that the agricultural land would have been lost to the sea. Further, the lack of management of the breach could have had disastrous consequences for the local population and the surrounding oyster fisheries.
Taking this into account, it was considered at that time that the development proposed the minimum amount of material necessary to ensure land levels appropriate to replicate natural tidal cycles and to help in the creation of wetland. The development was therefore considered to comply with WLP Policy W9B (Landfill and Landraising for its own sake), despite not being an allocated ‘preferred site’ for landfill/landraise.
The developer had always arranged the development so that the Crossrail project would complete Cell1. Under the new proposals, this would still be the case but the amount of material arising from Crossrail would be reduced to around 1.65 million m3 (approximately 510,000m3 less than originally envisaged). Cell1 would be completed with the addition of extra material from excavated from Cell 5 under the current proposals. A smaller amount of excavated material from Cells 3 and 5 is already consented for use in the completion of Cell 1.
The reduced amount of material arising from the Crossrail project has arisen due to some of being particularly cohesive in nature. The equipment on the unloading facility had difficulty in handling the wetter material and, despite alterations to the equipment, necessitated the diversion of some material elsewhere.
It is therefore considered that there is a need for a reduced amount of fill material in Cell 1, in compliance with WLP Policy W9B. The environmental acceptability and amenity impacts of this will be considered further in the report.
Waste Local Plan Policy W3C (Need for Waste Development) requires that significant waste management developments will only be permitted where a need for the facility has been demonstrated for waste arising in Essex and Southend.
The approved development allows the importation of waste from outside of Essex
Page 39 of 76
and Southend. However, the wider benefits provided by the project (namely, the avoidance of an unmanaged breach and the creation of a coastal nature reserve), are still considered to outweigh any harm caused through accepting waste sourced from outside of the County. This benefit is not considered to alter as a result of the new proposals and, as such, the development would be considered to comply with the exception criteria for WLP Policy W3C.
B POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
There have been two policy changes of note since the determination of permission ref ESS/09/14/ROC: The introduction of the National Planning Policy for Waste and the adoption of the Rochford District Development Management Plan. Neither of these policy documents are considered to impact significantly on the principle of allowing development at Wallasea Island.
Green Belt
Wallasea Island is situated within the Green Belt.
The 5 purposes of including land within the Green Belt, and the need to maintain openness and permanence have been retained via the NPPF. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
Such ‘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.
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control Criteria), in summary, permits waste management development where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on the purposes of the Green Belt.
RDCS Policy GB1 (Green Belt Protection) states that: ‘the Council will direct development away from the Green Belt as far as practicable and will prioritise the protection of Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt. Rural diversification and the continuation of existing rural businesses will be encouraged, as appropriate, so long as such activities do not significantly undermine the objectives or character of the Green Belt.’
The principle of developing the Wallasea Wild Coast project within the Green Belt is not considered to have altered.
The completed development, i.e. a nature reserve, is still considered to be an appropriate use of Green Belt land. However, the temporary harm caused by the construction period and the raising of land levels (albeit to a lesser extent) are still considered to impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
It is, however, considered that very special circumstances still exist for the proposed development now as they did during the determination of application refs ESS/54/08/ROC and ESS/09/14/ROC. Importantly, the likelihood of
Page 40 of 76
unmanaged flooding of the area could still occur within the next 10-20 years.
Given that there is considered to be a legitimate need for the proposed alterations, and that they would be likely to have less of an impact on the openness of the Green Belt, it is considered that the development would still comply with WLP Policy W10E, RDCS Policy GB1 and the requirements of the NPPF.
Sustainable Development
The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Its states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation and gains in each should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
The economic gains put forward by the applicant include:
- Cost savings in expenditure for maintenance of coastal defence on the Island; - Cost savings due to the prevention of the loss of built assets on the Island in the event of an unmanaged breach; - Job creation on and off site; - Attraction of visitors to the area.
The social value has been put forward as including:
- Reconnection of communities with the coast; - Education around sea level rise and the impact of one’s own actions on it; - Focus for local volunteering.
The benefits of the development will be explored further in the report to allow a conclusion to be drawn on the question of whether it constitutes sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.
C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Clause 3.4 of the legal agreement attached to permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was originally imposed with the intention that the requirement for the majority of imported material to come from the Crossrail project would provide some comfort that the development would reach completion.
The development has progressed well and the developer is still actively engaging with other potential projects which may provide sources of fill material. Clearly, it is not within the remit of the Waste Planning Authority to interfere with this contractual process. Given that the developer has had to contend with unforeseen circumstances relating to the handling of the Crossrail material, it is not considered reasonable or of any benefit to continue to require clause 3.4 (as amended) to remain. Nonetheless, all material would continue to be imported by ship.
It is noted here that the Royal Yachting Federation is concerned that the proposed
Page 41 of 76
changes could result in the remaining sea walls not being maintained.
In response, in the event permission is granted, conditions would remain in place requiring restoration in line with the approved scheme and timescales. This is considered to be the appropriate way to ensure that the development is appropriately completed, in line with the approach on other waste sites across Essex.
With regard to the proposed changes, the most important potential environmental impacts are considered to be those that could arise in the water environment.
As stated previously, the application area and its surroundings are environmentally sensitive. It is located within the Coastal Protection Belt, a flood risk area and is partially designated as important nationally and internationally for nature conservation.
The following policies apply in respect of flood risk:
WLP Policy W4A (Flood Control) requires, in summary, that waste management development will only be permitted where there not be an unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere or adverse effect on the water environment, as a result of the proposals.
WLP Policy W4B (Water Pollution) requires, in summary, that waste management development will only be permitted where it would not result in unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters.
RDCS Policy ENV3 (Flood Risk) states, in summary, that the council will work with the Environment Agency to manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water.
The applicant has not identified any major adverse effects. It is also noted that the Environment Agency has commented that there would be no increase in flood risk and that the modifications would not impact the sea wall or crest level.
The Environment Agency also considers that there does not appear to be any significant water quality implications and the development proposal does not pose any greater risk to the environment over and above the approved scheme.
More specifically, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment suggests that flow speed through the breaches would be likely to alter as a result of the proposed modified volume in Cell 1. The breach channel would be likely to change and widen after breach as a result, in order to accommodate higher flows, but this would not impact the estuary.
Therefore, the proposed development is considered to comply with WLP Policies W4A and W4B and RDCS Policy ENV3.
RDCS Policies ENV1 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats and the Protection of Historical and Archaeological Sites) and ENV2 (Coastal Protection Belt), in summary, require the protection and enhancement of
Page 42 of 76
sites of international, national, and local importance for nature conservation, as well as the qualities of the coastline.
RDCS Policy URV1 (Upper Roach Valley) requires, in summary, that the Upper Roach Valley will become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreational opportunities for local residents.
All of the above designations are noted, in the knowledge that permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was permitted in consideration of the real risk of an unmanaged breach of the sea wall. In the balance, it was considered that these important designations would be lost if this event was to occur. Therefore, the approved development would serve as a way of protecting the environment, since the breach of the sea wall would be controlled and new habitats would be created.
It is considered that the proposed alterations to the development would still achieve the overall end use, in compliance with RDCS Policies ENV1, ENV2 and URV1.
Airport safeguarding is not considered to be impacted upon as a result of these proposals. It is noted that Southend Airport has raised no objection. Therefore, the development is considered to comply with WLP Policy W10H which states, in summary, that waste management facilities within airport safeguarding zones will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no hazard to air traffic.
D AMENITY IMPACT
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control Criteria), in summary, permits waste management development where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
RDDMP Policy DM5 (Light pollution), in summary, requires that proposed schemes are appropriately designed and installed to minimise the impact of light pollution. Conditions may be attached to minimise any impacts.
The proposed changes in Cell 5 would include an expansion of the proposed lagoon; the inclusion of new wetland in closer proximity to the proposed visitor access area; a new visitor access track, car park location and perimeter ditch.
It is considered that these alterations would result in an improved visitor experience by ensuring that visitors would access the car park via an extended wetland area.
The site is relatively remote from any residential receptors. However, noise, dust and light restrictions would continue to be imposed via condition in the event that permission is granted. It is not considered that the proposed changes would have any significant impact on the existing regimes and the development would remain in compliance with WLP Policy W10E and RDDMP Policy DM5.
E TRAFFIC & HIGHWAYS
Page 43 of 76
As said, the proposals would not alter the current requirement for all imported waste to arrive via river. This is in compliance with WLP Policy W4C (Access to Waste Management Sites) which, in summary, encourages water transport of waste.
The developer has already implemented signage and has paid for the upgrade of public transport facilities and the creation of passing places in the area as part of the original permitted scheme. This is in compliance with RDCS Policy T3 (Public Transport), which, in summary, encourages alternative transport other than the private car.
Parking provision would continue in accordance with the existing permission, in compliance with RDCS Policy T8 and RDDMP Policy DM30 (Parking Standards).
It is noted that Essex Bridleway Association has requested that further consideration is given to the inclusion of bridleways within the scheme.
The proposals do not alter the permitted requirements regarding public access. However, the applicant has provided information to respond to the query.
The health and safety of visitors to the site is of utmost importance to the developer. The proposed sea walls dividing the wetland habitats would have a relatively narrow top. Currently, it is not considered possible to accommodate horses and pedestrians safely on these narrows paths.
However, there is a long standing arrangement that the British Horse Society is represented on the local liaison group and the developer has offered the events field as a potential venue for an annual horse-orientated event.
Therefore, it is considered that the issue of bridleway provision has been addressed as fully as possible at the present time.
8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it considered that the principle of development at Wallasea Island is established through RDCS Policies URV2 and ED1. It is further considered that, in light of unforeseen circumstances relating to the handling of the Crossrail material, there is a need for the proposed reduction in fill material in Cell 1 and the resultant design changes to Cells 1 and 5, in compliance with WLP Policies W9B and W3C.
Very special circumstances have been put forward for development within the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposed development would be considered to be in compliance with WLP Policy W10E, RDCS Policy GB1 and the requirements of the NPPF.
There are not considered to be any significant environmental or amenity impacts arising as a result of the proposed changes to the approved scheme. The existing reference to ‘the majority of imported waste material shall be from the Crossrail tunnelling project’ is proposed to be removed from the S106 Agreement. Conditions are proposed in relation to lighting and noise monitoring. Subject to the restrictions, the proposed development is considered to comply with WLP Policies
Page 44 of 76
W4A, W4B and W10E, RDCS Policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV3 and URV1 and RDDMP Policy DM5.
Since the development would not involve the importation of waste by road, it is considered to comply with RDCS Policies T3 and T8 and RDDMP Policy DM30. It is considered that bridleway provision would not be appropriate at the current time.
In terms of airport safeguarding, there is considered to be no increase in hazard to air traffic as a result of the current proposals. The continual review of the existing bird management plan would comply with WLP Policy W10H.
Overall, the proposals are considered to be acceptable. It is unfortunate that the Crossrail material could not be utilised in its entirety at Wallasea Island, but it is considered that the developer has used best endeavours to address the situation.
Finally, it is considered that there would be economic, social and environmental gains as a result of the proposed development, such that it would be considered to constitute sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.
9. RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to:
the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination; and,
the completion within 6 months of a S106a legal agreement relating to the removal of the existing obligation for the majority of the imported material to be sourced from the Crossrail project; and,
conditions covering the following matters:
Conditions to be amended as follows:
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of the application dated November 2008, covering letters dated 28 November 2008 and 16 December 2008 and accompanying Planning Statement, together with drawings numbered ‘Location of Wallasea Island’ Figure 1 (July 08), ‘Planning Application Boundary’ Figure 3a (Oct 08), ‘Proposed Design’ Figure 5 (Oct 08), 60039950/IPER/50 Rev 03 (11/12/08), 60039950/3563/65 (27/11/08), 60039950/3563/66 (26/11/08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation at Mean Low Water’ Figure 10 (Sept 08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation at Mean High Water’ Figure 11 (Sept 08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation as Viewed from the East at Mean Low Water’ Figure 12 (Sept 08), ‘Selection of Photos Describing the Key Habitat Types to be Created’ Figure 14 (Nov 08), 60039950/3563/60 (26/11/08), ‘Location of the Unloading facility and Route of the Conveyor Belt and the Wet Chalk Pipeline’ Figure 16 (Oct 08), 60039950/3563/51 Rev 01 (26/11/08), ‘Locations of the Footpaths on Wallasea Island’ Figure 17 (sept 08) as amended by email from RSPB ‘Footpath 21 Supplementary Submission’ dated 20 March 2009, ‘Topography
Page 45 of 76
of the whole of Wallasea Island’ Figure 3 (Oct 08), 60039950/3563/100 Rev 01 (11/12/08), Schematic Cross Sections Showing Design of Key Features of the Proposed Realignment Scheme’ Figure 9 (Oct 08), 60039950/IPER/101 Rev 02 (15/07/08), ‘Location and Extent of the Five Cells’ Figure 4 (Oct 08), 60039950/3593/53 November 2008, 60039950/3563/53 Rev 01 (11/12/08), ‘Existing and Indicative Standards of Protection along the Crouch and Roach Estuaries’ Figure 6 (July 08), ‘Historic Embankments, Creeks and Postulated Medieval Marsh Boundaries’ Figure 8 (Oct 08) and ‘Location of Historical EHER References’ Figure 25 (Oct 08) and Environmental Statement dated November 2008 and Appendices A-R, together with email from RSPB dated 11 December 2008, email from RSPB headed ‘Burnham Access’ dated 09 February 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Working Hours Submission’ dated 04 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Impacts on Oyster Fishery’ dated 06 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Sailing Submission’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Submission Spreading Hedge Parsley’ dated 13 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Green Belt Submission’ dated 24 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘PROW steps’ dated 25 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Submission Working Hours (2)’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: 1900-0700 Noise Generation and Mitigation’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Permissive Paths’ dated 26 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘further submissions’ dated 06 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Supplementary Submissions’ dated 02 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Roach Erosion’ dated 02 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Supplementary Submission: Landscape’ dated 02 April 2009 and Design and Access Statement,
AS AMENDED BY
The details of the application dated 17 January 2014; covering letter from ABPmer dated 17 January 2014; Planning Statement by ABPmer Report no. R.2213 Version 2.0 dated 17 January 2014, including appendices A-C; and the Environmental Impact Assessment by ABPmer Report no. R.2202 Version 3.0 dated 17 January 2014, including appendices A-D.
AS AMENDED BY
The details of the application dated 31 October 2014; Covering letter from ABPmer dated 31 October 2014; Planning Statement by ABPmer Report no. R.2316 dated October 2014, including appendices A and B; The Environmental Impact Assessment by ABPmer Report no. R.2314 dated October 2014.
All remaining conditions attached to permission ref ESS/09/14/ROC to be re- numbered, updated, removed or re-imposed as appropriate.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Page 46 of 76
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would be located adjacent to two European sites, namely the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation.
The development would be directly connected with or necessary for the management of those sites for nature conservation.
Following consultation with Natural England and the County Council’s Ecologist, no issues have been raised to indicate that this development would adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
Essex County Council as Waste Planning Authority has liaised with the applicant for several months prior to the submission of the application. Several meetings have taken place to establish the application requirements.
This is in addition to the regular contact which has been maintained with the applicant since the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC, via the local liaison group, Technical Advisory Panel, and quarterly site monitoring visits.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
ROCHFORD – Rochford South. ROCHFORD – Rochford North.
Page 47 of 76
APPENDIX 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR: WALLASEA ISLAND (Application ref: ESS/44/14/ROC)
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application and examines the main potential impacts associated with the development.
The key subject areas identified are:
Physical/hydrodynamic effects of Cell 1 revision; Nature conservation and ecology; Cultural heritage; Transport and public rights of way; Landscape and visual impacts.
Physical/hydrodynamic effects of Cell 1 revision
The hydrodynamic modelling work that was undertaken for the initial scheme design work has been undertaken again for the proposed revisions to Cell 1. There are little or no changes in the predicted water levels and water flow speeds in the estuary when compared to the effects from the original (2008) design and the revised (2014) design.
The proposed revised design has shallower gradients on average overall, resulting in energies of the incoming tide being subject to greater dissipation through the duration of the full ebb or flow cycle.
However, more flow would pass through breaches 1 and 2 and less through breach 3 when compared to the original 2008 design. This would result in faster maximum flow speeds through breaches 1 and 2 and slower through breach 3. The channel through breach 1 is likely to widen after breaching in order to accommodate higher flow speeds but would stabilise once a new equilibrium is reached.
These changes would have no adverse effects on the estuary.
There is still a predicted net accretion of sediment, as per the approved scheme, such that the levels within the site would rise at a greater rate than predicted sea level rise. This prediction is made using survey results from the adjacent Allfleet’s Marsh site, which accretes at an average rate of 4cm/year.
Nature conservation and ecology
In the absence of adverse physical/hydrodynamic effects from the Cell 1 design changes, there would be no adverse effects on the nature conservation interests in the Crouch and Roach Estuary.
The excavation work proposed in Cell 5 would help to advance the development of the water vole habitats.
Page 48 of 76
Cultural heritage
Some of the proposed design alterations would require extra excavations of the site surface. However, given the findings of the previous assessment, this would not be expected to have any significant adverse effect on cultural heritage.
Transport and public rights of way
The local public access road would be altered by the proposed Cell 5 changes, including relocation of the car park. There would be no effects on wider public transport as a result of these changes.
Footpath 21 would continue to be maintained over the existing sea wall throughout construction. The terminal section of this path would be closed when breaching takes place in the vicinity of breach 1, as previously planned.
Landscape and visual impacts
There would be no change in the broad habitats composition or the landscape-scale visualisations in Cell 1 already approved. Overall, there would be no significant visual or landscape effects from the proposed design changes.
The proposed Cell 5 changes would result in minor benefits to the visual experience of visitors.
Page 49 of 76
APPENDIX 2 Draft Consideration of consistency of Policies
Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan W3C Need for waste Subject to policy W3B, in the The NPPW has been development case of landfill and to policy updated to take account of W5A in the case of special the abolition of the Regional wastes, significant waste Spatial Strategy for the East management developments of England. The NPPW (with a capacity over 25,000 requires WPAs to plan tonnes per annum) will only be collaboratively through duty permitted when a need for the to cooperate, to provide a facility (in accordance with the suitable network of facilities principles established in policy and to consider the need for W3A) has been demonstrated facilities of more than local for waste arising in Essex and significance. Southend. In the case of non- landfill proposals with an Waste planning authorities annual capacity over 50,000 should ensure that waste tonnes per annum, restrictions disposal facilities and will be imposed, as part of any facilities for the recovery of planning permission granted, to mixed municipal waste restrict the source of waste to collected from households that arising in the Plan area. are appropriately sited to Exceptions may be made in the ensure compliance with the following circumstances: proximity principle. This may include joint working with Where the proposal other planning authorities to would achieve other develop an extensive benefits that would network of sites to enable outweigh any harm effective waste caused; management. Where meeting a cross- boundary need would The concept of the proximity satisfy the proximity principle is therefore principle and be supported by the NPPW, as mutually acceptable to stated in the reasoning for both WPAs; Policy W3A. However, it is In the case of landfill, acknowledged that the where it is shown to be NPPW recognises that new necessary to achieve facilities will need to serve satisfactory restoration. catchment areas large enough to secure the economic viability of the plant.
Therefore, Policy W3C is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPW, acknowledging that the
Page 50 of 76
requirement for a restriction on the source of waste to that arising within the Plan area is no longer supported as the standard approach.
W4A Flooding & Waste management Paragraph 99 of the protection of the development will only be Framework states that ‘Local water environment permitted where: Plans should take account of climate change over the There would not be an longer term, including factors unacceptable risk of such as flood risk, coastal flooding on site or change, water supply and elsewhere as a result of changes to biodiversity and impediment to the flow landscape. New or storage of surface development should be water; planned to avoid increased There would not be an vulnerability to the range of adverse effect on the impacts arising from climate water environment as a change. When new result of surface water development is brought run-off; forward in areas which are Existing and proposed vulnerable, care should be flood defences are taken to ensure that risks protected and there is can be managed through no interference with the suitable adaptation ability of responsible measures, including through bodies to carry out flood the planning of green defence works and infrastructure’. maintenance. In addition, Appendix B of the NPPW highlights at section (a) Protection of Water Resources that: ‘Considerations will include the proximity of vulnerable surface and groundwater. For landfill or land-raising, geological conditions and the behaviour of surface water and groundwater should be assessed both for the site under consideration and the surrounding area. The suitability of locations subject to flooding will also need particular care’.
Therefore, as policy W4A seeks to only permit development that would not
Page 51 of 76
have an adverse impact upon the local environment through flooding and requires developments to make adequate provision for surface water run-off, the policy is fully consistent with the Framework and the NPPW.
W4B Protection of Waste management The Planning Policy surface and development will only be Guidance for Waste states ground water permitted where there would that the focus of the planning not be an unacceptable risk to system should be on the quality of surface and whether the development groundwaters or of impediment itself is an acceptable use of to groundwater flow. the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under other regimes.
However, before granting planning permission the relevant planning authority will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body.
See also the reasoning for Policy W4A.
Therefore, Policy W4B is considered to be fully consistent with the Framework and the NPPW.
W4C Highway/Transport 1. Access for waste Paragraph 5 of the NPPW Access management sites will highlights that, when normally be by a short assessing suitable sites or length of existing road to areas for waste the main highway development, WPAs should network consisting of assess the capacity of regional routes and existing and potential county/urban distributors transport infrastructure to identified in the support the sustainable Structure Plan, via a movement of waste and
Page 52 of 76
suitable existing products arising from junction, improved if resource recovery, seeking required, to the when practicable and satisfaction of the beneficial to use modes highway authority. other than road transport. 2. Exceptionally, proposals for new access direct to Appendix B: Locational the main highway Criteria of the NPPW network may be requires consideration of the accepted where no suitability of the road opportunity exists for network and the extent to using a suitable existing which access would require access or junction, and reliance on local roads, the where it can be rail network and transport constructed in links to ports when accordance with the determining planning County Council’s applications. highway standards. 3. Where access to the Furthermore, Paragraph 34 main highway network is of the Framework states that not feasible, access onto ‘Decisions should ensure another road before developments that generate gaining access onto the significant movement are network may be located where the need to accepted if, in the travel will be minimised and opinion of the WPA the use of sustainable having regard to the transport modes can be scale of development, maximised’. the capacity of the road is adequate and there Whilst Policy W4C goes would be no undue further than the requirements impact on road safety or of the Framework and the the environment. NPPW, it is considered to be 4. Proposals for rail or consistent with paragraph 34 water transport of waste in that it seeks to locate will be encouraged, development within areas subject to compliance that can accommodate the with other policies of this level of traffic proposed. In plan. addition, the policy seeks to assess the existing road networks, consistent with the aims of the Framework and the NPPW.
It is noted that the Structure Plan, referred to in Policy W4C, no longer forms part of the Development Plan.
W9B Landfill/raising not Landfill, or landraising, for its The NPPW sets out a waste for own sake – own sake, without being hierarchy which is slightly
Page 53 of 76
restoration need necessary for restoration, will different to that within the not be permitted. Landfill WLP, but the overall outside the boundaries of the objective of discouraging preferred sites will not be disposal and ensuring permitted unless it can be resource recovery is demonstrated that satisfactory adhered to. restoration cannot otherwise be achieved. Landfill will not be Policy W9B seeks to ensure permitted when at a scale a plan-led approach to the beyond that which is essential provision of landfill sites, in for restoration of the site. compliance with the Planning Act.
Policy W9B seeks to minimise landfill and landraising to that essential to achieve restoration, thereby minimising the amount of waste going to landfilling and pushing waste management up the waste hierarchy. It also looks to protect the environment as a whole, which is linked to the third dimension of sustainable development as defined by the Framework.
Therefore, Policy W9B is considered to be fully consistent with the Framework and the NPPW.
W10E Development Waste management Policy W10E is concerned Control development, including landfill, with the protection of the will be permitted where environment and amenity satisfactory provision is made and plays a pivotal role for in respect of the following Essex County Council in criteria, provided the ensuring the protection and development complies with enhancement of the natural, other policies of this plan: built and historic environment. 1. The effect of the development on the Appendix B of the NPPW amenity of neighbouring sets out the locational occupiers, particularly criteria for waste from noise, smell, dust management developments, and other potential including all of the criteria pollutants (the factors listed within Policy W10E listed in paragraph 10.12 with the exception of will be taken into agricultural land.
Page 54 of 76
account); 2. The effect of the It is noted that ‘community development on the forest’ is no longer a landscape and the recognised term and that, at countryside, particularly pararaph 6 of the NPPW, the in the AONB, the protection of the Green Belt community forest and has been strengthened. areas with special landscape designations; Whilst agricultural land is not 3. The impact of road given specific protection via traffic generated by the the NPPW, the NPPF states, development on the at paragraph 112, that: highway network (see ‘where significant also policy W4C); development of agricultural 4. The availability of land is demonstrated to be different transport necessary, local planning modes; authorities should seek to 5. The loss of land of use areas of poorer quality agricultural grades 1, 2 land in preference to that of or 3a; a higher quality.’ 6. The effect of the development on historic Further, at paragraph 143 it and archaeological sites; states that Local Planning 7. The availability of Authorities should ensure adequate water supplies that: ‘high quality restoration and the effect of the and aftercare of mineral sites development on land takes place, including for drainage; agriculture (safeguarding the 8. The effect of the long term potential of best development on nature and most versatile conservation, agricultural land and particularly on or near conserving soil resources)’. SSSI or land with other ecological or wildlife Policy W10E is therefore not designations; and considered to conflict with 9. In the Metropolitan the NPPW or the Framework Green Belt, the effect of and it is linked to the third the development on the dimension of the meaning of purposes of the Green ‘sustainable development’ as Belt. set out in the Framework. The policy could be strengthened in terms of its reference to the Green Belt.
W10H Airport Proposals for waste Appendix B (Locational Safeguarding management facilities within Criteria) part i) Vermin and the safeguarding areas of Birds of the NPPW highlights airports and aerodromes and, that: where appropriate, close to other airports will be resisted ‘Considerations (when unless it can be demonstrated preparing local plans or
Page 55 of 76
that the development and the determining planning nature of the waste materials applications) will include the involved would not constitute a proximity of sensitive hazard to air traffic. receptors.
Some waste management facilities, especially landfills which accept putrescible waste, can attract vermin and birds.
The numbers, and movements of some species of birds, may be influenced by the distribution of landfill sites. Where birds congregate in large numbers, they may be a major nuisance to people living nearby. They can also provide a hazard to aircraft at locations close to aerodromes or low flying areas.’
Waste management facilities for household or commercial waste are highlighted as the most important in guarding against new or increased hazards.
Therefore, Policy W10H seeks to mitigate the impact waste development may have on airport safeguarding zones, fully consistent with the NPPW.
Page 56 of 76
AGENDA ITEM 5c
DR/03/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 23 January 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Extension of time for the completion of a S106 Agreement: Extension of Stanway Quarry on land at Five Ways Fruit Farm (FWFF) via the extraction of 2.95m tonnes of sand and gravel; extraction of remaining 0.5m tonnes of sand and gravel from Stanway Quarry; processing of remaining 1.5m tonnes of sand and gravel from Bellhouse Quarry to be imported via the existing conveyor link to Stanway Quarry by 31 October 2026; retention of the existing sand and gravel processing plant, Dry Silo Mortar Plant, concrete plant, access roads, weighbridge and related infrastructure until 31 October 2026; retention of the existing inert recycling operation and associated mobile plant parking area until 31 December 2037; restoration of FWFF area using existing indigenous soils, clay and soil forming material from within the application site within 7 years of commencement of operations at FWFF; importation of approximately 2.35m cubic metres of inert waste material for the restoration of the central / eastern Stanway Quarry void by 31 December 2037; and implementation of a comprehensive restoration scheme for the application site comprising agricultural land, orchard, woodland, grassland, lakes, habitat creation and informal public access via permissive routes. Location: Colchester Quarry (Stanway) and Five Ways Fruit Farm, Warren Lane, Stanway, Colchester, CO3 0NN Ref: ESS/23/14/COL Applicant: Lafarge Tarmac Trading Ltd.
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 03330136824 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000Page 19602 57 of 76
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000Page 19602 58 of 76
1. BACKGROUND
In September 2014, Members of the Development and Regulation Committee resolved to approve application ref ESS/23/14/COL subject to the completion, within 3 months, of a legal agreement and to the imposition of several conditions.
2. SITE
The 94.2ha application site is located to the east of Warren Lane in Stanway, to the west of main developed part of Colchester and south of Stanway Village.
The application site encompasses an area of 78.3ha known as Stanway Hall Farm and an area of 15.9ha to the adjacent north, known as Five Ways Fruit Farm (FWFF). Vehicular access is and would continue to be via the existing priority junction access off Warren Lane.
The Stanway Hall Farm area has been almost fully worked for sand and gravel, to a depth of 14m AOD in the south eastern area and to average depths of between 18m AOD and 19m AOD across the base of the quarry.
Sand and gravel deposits within FWFF are at a thickness of between approximately 12m and 23m. The deposit is generally glacially derived and thinner in the west and south of the area. The deposit is underlain by London Clay.
Bellhouse and Abbotstone minerals extraction/landfill site is located across Warren Lane to the west.
The northern and eastern parts of the existing Stanway Hall Farm Quarry have been designated as ‘Warren Lane Pit’ Local Wildlife Site (LoWS). ‘Grymes Dyke’ is also designated as a LoWS.
The nearest residential properties are located at Furze Hill and along Warren Lane to the west, along Dyers Road to the north west, at ‘The Bungalow’ to the north, along Heath Road and Maldon Road to the east, and ‘Heckford Lodge’, ‘The Warrens’, ‘The Chase’ and ‘Priory Lodge’ on Maldon Road to the south. There is also a property ‘The Bungalow’ located along Warren Lane to the south west.
Three Listed Buildings are located within 500m of the site, namely Wiseman’s Farmhouse, approximately 90m from the application boundary; Cherrytree Cottage, approximately 180m from the application boundary; and Church of All Saints, approximately 140m from the application boundary.
Grymes Dyke Schedule Monument is located to the east, with fields containing the remains of Gosbecks Iron Age and Romano Site, a Scheduled Monument, beyond.
Footpath 39 (Stanway) runs from the north west of the application site in a southerly direction to the B1022 Maldon Road. Footpaths 25 and 36 (Stanway) run along Grymes Dyke to the east.
Page 59 of 76
3. CURRENT POSITION
The Authority has been progressing the completion of the legal agreement as required by the previous resolution.
It is currently close to completion; however, due to the complexity of the content it has not been possible to complete it within the 3 months allocated by Committee.
It is anticipated that completion will take place shortly. To ensure enough time is provided for such completion, it is proposed that a further 3 months is allowed (i.e. up until 23 April 2015).
Additionally, it is proposed that the wording of draft condition 1 is altered from that previously presented to committee.. The September Committee report showed the summary condition as follows:
‘COM1 – Commencement by 11 May 2015 and notification to the MPA of such commencement.’
Due to the extra time required for completion of the legal agreement, a commencement date of 11 May 2015 may not provide enough time for the developer to arrange to physically start on site.
Therefore, it is proposed that the summary of condition 1 is altered as follows:
‘COM1 – Commencement within 1 year of the date of permission and notification to the MPA of such commencement.’
No other changes are proposed to the recommendation made in September 2014.
4. POLICIES
The National Planning Policy for Waste was published on 16 October 2014. Additionally, Planning Practice Guidance for waste has been published. These two documents replace Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) and its accompanying guidance Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10, published in 2006.
It is considered that the introduction of the above documents does not materially affect the conclusions drawn during consideration of application ref ESS/23/14/COL.
All other policy considerations remain as per the Committee report dated 26 September 2014.
5. RECOMMENDED
That the Committee re-endorses the previous decision to grant planning permission subject to the amended time limit for completion of the legal agreement and planning conditions (with amended condition 1) as set out below:
Page 60 of 76
The completion, within 3 months, of a legal agreement including the following matters:
- Submission of a revised restoration scheme in the event that ESS/63/06/COL is implemented by 11 May 2015. - The applicant to use best endeavours to upgrade proposed permissive rights of way and existing PROW so that they can be used for cycling; - A Monument/Conservation Management Plan for Grymes Dyke, in consultation with English Heritage; - Landscape Management Plan for medium to long term management of the site beyond the 5-year aftercare period; - The formal implementation of a Local Liaison Group;
and conditions covering the following matters:
1. COM1 – Commencement within 1 year of the date of decision and notification to the MPA of such commencement. 2. COM3 - Compliance with submitted details. 3. CESS7 – Revised restoration in event of suspension of operations. 4. BESPOKE - Submission of elevations and layout drawings including surfacing of access road, colours of plant and traffic calming methods associated with the DSM plant, recycling facility and associated mobile plant parking area, processing plant, quarry workshop, concrete plant, site offices, visitor parking and lorry parking, within 3 months of the date of permission. 5. HOUR2 – Hours of working (mineral specific):
0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays
No stripping, movement, temporary or permanent placing of soils before 0730 hours on any day.
6. BESPOKE - Hours of operation for the DSM Plant:
0500 – 2000 hours Monday to Friday 0500 – 1800 hours Saturdays
No deliveries of HGV movements other than between:
0700– 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700– 1230 hours Saturdays.
7. BESPOKE - Hours of operation for the recycling plant:
0700 – 1830 hours Monday to Friday 0700- 1230 hours Saturdays.
8. BESPOKE - Hours of operation for concrete plant:
0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays. Page 61 of 76
9. BESPOKE - No freestanding stockpiles of aggregate shall be stored within the DSM operational area. 10. BESPOKE - The DSM shall use only indigenous sands. 11. WAST2 – Skips to be incidental to main use. 12. BESPOKE - The recycling plant shall process only dry inert ‘Type A’ waste and road planings/construction waste. 13. BESPOKE - All waste residues from recycling process to be removed from site each week. 14. BESPOKE - No handling, processing or storage of waste outside of the permitted recycling area. 15. VIS2 – Stockpile heights not to exceed 6.1m in recycling area. 16. BESPOKE - Processing plant used only in connection with sand and gravel from Colchester Quarry. 17. BESPOKE - Quarry workshop used only for the repair of plant and vehicles associated with the quarry and no other use. 18. BESPOKE - No topsoil, subsoil, overburden or soil making material to be removed from site. 19. LAND1 – Landscape scheme including detailed landscape/restoration proposals, surfacing of footpaths, tracks and fencing, detailed sections, depths of excavation and contours within 3 months of date of permission. 20. LAND2 – Replacement landscaping. 21. BESPOKE – Progressive stripping, extraction and restoration to ensure Stanway and FWFF are restored concurrently and in a phased manner. 22. AFT1 – Aftercare scheme to be agreed. 23. AFT2 – Drainage of restored land. 24. ARC1 – Advance scheme of archaeological investigation. 25. EC03 – Protection of legally protected species. 26. LS2 – Soil movement scheme. 27. LS3 – Machine movement scheme. 28. LS4 - Stripping of top and subsoil. 29. LS5 – Maintenance of bunds. 30. BESPOKE - ‘Soil Bund 12’ to be in place prior to commencement of any works other than formation of the access track. 31. BESPOKE - Soil Bund 12 shall be no higher than 2m in height. 32. BESPOKE - Soil bunds 13 and 14 shall be no higher than 3m in height. 33. LS8 – Soil handled in a dry and friable condition. 34. LS10 – Notification of commencement of soil stripping. 35. LS11 – Notification of soil placement. 36. LS14 – Final soil coverage. 37. BESPOKE - Height of temporary stockpiles of soil-making material not to exceed height of boundary bunds. 38. BESPOKE - No imported material to FWFF. 39. HIGH2 – Vehicular access from Warren Lane only. 40. BESPOKE - Hedge to be kept cut back to maintain visibility along Warren Lane. 41. HIGH3 – Surfacing/maintenance of access road and Warren Lane shall be swept. 42. HIGH4 – Prevention of mud and debris on highway. 43. HIGH6 – Lorry sheeting. 44. HIGH5 – Vehicle movements associated with recycling site no more than 70
Page 62 of 76
movements of up to 32t gvw per day. 45. BESPOKE - No mineral shall be imported to the site from Bellhouse beyond the timescales permitted by ESS/07/01/COL/REV (or as subsequently varied). 46. POLL1 – Surface and foul water drainage, including for the DSM plant and recycling area. 47. POLL6 - Groundwater monitoring and mitigation if levels impact on nearby private wells. 48. LGHT1 – Fixed lighting restriction. 49. BESPOKE - Reptile mitigation strategy. 50. BESPOKE - Construction Environment Management Plan. 51. BESPOKE - Ecological Management Plan. 52. NSE1 - Noise limits for all permitted site operations:
Furze Hill 51dB LAeq The Bungalow 52dB LAeq Dyer’s Road 53dB LAeq Egremont Way 51dB LAeq Randoms 53dB LAeq Heath Road/Grymes Dyke Way 50dB LAeq Wiseman’s Farm 50dB LAeq The Nook 50dB LAeq.
53. NSE2 – Temporary operations (not to exceed 70dBA).
54. NSE3 – Monitoring noise levels and the submission of a scheme of mitigation should noise levels be exceeded. 55. NSE5 – White noise alarms. 56. NSE6 – Silencing of plant and machinery. 57. DUST1 – Dust suppression scheme for all permitted operations. 58. POLL4 – Fuel/Chemical storage. 59. CESS2 – Cessation and removal from site of sand and gravel processing plant, Dry Silo Mortar Plant, concrete plant, access roads, weighbridge, workshop and related infrastructure by 31 October 2026. 60. CESS2 – Cessation and removal from site of the inert recycling operation and associated mobile plant parking area by 31 December 2037. 61. CESS2 – Cessation and restoration of FWFF area within the application site within 7 years of commencement of operations at FWFF and restoration of the entire site by 31 December 2037. 62. RES1 – Stones to be picked. 63. MIN1 – No importation except via conveyor from Bellhouse. 64. WAST1 – Waste type restriction. 65. GPDO1 – Removal of PD rights beyond the areas shown on drawing B30/489 dated February 2005. 66. BESPOKE – Scheme for pumps used for dewatering to be submitted and approved within 3 months.
Page 63 of 76
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Ref: P/DC/Shelley Bailey/ESS/23/14/COL
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
The Minerals and Waste Planning Authority has engaged with the applicant prior to and during the submission of the planning application and in the months following the Committee recommendation.
The applicant has been kept informed of general progress of the legal agreement via meetings, correspondence and telephone calls. Additionally, the applicant has been given the opportunity to address any issues with the aim of providing a timely decision.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
COLCHESTER – Stanway and Pyefleet
Page 64 of 76
AGENDA ITEM 6a
DR/04/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 23 January 2015
TOWN AND VILLAGE GREENS
APPLICATION TO REGISTER LAND AT GOOD EASTER SPORTS FIELD, GOOD EASTER, CHELMSFORD, ESSEX CM1 4RY AS A TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN
Report by Director for Essex Legal Services Enquiries to Jacqueline Millward Tel: 033301 39671
Page 65 of 76
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
To consider an application made by Juliet Ann Glass, Anne Helen Clark and Victoria Jane Henderson under Section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) as amended, to register land at Good Easter Sports Field, Good Easter, Chelmsford as a Town or Village Green.
Regulation 7 of the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) (Interim Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2007 (‘the 2007 Regulations’) states that ‘where an application is made under section 15(8) of the 2006 Act to register land as a town or village green, the registration authority must grant it provided it is satisfied that – (a) the applicant is the owner of the land; and (b) any consents which are required by section 15(9) of the 2006 Act have been obtained.’
2. BACKGROUND
The County Council has a duty to maintain the Registers of Commons and Town and Village Greens.
The powers set out in section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006 allow an owner of land, to voluntarily dedicate land as a town or village green by applying to have it included in the register of town or village greens.
This provision departs from the customary law usually applying to the registration of Town and Village Greens but Defra’s guidance indicates that once a green has been registered voluntarily it will be subject to the same statutory protections as all other registered greens and local people will have a guaranteed legal right to indulge in sports and pastimes over it on a permanent basis. Subject to certain statutory exceptions for compulsory purchase or exchange of land, once registered, land cannot be removed from the register.
Section 15 of the 2006 Act changes the legal definition of a town or village green and sets out the qualifying circumstances in which land may be newly registered. Anyone can apply to have land registered as a green if it has been used by local people for recreation ‘as of right’ (i.e. without permission, force or secrecy) for at least 20 years. But under section 15(8) a landowner can apply to register without meeting these criteria.
The 2007 Regulations set out how voluntary registration applications can be made, and how they are dealt with and determined by the commons registration authority. The 2007 Regulations prescribe a new application form and are accompanied by detailed non-statutory guidance notes for applicants.
The application process for voluntary dedication is made on Form 44 and includes a map and description of the land claimed for registration as a town or village green. It also needs to identify the locality or neighbourhood within a locality where local people live who will have a right to use the green and it is up to the applicant to decide what locality or neighbourhood should have recreational rights over the land. Defra’s view is that, in relation to any land registered as a green, only the inhabitants of the defined locality or neighbourhood will have the legal right to indulge in sports and pastimes
Page 66 of 76 over the green. Consent needs to be obtained from any lease or charge holder of the land, including a tenant or mortgagee.
The commons registration authority is not required to advertise the application and does not have to examine the merits of registering the land; it need only be satisfied that the landowner is legally entitled to apply to register.
A statutory declaration is required to confirm that the applicant is the owner of the land, is applying to register it as a green and, if required, that the applicant has obtained all the necessary consents. In some cases the registration authority may decide to ask for further evidence of ownership before it accepts the application. If the authority is satisfied that the application is properly made, the land will be registered as a town or village green.
An application cannot be rejected, but it may be returned if there is any doubt about the ownership of the land or if the applicant has not obtained the necessary consents.
3. THE APPLICATION SITE
The application form indicated the land is known as Good Easter Sports Field, Good Easter, Chelmsford. The location of the land is to the South East of Mill Road, Good Easter. The Form 44 application referred to a plan on which the application site is marked and is transposed onto a map of the area on the front page of this report.
4. THE APPLICATION
In September 2013 an application was made to the County Council to register the land as Village Green.
The application sets out the name and address of the applicants, the basis of the application for registration and a description of the land the subject of the application.
The application states in the Form 44 and supporting statutory declaration that the land has been in continuous use as a sports fields and village green since 1975. The Applicants believe that there was a lease at that time to the Parish Council but no copy can be found and it is not registered at the Land Registry. It is stated that the Parish Council has welcomed the dedication of the land.
The land is registered at the Land Registry and a copy of the register was provided. It names the Applicants as the landowner. This complies with the requirements of section 61(3) of the 2006 Act which states that:
(a) references to the ownership or the owner of any land are references to the ownership of a legal estate in fee simple in the land or to the person holding that estate;
(b) references to land registered in the register of title are references to land the fee simple of which is so registered.
Page 67 of 76
The property contained in the registered title consists also of land outside the boundary of the application site. Three Charges apply to the whole Title but two of these do not affect the application site. The third, in favour of the Post Office does. This is a right to lay cables but, following a request to the applicant to address the matter, BT, as successors, have consented to the registration of the application site as a Town or Village Green by letter dated 15th October 2014.
5. LOCALITY
In part 6 of the form, which asks the applicant to show the locality to which the claimed green relates either by writing the administrative area or geographical area by name or by attaching a map on which the area is clearly marked, the applicant stated “Good Easter Chelmsford, Essex”. Good Easter is a parish and is legally capable of satisfying the criteria for a locality.
6. CONCLUSION
The application as amended is compliant with the requirements of sections 15(8) and (9) of the 2006 Act.
There is no reason for the application to be returned.
7. RECOMMENDED
That the application as amended is accepted and the land shown on the map at the front of this report be added to the Register of Town and Village Greens for the reasons set out in this report.
The new green will be VG 257.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application by Juliet Ann Glass, Anna Helen Clark and Victoria Jane Henderson with supporting papers.
Ref: Jacqueline Millward CAVG/101
Page 68 of 76 AGENDA ITEM 7a
DR/05/15
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
Date 23 January 2015
ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL – INFORMATION ITEM
Enforcement update.
Report by Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth Enquiries to Suzanne Armstrong – Tel: 03330 136 823
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
To update members of enforcement matters for the period 01 October to 31 December 2014 (Quarterly Period 4).
2. DISCUSSION
A. Outstanding Cases
As at 31 December 2014 there are 26 outstanding cases. Appendix 1 shows the details of sites (16) where, after investigation, a breach of planning control is considered to have occurred.
B. Closed Cases
9 cases were resolved during the period 01 October to 31 December 2014.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Countywide
Page 69 of 76 Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks APPENDIX 1
Basildon Borough Land to the south of Terminus Unauthorised SuzanneArmstrong 08-jan-15 Drive, Pitsea Hall Lane, building 11:24:43 Pitsea, Basildon, Essex, SS16 4UH Enforcement notice served for the removal of the building. An appeal has been lodged against the enforcement notice and refusal of planning permission. Await outcome.
Braintree District Land at Lamb Lane, Sible Extraction of mineral Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Headingham, Halstead, 09:59:19 Essex, CO9 3RS Without the benefit of planning permission the extraction of sand and mineral. Planning Contravention Notice served for further information
Lanham Green, Cressing, Waste activity on Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Braintree, Essex, CM77 8DT site 12:44:23
Waste transfer activities on land. Operator has been advised to stop immediately and remove waste from the land. Operator was willing to comply and a further visit has been arranged to ensure compliance.
Dannatts Quarry, Hatfield Non completion of Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Peverel restoration 12:26:22
No current site activities. Ongoing legal case
Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Dirty water (waste) Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Green, Fairstead, Chelmsford, from abattoir and 12:05:53 Essex, CM3 2BG storage tank Members resolved to refuse retrospective planning permission for the retention of a circular concrete tank for storing abattoir wash water and to serve an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the tank. Two appeals have been lodged with the Secretary of State against Essex County Councils decision to refuse permission for the development and subsequently serve an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised development/alleged breach. The appeal is currently in progress.
Chelmsford City Mid Essex Gravel (Dunmow Outside Wood Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Skips) Storage - Temp 11:27:09 Permission Expired Application to be submitted for proposals at Mid Essex, due to the Page 70 of 76
Page 1 Of 4 08/01/2015
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks Chelmsford City complexity of this site and the temporary and permanent permissions in place a timescale has been agreed for submission
Land adjacent The Cock Inn, Unauthorised Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Main Road, Boreham, demolition waste 12:13:46 Chelmsford, Essex recycling. Excessive Application 14/01890/FUL submitted stockpile heights & to Chelmsford City Council on the mud on the 1/12/2014. The application has been submitted by Inland Homes for a proposed residential development to comprise 28 residential dwellings, car parking gardens landscaping and new public open space including play area. the application is under consultation.
Birkett Hall, Main Road, Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Woodham Ferrers, mainly builders 10:02:52 Chelmsford, CM3 8RJ materials Importation, deposition, storage and exportation of waste materials which constitutes waste transfer activities. Planning Contravention Notice served.
Colchester Borough Gean Trees, The Causeway, Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Great Horkesley, Colchester, 12:09:35 CO6 4EJ Joint investigation by The Waste Planning Authority and the EA. A Temporary Stop Notice was served on site, this has now expired. The EA have issued a 'minded to' letter. This gives the site a number of actions that they will need to carry out within a set timeframe, including beginning to remove waste from the site, providing an action plan for the removal of waste and the cessation of tipping. If these actions are not carried out a legal notice will be served by the EA. Failure to comply with this notice is an offence. Further updates will follow.
Epping Forest District Harvey Automobile Not working in Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Engineering, Paynes Lane, accordance with 11:39:59 Nazeing, Waltham Abbey, permission EN9 2EX Working outside of the permitted area. There are some soil materials stockpiled outside of the area covered by the CLUED, the materials are located to the North West of the site. The landowner agreed that they were outside of the permitted area, due to the excessive Page 71 of 76
Page 2 Of 4 08/01/2015
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks Epping Forest District Water on site they are trying to drain the site. There were no operations at the time of my visit. the site was completely covered in water. We are continuing to work with the land owner to move the materials back within the area as approved by the CLUED. Ongoing monitoring
Maldon District Cobbs Farm, Maldon Road, Breach of Condition Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Goldhanger, Maldon, CM9 26 attached to 11:41:02 8BQ application ESS/37/11/MAL Without the benefit of planning permission the extraction of sand and gravel outside of the area permitted under Reference ESS/37/11/MAL. Phased working of the site is not in accordance with the approved details. The Wash Lane access position is not in accordance with the approved plans. A Planning Contravention Notice was served requiring information to be provided in relation to the activities on the land. A planning application has been submitted to the Waste Planning Authority. Await outcome.
27, The Causeway, Maldon, Buying ferrous Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Essex, CM9 4LJ metals (Iron) - 11:19:34 contravenes planning permission Ongoing site monitoring to ensure compliance with conditions.
Rochford District Lovedown Farm, Hockley Deposit of waste for Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 sea wall 12:24:44 development No current site activity, waste importation has ceased. continued consultation with the EA and Natural England
Michelins Farm, Arterial Road, Unathorised Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Rayleigh, SS6 7NG Development 12:15:10
Prosecution by the EA and Rochford District Council. The land owner has been sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. Essex County Councils position will be reviewed after January 2015.
Uttlesford District Land at Intersection A120/B1256, Importation of Waste Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Stortford Road, Braintree, 12:07:33 Essex Importation, deposition and Page 72 of 76
Page 3 Of 4 08/01/2015
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks Uttlesford District spreading of waste materials, substantially raising the levels on land. Enforcement Notice to be served.
Bonningtons Yard, Station Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 08-jan-15 Road, Takeley, Bishop's 10:06:43 Stortford, CM226SQ Ongoing joint investigations ECC and Environmental crime team
Page 73 of 76
Page 4 Of 4 08/01/2015
Page 74 of 76 AGENDA ITEM 8a
DR/06/15
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
Date 23rd January 2015
INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics
Report by Director of Operations, Environment & Economy
Enquiries to Robyn Chad – tel: 03330 136 811 or email: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None.
Ref: P/DM/Robyn Chad/
MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Countywide.
SCHEDULE Major Planning Applications
Nº. Pending at the end of November 16
Nº. Decisions issued in December 3
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 21
Overall % in 13 weeks or in 16 weeks for EIA applications or applications 86% agreed within the extensions of time this financial year (target 60%)
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 1
Nº. Section 106 Agreements pending at the end of December 1
Page 75 of 76
Minor Applications
% of minor applications in 8 weeks this financial year (Target 70%) 53%
Nº. Pending at the end of November 9
Nº. Decisions issued in December 3
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 41
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 3
All Applications
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 4
Nº. Committee determined applications issued in December 2
Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 145
Nº. of Submission of Details pending at the end of December 84
Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers in December 1
Appeals
Nº. of appeals outstanding at end of December 1
Enforcement
Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 26
Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 9
Nº. of enforcement notices issued in December 0
Nº. of breach of condition notices issued last month 0
Nº. of planning contravention notices issued last month 0
Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices Issued last month 0
Nº. of Stop Notices Issued last month 0
Page 76 of 76