REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date of Meeting Wednesday 9 December 2015

Application Number 13/04647/WCM

Site Address Land at Nr Wilts

Proposal Construction of new landscaped noise attenuation bund

Applicant Mrs H Tupper

Town/Parish Council

Ward BY BROOK - Cllr Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE

Grid Ref 388347 179271

Type of application County Matter

Case Officer Greg Lester

Reason for the application being considered by Committee

Cllr. Jane Scott has requested this application be called-in for determination by the Strategic Planning Committee for the following reasons:

 Concern over highway safety implications.

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the above report and to recommend that planning permission is refused.

2. Main Issues

The main issues in respect of the proposals are considered to be:

Waste Policy Impact on Residential Amenity Landscape/Visual impact Ecological Impact Highways Impact Impact on Historic Environment 3. Site Description

The proposed development site is located at Leigh Delamere and is part of an agricultural field which slopes gently from north to south and is bounded by the hamlet of Leigh Delamere to the north and the east bound carriageway of the in the south. To the west of the site is made-up ground from the construction of the M4 in the late 60’s early 70’s and to the east is a cattle/ vehicle over bridge which runs from Leigh Delamere and passes over the motorway. The application site is 3.50 ha and is currently used for arable purposes.

4. Planning History

N/05/02398/FUL Applicant: Mr and Mrs J Jeeves - Creation of Landscaped Bund Adjacent to M4 Motorway - Refused N/09/00652/WCM Applicant: Mr Paul Lysley - Creation of a landscaped landform to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the M4 Motorway and the construction of a temporary access track to facilitate vehicular access to construct the landform – Withdrawn

N/10/01208/WCM Applicant: Mr Paul Lysley - Creation of a Landscaped Landform Using Inert Fill Material to Mitigate Adverse Environmental Impacts of The M4 Motorway and Construction of a Temporary Access Track to Facilitate Vehicular Access - Withdrawn

5. The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the construction of a landscaped bund along the northern boundary of the M4 at Leigh Delamere. The purpose of the bund, which would be landscaped with shrubs and trees, is to provide an acoustic and visual screen for the residents of the hamlet from the M4. The bund would be formed in an ‘L’ shape and be approximately 400 metres long, with a, 70 metres wide with an average height of 4-5 metres above existing ground levels, with the shorter part of the ‘L’ on the bunds north side being 180 metres long and 60-70 metres in width with an average height of 4-5 metres. It would have a shallow slope on the north side facing Leigh Delamere with a steeper slope on the south as it drops down to the M4. This is intended to give it the appearance of a field rising to the south as viewed from the hamlet.

It is proposed to construct the bund to an engineered design using inert material which would be imported to the site. When constructed the bund would be landscaped with shrubs and trees. Access to the site would be via a field gate off a ‘C’ class county road (C178) which links Leigh Delamere (to the east) with (to the west). The field entrance would be hard surfaced and a temporary haul road installed to the proposed bund site. It is estimated that some 70,000 cubic metres of materials would be required to build the bund which would equate to 12 lorry loads per day (24 movements) over a period of 24 months. Proposed hours of operation are as follows;

Monday to Friday 07.30 – 18.00, with no deliveries within an agreed time period for the schools start time and finish time.

Saturday 07.30 – 13.00

No Sunday or Bank Holiday working.

No indication is given in the application regarding the source of the inert waste material. The submitted Transport Statement identifies five potential routes for the delivery of the material to the site. However, all routes converge on the C178 which runs east-west past the north of the site.

Following the consultation process, a number of deficiencies were identified within the submitted supporting information. A submission of additional information was made and those consultees that had identified the deficiencies were invited to review the additional information.

6. Planning Policy

The following Development Plan policies are considered relevant to the determination of this planning application:

Policies WCS2, WCS3 and WCS 5 of the and Waste Core Strategy 2006 – 2026.

Policies WDC1, WDC2, WDC3, WDC7, WDC8, WDC9 and WDC11 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD.

7. Consultations

Wiltshire Councillor, Mrs Jane Scott – has requested that the application be considered at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee. Grittleton Parish Council - Councillors have studied the Transport Plan supplied but remain of the opinion that the excessive disruption caused by importing materials to the site remains significant in terms of the surrounding local highway network – both in terms of condition and operation. The proposed access routes to the site, involving a great number of daily lorry movements through neighbouring hamlets and villages (including , and ) will, in Grittleton Parish Council’s opinion, have serious detrimental effect upon the surrounding rural road system. The suitability of some of the lanes to take a significant amount of construction traffic is of concern, particularly in relation to the lack of passing places in some locations (including Sevington Lane).

Although the Parish Council note a potential embargo on movements of construction traffic close to local schools during prescribed times, Councillors consider that the impact of such a restriction could lead to the time period for construction significantly over-running the two year scale indicated. Furthermore, the likelihood of a major increase in construction traffic movements during school holidays is of major concern.

Grittleton Parish Council note that despite concern set out in their letter of 2nd December 2013, the Transport Plan makes no reference to clarifying where responsibility lies in terms of reparation work to the local highway network following the construction of the bund.

The Parish Council note that no Construction Management Plan has been supplied – and there is no reference to how works on the site will operate – a number of Health and Safety issues appear not to have been addressed.

Whilst Councillors wholly appreciate the impact of noise pollution upon the community of Leigh Delamere, Grittleton Parish Council have noted a lack of unity in response to the application from all residents of Leigh Delamere.

The Parish Council continue to consider that the effect which the proposed works would have upon the surrounding area is of significant concern and therefore object to the application.

Environment Agency – No objection to the scheme as proposed.

Highways Agency – No objection subject to conditions covering dust suppression measures during construction. Rhamnus Cartharica shall not be used in the planting mix.

Environmental Health Officer – initially concerned that a bund restricted in height to find a balance with landscaping requirements would be provide a reduction although will still exceed the WHO and BS8233 standards. Any scheme designed for this site should aim to achieve the best possible standards. However, the additional information provides suitable justification for a single bund.

I would agree with the authors findings that an additional bund in the South West field would only provide a minimal decrease in levels in Western edge and none in the rest of the village and when you off set the benefits against the additional lorry movements and disruption in the construction phase I must agree with the scheme as proposed. However, there will be inevitable disruption caused through vehicles arriving at and departing from the site as well as the machinery required for landscaping work. Consideration should be given to restricting working hours from 0730 – 1800 Monday to Friday, with no working at weekends. In addition, a wheel wash facility should be considered to ensure the highway is protected during inclement weather and also a full time road sweeper to ensure that the roads are dampened to prevent wind borne dust becoming a nuisance off site.

Council Ecologist – The survey initially submitted with the application had several inadequacies and missing information regarding protected species and the submitted Construction Method Statement was not based on an updated survey. Following the submission of additional information, these concerns have been addressed and it is recommended that conditions securing the provision of protection for protected species and the method of construction being in accordance with the submitted CMS should be added to any planning permission.

Council Landscape Officer – There have been several previous submissions for the construction of an acoustic bund at Leigh Delamere. These have previously been rejected for poor design issues, landscape impact and a lack of supporting evidence that the bund would achieve the necessary noise reduction.

The current application is supported by a suite of reports. In terms of Landscape, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted and demonstrates a much improved design for the bund in terms of contouring and planting.

Following the provision of additional information, a soil handling strategy has been provided which details where soil that has been stripped will be stored, as well as that which is imported for the construction of the bund. The strategy itself is acceptable. The site will take on the appearance of a landfill for the duration of construction and will of necessity involve the stripping of soils, storage of soil and spoil, earth moving machinery, delivery lorries, a storage compound, welfare facilities, site fencing etc. The LVIA explains that the mitigation for these impacts are the time limitation of the development, Careful site planning in terms of locating the compound and sequential construction of the bund. No supporting information has been provided to demonstrate that sufficient material exists to enable the development to be completed within 2 years, whilst this can be conditioned the some confidence in whether the scheme can be delivered in this timescale is required to ensure the scheme is deliverable and to keep landscape impacts to a minimum, if an extension of time is applied for, the landscape mitigation will have failed.

It has been clarified that the relevant planting scheme is that contained within the LVIA strategy, and this should be conditioned.

Local Highway Authority – A condition requiring a very detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan has been suggested previously. However no information is given as to the management of the construction and whether the lorries bringing the material will be under the control of a single contractor or not. Clearly the former could give a tighter control of routeing than the latter.

The surrounding road network is very narrow and this is borne out by the frequent use of the words “with care” in the revised Transport Statement. In addition the working hours will need consideration as these would need to be controlled to reduce disturbance to residents. Given the distance material will have to travel and the need to avoid movements during school start & finish times, it is likely that the rate of fill will result in a possible increase to 3 to 4 movements per hour. This will increase the chance of conflict between opposing lorries on the narrow roads.

In the event of permission being granted the Highway Authority would use its powers under S59 Highways Act 1980 to recover the costs of any damage to the roads and verges caused by the traffic generated by this proposal.

Wiltshire Council Drainage Engineer – Object on the basis that the FRA states that pond run-off will be directed to a highways ditch, owned by the Highways Agency. Consent is unlikely to be forthcoming, therefore the site will not benefit from drainage.

Wiltshire Council Conservation Officer –

I am familiar with this village/hamlet, which has a number of listed buildings, including a grade II* church. The church was listed in 1960, whereas the other listing designations took place in 1988. Leigh Delamere was designated as a Conservation Area in January 1990. The M4 motorway was constructed between 1965 and 1971. The land between the village and motorway is generally open fields bounded by hedges and the level drops away slightly southwards. The proximity of the motorway to the village means that there is permanent traffic noise through the day and I would assume at night too. However, the impact of the motorway on the setting of the heritage assets was not considered to be so harmful that their integrity was damaged to the point of being unworthy of designation.

The proposals are to create a bund on the land near the motorway on a field separating the motorway from the hamlet, with trees planted on the bund. The proposed bund would mean that the ground level nearest the motorway would be raised and the views south shortened. There are conflicting details included in the submission, some showing a narrow belt of planting and a fence on the top of the bund, others showing a much wider belt of planting spreading both side of the brow of the bund. I am not entirely clear as to why the short stretch of land shown on the proposals has been chosen in particular but assume that this has been calculated as the best section to buffer properties covering a wider area? The written information submitted with this application does not appear to have considered the impact in heritage assets to great depth and it includes some rather vague information, some of which is not specific to this site. Construction of the bund and associated landscaping, including fencing, will not physically touch the designated heritage assets. However, by creating the unnatural hill that is typical of a bund and will be higher than the hedge at road level through the settlement, together with the elevated tree line, the views in and out of the site will be impeded. The closing in of views and landscape to the south and south west of the heritage assets will harm rather than preserve or enhance their setting because the visual space around those assets will be reduced and their significance will less well revealed.

The bund and planting will change the landscape profile and curtail views from and to the settlement, truncating their setting. Whilst there are public benefits that could be achieved through noise reduction, I am not convinced that a scheme in this form would outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the heritage assets. No option seems to have been considered that would be less disruptive and contrived, such as planting the field with native tree species, as can be seen around the Leigh Delamere Services. The proposals shown would be contrary to the NPPF and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and I therefore cannot support this proposal.

Should permission be granted, please could a condition requiring the tarmac access track to be returned to a grass track once construction is completed be added. 8. Publicity

The application has been publicised in the local press and by site notices. A neighbour notification exercise was also carried out.

Sevington Victorian School – The traffic generated by the proposal will cause congestion on what is a narrow single track road, but also pose health and safety risks.

1 letter of support has been received, along with 6 letters of support submitted with the application, highlighting the following benefits:

 Will reduce the excessive (above WHO recommended levels) noise.  Will provide a natural habitat for wildlife  Noise levels would not be tolerated by new development  If motorway built today, then a bund would be required to mitigate the problem.  Regularly see bunds constructed with new residential developments along the M4.  M4 is a more alien landscape feature than the proposed bund.  Landscaped bund will enhance the scenery from public rights of way.  Concerns regarding access are insignificant when weighed against the benefits of the bund.  Noise levels have increased steadily over the years.

Two letters of objection has been received raising the following concerns (from one resident following each period of consultation):

 No assessment of how current routes are being used by existing traffic.  No details provided of carriageway widths, users etc.  C178 from east and through Leigh Delamere is a lane, part single carriageway, and not suitable for 18 lorry movements per day.  Photograph in Transport Statement appears to have been taken in winter. Visibility in spring/summer is much reduced.  Visibility is reliant on third party hedgerow cutting.  Motorway services were designed to keep lorries and cars separate – routing lorries through the services would have to drive through car parking areas.  Little way of policing management plan unless reported by residents.  No details provided for remedial works to the carriageway in the event of damage caused by lorries.  The Highways Agency propose to re-surface the stretch of M4 adjacent to the proposed site, which will decrease the noise.  Proposed development out of scale and disproportionate for hamlet the size of Leigh Delamere.  Other acoustic attenuation means, along with re-surfacing the M4, would have the same noise reducing effect.  The bund will only reduce noise when the wind is blowing, or coming from the south or south west.  Motorway is only light background noise when wind is not blowing.  Alternative fencing could adequately address concerns.  Planting of trees could mitigate appearance of fencing.  No other traffic visiting the site is considered, other than lorries bringing material for deposit.  No highway capacity information has been provided for single track carriageways.  No mention of whether traffic surveys at peak times have been undertaken.  Two cars are unable to pass on the single track section of road.  Leigh Delamere is subject to the national speed limit, this could create a danger to other road users if lorries travel at the permitted speed.  A speed limit and weight limit should be introduced in the event planning permission is granted.  The proposed drainage ditch is unlikely to be adequate to cover peak water run-off. More adequate drainage is required.  Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was produced in 2010 and is out of date as bund design has changed.  No Construction Management Statement (CMS) has been submitted. No account has been taken of: Generator noise, waste disposal including burning of waste, safe storage of fuel and vehicles, if working hours extend beyond daylight hours, are there proposals for floodlights?  A CMS would highlight the need for an area to park staff cars. As this will be in place for 2 years, has this been taken into consideration in the FRA and the ecological Construction Method Statement?  What is the bund to be constructed of?  Proposed working hours excessive.

9. Planning Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the decision must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a noise attenuation bund alongside the M4 at Leigh Delamere. This current proposal has been the subject of pre-application discussions from 2011. There have been three previous planning applications to construct a bund at this location, albeit with differences in the proposed design. On the first occasion, the application was refused and on the last two occasions the applications were withdrawn by the applicant once it was known the recommendation was to refuse planning permission.

It is considered that the main issues in the determination of this application are as follows;

Waste Policy Impact on residential amenity Landscape/Visual Impact Ecological Impact Highway Impact Impact on Historic Environment Waste Policy

The applicant states that the proposed bund is to be constructed “in the main from inert soils together with top soil capping to assist the proposed landscaping growth”. The supporting documents submitted with the planning application refer to the bund being created with ‘imported inert fill’. Overall it is estimated that the construction of the bund will involve the importation of 70,000 cubic metres of material, over a period of 2 years.

The applicant has been reluctant to explain the source of this quantity of material, but it is typical with large-scale landscaping developments, such as golf course development or the construction of bunds or embankments, that the material will arise from residential and other such like development sites where the original holder of that material has ‘discarded’ it from the site. Inert material ‘discarded’ from other developments counts as ‘waste’ for planning purposes. The Government has also expressed a view that these so-called landscaping developments would not been undertaken if the material used to construct the landscaping were not waste. It is therefore considered appropriate that this application is considered in the context of the Council’s planning policies for waste.

Policy WCS3 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Core Strategy identifies the preferred locations for each type of waste management facility and Policy WCS5 sets out, in order of preference, the waste hierarchy and shows that in the interests of sustainable waste management, the re-use of waste is preferred to landfill and landraise proposals.

The proposed bund is intended to mitigate the impact of the M4 Motorway on the living conditions of residents of Leigh Delamere. The associated importation of inert (waste) fill material is claimed by the Applicant to be for the purpose of ‘waste recovery’ (i.e. associated with a genuine beneficial use in construction) rather than for the disposal of waste on land. The applicant is of the view therefore that the materials to be used to form the bund will be moved up the waste hierarchy. Although not a planning document, regulatory guidance “Defining Waste Recovery: Permanent Deposit of Waste on Land” issued by the Environment Agency provides useful guidance as to whether an activity involving the deposit of waste on land is waste recovery or waste disposal. The guidance note states that in deciding whether use of waste in a bund is a recovery activity, the first step is to demonstrate that there is a need for, and a real benefit derived from its creation. The notes goes on to advise:

The bund must be no larger than it needs to be, and a justification for the proposed dimension of the bund must be provided. For a bund to attenuate noise for example, a case setting out why it was necessary to achieve a given noise level would be needed, and this would have to be supported by noise modelling which showed the bund had been designed to be no bigger than it needed to be to achieve that purpose.

The Applicant has submitted with this application an ‘Assessment of Screening Options’ report in support of the proposal. The assessment report notes that the village of Leigh Delamere lies approximately 220 to 300 metres to the north of the M4 motorway. The land between the houses and the M4 is relatively flat agricultural fields and there is no specific noise mitigation provided by the Highways Agency. The levels of road traffic noise at the houses are considered high and intrusive by the residents and they have proposed that a screen be provided along the northern boundary of the M4 to reduce noise impact at the village. The assessment report considers the acoustic benefits of the proposed screen and any other options which would provide worthwhile reductions in the noise at the village.

The report concludes that noise levels at the village are shown to be significantly in excess of the maximum level of noise recommended for gardens and outdoor living spaces by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the British Standards Institution. The WHO considers noise levels from a continuous noise should not exceed 55dB LAeq outdoors, on balconies or terraces to prevent people from becoming ‘seriously annoyed’. A noise survey was carried out at Leigh Delamere in 2007 found that the noise in the village was 68dB.

The review of screening options has shown that the provision of the screen proposed by residents of the village would provide significant reductions in noise (approx. 6.8 dB), however, even with the highest screen options investigated the external and internal noise levels at houses in the village cannot be reduced to meet the recommended noise levels in residential areas. The Environment Agency regulatory guidance advises: If a very large bund is proposed, but the benefits derived from installing it are marginal, this would point more towards a disposal operation.

The relevant County specialists also call in question the benefits of the scheme, with the Environmental Health Officer noting the findings of the “Assessment of screening options” that an alternative bund scheme to that proposed would provide a greater benefit, and the Conservation Officer queries why no option seems to have been considered that would be less disruptive and contrived, such as planting the field with native tree species, as can be seen around the Leigh Delamere Services.

A further justification for waste importation stems from the Applicant’s contention that the provision of the bund complies with current government planning policy on noise. However, the sections of the NPPF to which the Applicant refers actually relate to how planning policies and decisions should consider noise from new development (i.e. the building of new houses or new roads) and are not specifically relevant to the construction of a bund.

While the submitted ‘Assessment of Screening Options’ report considers various combinations of bunds and vertical screens (noise fences), it does not demonstrate that the only means of reducing noise from the motorway is to import a substantial quantity of inert waste. Furthermore, the report concedes that even the highest screen options investigated noise levels cannot be reduced to meet the recommended noise levels.

On balance, therefore, it is concluded that the importation of waste material in the proposed quantity has not been sufficiently justified and is therefore considered to amount to a proposal for the ‘disposal’ of waste.

Policy WCS3 seeks to locate sites for disposal of inert waste material adjacent to existing landfill facilities or as part of the restoration of mineral workings. The application site is not a preferred location nor is it a site contained the Waste Site Allocations Local Plan, but the policy also outlines an approach for dealing with proposals put forward outside of the preferred locations. In such circumstances, sites will also be considered in order to provide flexibility if they can be demonstrated by the applicant to be in accordance with all relevant provisions of the Strategy, objectives and policies of Waste Development Plan Documents. No such appraisal has been submitted. The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) advises that sustainable waste management involves driving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. This is reflected in Policy WCS5 of the Waste Core Strategy, which defines the hierarchy as elimination, reduction, re- use, recovery and safe disposal. Having regard to the government guidance concerning large- scale landscaping developments, it is considered insufficient information to demonstrate that the construction of the proposed bund is a waste recovery operation rather than a waste disposal operation.

Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy WDC13 as it would be low down the preferred hierarchy and would undermine the area’s waste planning strategy. In addition, as the source of the waste is unknown, it is not possible to assess if the proposal would be compliant with Policy WDC11 which provides that waste management development will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the proposal facilitates sustainable transport, minimising transportation distances.

The deposit of inert waste at the appeal site would prevent its use elsewhere such as, for example, a re-use higher up the waste hierarchy. As the proposal would not be located at an allocated site or within a preferred location and would be low down the waste hierarchy, it is considered to be an imprudent use of resources. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to Policies WCS3 and WCS5, and Policies WDC11 and WDC13.

Impact on residential amenity

Policy WDC2 states that planning applications for waste management development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal first avoids, or adequately mitigates for impacts relating to amenity, visual aspects, noise and light emissions, vibration, transportation of waste, air emissions and climate change, the water environment and contaminated land.

Construction of the proposed bund would be a substantial engineering operation. It is estimated by the Applicant that the bund will be under construction for a period of 2 years. This will necessitate movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) bringing material to the site and excavators to move it around the site and form the bund, as well as the potential for the creation of nuisance in the form of windblown dust and highway safety impacts from increased vehicle movements. This will result in increased noise and disturbance to the residents of Leigh Delamere and in particular to the nearest resident. One resident of Leigh Delamare who would be one of the nearest occupiers to the proposed bund has raised objections as listed above. As one of the residents who would perhaps benefit the most from the bund, it is worth noting that they have significant concerns regarding the level of traffic that would visit the site, and the disruption that would be caused, not only by construction vehicles, but also by HGV’s visiting the site to deposit waste material. These concerns are echoed by the Parish Council. The Highways Agency are concerned that the materials that could be used for the bund could lead to windblown dust causing a hazard to users of the M4 Motorway.

On balance, whilst the proposal will achieve a reduction in noise, it is not considered the benefits that the bund could deliver do not outweigh the negative elements of the scheme that would be experienced for the two year construction period in the form of additional road traffic and construction noise, both on the nearest residents and those which are located along the routes to and from the development site

Landscape/Visual Impact

Another reason given by the applicant for promoting construction of the bund is that, once constructed it will act as a visual barrier between the hamlet of Leigh Delamere and the M4 Motorway and so inhabitants of the village will not be able to see vehicles as they travel along the motorway .The motorway was constructed in the late 60’s early 70’s and the hamlet of Leigh Delamere was designated as a Conservation Area in 1990. Modernisation of the building stock and other forms of development have been carried out over recent years which have respected the landscapes sensitivity and maintained the hamlet’s local distinctiveness.

There have been previous proposals to create a bund on the same site as the one currently being considered. In November 2005 permission was refused by North Wiltshire District Council for bund requiring 50,000 cubic metres of fill material. One of the grounds of refusal was that it would be an alien feature in an agricultural landscape and would be detrimental to the setting of the Leigh Delamere Conservation Area. Two subsequent schemes were submitted for a bund, with the design remaining similar, yet requiring additional material to construct.

The current application proposes a redesigned bund, of an ‘L-shape’ design, that is some 400 metres in length and the height 5-6 metres. Residents have referred to examples locally where housing is being built close to the motorway and acoustic bunds constructed to shield them. However, it is important to note these bunds are an integral element of these developments and designed as such.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identified that the site of the proposed bund was used as a spoil tip during the construction of the M4 Motorway, and as a result the original character of the area had been altered, giving the site an uncharacteristic shape. This combined with the presence of the Motorway itself and the nearby Leigh Delamere . Leads the LVIA to conclude that the site of the proposed bund has suffered disproportionately from such a decline in character, and to allow the bund development would not create further significant change in the presence of the aforementioned features.

The LVIA also considered that the site has limited publicly accessible viewpoints due to having areas surrounding the site that are heavily wooded with strong hedge lines. The only identified significant impacts were viewpoints from users of the Bridleway during construction crossing the M4 Motorway.

The Council’s Landscape Officer assessed the submitted LVIA and advised that further assessment was required. This information was subsequently provided by the applicant, including details to cover construction impacts and a phased bund construction with progressive planting of woodland species if it would be at an appropriate time of year, otherwise the surface would be covered with a suitable herb rich grassland seed to assist in mitigating the impact of bare soil being left in place, and to prevent windblown dust, or soil being washed from the bund.

Following a review of this additional information, in conjunction with the originally submitted LVIA it is considered that in terms of landscape and LVIA the submitted scheme is a much improved design over previous submissions in terms of contouring and planting.

Details have also been provided of the phased construction works to the bund, along with locations of soil storage mounds that would be utilised during construction. It is considered that this adequately sets out both how soil will be managed on site, and how the phased construction of the bund will work in practise.

However, there remain concerns over the impact the construction of the bund will have on the character of the landscape. Whilst the completed bund will have a landscaped appearance, after 5 years, during the course of construction the site of the bund will be visible from a number of locations, and will have the visual appearance of a landfill site, with stripped ground and machines present moving material to form the bund. The LVIA identifies a number of potential construction impacts, but concludes that these will be temporary and, by careful location of construction and storage compounds and a time limit on the construction of the bund, impacts can be minimised.

Whilst the proposal states the development will be completed in two years, no information has been provided to demonstrate that sufficient material exists to allow the development to be completed within this time frame. As noted above, the source of the waste is unknown. It is a concern that if the LVIA concludes that potential construction impacts are required to be mitigated by time limit on the construction of the bund, then a failure to complete construction within two years would mean proposed landscape mitigation had failed.

It is notable that during the processing of this application, two applications for extensions of time have been received for schemes requiring inert wastes for land restoration (15/09006/WCM and 15/10713/WCM). Both applications cite the lack of adequate and appropriate materials for the requirement to seek an extension of time.

These concerns are addressed to some extent in the LVIA – additional information document which recommends that the bund should be constructed in sections, which when complete, are planted with the woodland mix proposed in the LVIA. Therefore, in the event the bund could not be constructed within two years, the impact on the landscape of the incomplete bund would be lessened. Consequently, whilst officers have reservations over the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation it is not considered that refusal of this application for that reason could be sustained. Any future proposal to extend the construction period would be assessed on its own merits. Ecological Impact

The originally submitted Ecological survey effort had a number of deficiencies which were identified during the consultation process. The applicant subsequently provided further information to enable the likely impacts of the proposal on ecological interests in the area to be adequately considered.

The revised information consists of an updated ecological survey, method statement for the protection of Great Crested Newts and other protected species during construction.

It was also noted that the NPPF requires enhancements be sought for biodiversity through the planning process. It is considered that the submitted Construction Method Statement and Planting Scheme Management Plan will provide enhancements for biodiversity and be in compliance with these requirements.

It is considered that the survey work and mitigation proposals, as amended, provide sufficient information and safeguarding to ensure that protected species would not be impacted throughout the construction phase. Planning conditions could be used to secure these details if the Committee is minded to approve the application.

Highways Impact

The existing site is an arable field to the south of the hamlet of Leigh Delamere. The site is accessed from the local highway network, as no access can be derived from the M4 Motorway as this is prohibited at this location. The highway network surrounding the site is of narrow country roads of either a ‘C’ classification or unclassified nature. In some places the roads are single track and rely on informal passing places or field gateways for two vehicles to pass safely when approaching Leigh Delamere from the west along the C178. The section of the C178 between the C156 and the site entrance is especially narrow where it passes to the north of the Leigh Delamere service station.

Roads are bounded by either hedgerows, or a mixture of hedgerow and ditches. Concealed obstacles have been noted on verges at several locations to the east of Leigh Delamere. The current proposal is to import 70,000 cubic metres of inert waste over a period of 24 months with an average of 12 vehicles per day (24 movements). The proposal is supported by a Transport Statement dated 2011, supplemented by an additional statement submitted in December 2013.

The documents identify that the previous schemes, which were withdrawn from consideration, were recommended for refusal on the basis of large vehicles having to pass in Leigh Delamere and accessing the site via or Stanton St Quinton.

The supporting documentation identifies that the source material to be used for the bund will be delivered to the site from two directions, with approximately 75% originating from the south, east and west of the site, with the remaining 25% likely to be sourced from the north. The documents assess the suitability of the available routes to the site, with the supplementary statement submitted in 2013 providing 8 potential routes. Of these eight routes, three are discounted as unsuitable with the remaining five being indicated as ‘preferred routes’. It is notable that despite utilising a number of routes from all directions to converge on the site, the ultimate access to the proposed site will be derived from the west and east along the C178, with traffic from the east having to travel through Leigh Delamere. It is also unclear how the 75/25 split was arrived at and how this could be managed to ensure vehicle movements were split in this way in the absence of a detailed transport management plan.

It is also noted that the various routes pass a number of schools, some of which are located in narrow sections of the highway network as a result of on-street parking. The applicant has therefore proposed that movements of such vehicles will avoid school drop-off and pick-up times. It is noted in the 2013 TS document that this will slightly increase the proposed 24 movements per day. It is also noted that movements will slightly decrease during British Summer Time due to longer daylight hours.

The 2013 TS also notes that, should the construction period of the bund increase or decrease, the frequency of vehicle movements will change accordingly.

Whilst detailed analysis and a number of route options have been presented in the Transport Statements submitted in support of the proposal, the ultimate destination requires access to the site to be along the C178 from either the east or west. Traffic arriving at the site from the east will pass through Leigh Delamere itself before turning left into the site. Traffic from the west will travel along several narrow sections of carriageway before arriving at the site location. It is considered that given the proposed duration of the works, the number of vehicles movements proposed and the types of vehicle to be used, which have been identified as rigid bodied tipper trucks within the transport statement, will result in significant disruption to users of the local highway network, and in particular the residents of Leigh Delamere themselves where traffic of this nature is unlikely to be experienced on a day to day basis. It is not considered that the highway route network in this location is sufficiently robust to accept the proposed quantity of traffic without having an adverse impact on highway safety and residential amenity.

In order to address concerns regarding the frequency of HGV movements the applicant has proposed both a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and following detailed discussion with the Local Highway Authority, the applicant has agreed that they would be willing to fund/enter into a Legal Agreement to for the provision of passing places along the C178 to the west of Leigh Delamare to provide intervisibility between highway users.

The details of the CMP, to be secured by condition, specify the following provisions:

 Routes to the site  Identify constraints to be brought to the attention of drivers  Identify attendance and dispersal periods at: o Hullavington CE Primary School o Stanton St Quintin Primary School o By Brook Valley CE School o Sevington Victorian School o Grittleton House School  Specify a maximum number of HGV movements per day  Provide for general and route specific driver training to be delivered through ‘Toolbox Talks’ and start of shift briefings, to include: o Driving considerately and observing speed limits o Taking special care when passing through villages o Paying particular attention to safe and orderly passage along the C72 through Stanton St Quintin and the C178 between the C86 and Sevington.  Specify a temporary signage regime to notify other road users of the presence of construction vehicles  Specify the provision of hard standing areas and a wheel wash within the construction site.

Whilst the applicant has provided details of a preferred contractor, the details that would be necessary to form the CMP would be of such a nature, and require several different times to take account of marginally different school start and finish times, would make the CMP so complex it is considered it would be difficult to implement effectively or to adequately police and enforce against any alleged breach in the event of a default.

Provisions aiming to prevent two HGV vehicles meeting in a narrow section of the highway network (such as requiring vehicles to call ahead, and holding vehicles on site) are considered to be impracticable in terms of monitoring and enforcement. This is in addition to making an assumption that the entire route network is capable of supporting vehicles of such a size, without causing a hazard to other road users.

In revised comments, the Council’s Highways Development Control Engineer noted that it was evident from the use of the words ‘with care’ that the highway network was very narrow. It was also considered that by avoiding school drop-off and pick-up times the increase of vehicle movements could lead to 3 to 4 movements per hour, increasing the likelihood of conflict between opposing lorries on the narrow roads. The same would also be true for the increased likelihood of other road users, including cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders, to meet such HGV traffic.

However, whilst the proposal makes provision for upgrading existing passing places at the narrowest point at that location, the routes to the site, by necessity, will pass through narrow roads and villages in order to visit the site, and again to leave the site. Policy WDC11 makes it clear that waste management development will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the proposals facilitate sustainable transportation of waste. Notably, the proposed development site should have direct access or suitable links to the Wiltshire HGV route network. It is clear in this case that the route network, despite the proposed improvements, would remain inadequate to serve the site for the duration of the works at the proposed level of intensity. Additionally, the applicant has confirmed that, whilst the improved section of highway would be used as one route to access the site, vehicles would continue to also gain access to the site from the east and also exit in the same direction, continuing to require HGV traffic to travel through Leigh Delamere itself. This section of the highway will not benefit from improvements and would subject residents to two years worth of vehicle movements in order to achieve the construction of the bund.

Although there is wide support for the proposals from residents of Leigh Delamere (who appear willing to endure the adverse environmental impacts associated with vehicles arriving, discharging their loads and leaving the site on a daily basis for a period of 24 months) the Grittleton Parish Council has lodged an objection to the proposals on the grounds of concerns relating to traffic impact on the wider rural community outside of Leigh Delamere. In addition to the number of lorry movements and the timescale involved, the Parish is concerned for the safety of its residents and their children and is also concerned regarding possible damage to local roads.

The highway network in the area is one of narrow roads which generally will not allow two large vehicles to pass easily. In addition, because of the location of Leigh Delamere and the proposed access to the site, traffic will, of necessity, have to pass through nearby villages to get there. Although consultation on the application has been restricted to Grittleton Parish Council, (being the parish within which the proposal lies) the following villages could be affected depending on which direction the inert material would come from, i.e. Leigh Delamere, Hullavington, Stanton St Quintin, Kington St Michael, Grittleton, Yatton Keynell and Sevington. This assumes that lorries would use ‘A’ class roads as far as possible and not take short cuts to get to the site.

Policy WCS2 relating to future waste site locations emphasises the importance of ensuring that new waste management development utilises the most appropriate haulage routes within and around the plan area. In the case of Leigh Delamere the haulage routes which would need to be used to gain access to the site are not considered to be appropriate.

The concerns regarding traffic impact have not been addressed and therefore it is considered that a refusal on traffic grounds still stands and can be substantiated. No substantial benefit from constructing the bund has been put forward to outweigh these concerns. Impact on the Historic Environment

Policy WDC9 states that proposals for waste management development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that areas of cultural heritage importance and their settings can be protected, enhanced or preserved.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on conserving and enhancing the historic environment states, at Paragraph 128, that a Planning Authority should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Paragraph 129 requires the Planning Authority to identify and assess the significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal, taking into account the assessment submitted by the applicant. The NPPF also advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on a heritage asset, great weight should be given to conserving the asset. The Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act requires, at Section 66(1), requires the Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any special features of architectural or historic interest it possesses. In addition, paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires a balanced approach, with any ‘harm’ which would be caused to the significance of heritage assets being weighed against the public benefits which may be brought forward by the implementation of the development.

The hamlet of Leigh Delamere has a number of listed buildings, including a grade II* church. The church was listed in 1960, whereas the other listing designations took place in 1988. Leigh Delamere was designated as a Conservation Area in January 1990.

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that a Planning Authority should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.

Despite the Leigh Delamere Conservation Area being cited as a reason for refusal of the earlier applications to construct a bund at this location, no Heritage Assessment (HA), was submitted with the current application. Consideration of the heritage assets is limited to a section within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Following a request for further information, additional assessment was provided. However, the information provided by the applicant remains limited in scope and only specifically mentions one heritage asset whilst grouping remaining heritage assets together. Details of the level of harm that may result from the development have not been specified.

Paragraph 133 and 134 advise that, where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm of significance of a heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that such harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefit. Where less than substantial harm would be caused to an asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

As noted above, the NPPF requires the Planning Authority to undertake an assessment of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal, taking the applicant’s submitted assessment into account. The Council’s Conservation Officer has performed such as assessment.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has assessed the submitted plans and documentation submitted in support of the planning application and has considered that the details provided does not consider the impact on the heritage assets in any great depth and also includes vague information, of which some is not relevant to the site. Whilst it is noted that the proposed bund will not physically touch any of the designated heritage assets, the bund will and planting will change the landscape profile and curtail views from and to the settlement, truncating their setting. No option seems to have been considered that would be less disruptive or contrived, such as planting the field with native tree species, as can be seen elsewhere in Leigh Delamere. The reduction in views and landscape to the southwest of the heritage assets will harm rather than preserve or enhance their setting and visual space around those assets will be reduced and their significance less well revealed.

It is not considered that the public benefits of allowing the construction of a bund at this location would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage assets, therefore the proposal is contrary to the NPPF and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and therefore fails to comply with Policy WDC9 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. 10. Conclusion

It is considered that inadequate details and justification has been submitted with regard to the proposed land raising operation to demonstrate that such land raising does not constitute a waste disposal operation and an imprudent use of resources not necessary for the reduction of noise levels from the existing Motorway. The construction of the bund would have a harmful effect on the setting of the Leigh Delamere Conservation Area and the designated heritage assets located therein. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that it avoids or mitigates against significant adverse impacts to amenity, noise from construction, vibration and transportation of waste. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason(s):

1. The development is for a waste management operation outside any allocated site located in the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Site Allocations Local Plan 2013, or preferred location identified in the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 and it has not been demonstrated by the applicant to be in accordance with all relevant provisions of the strategy, objectives and policies of Waste Development Plan Documents. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policies WCS3 and WCS5 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policies WDC11 and WDC13 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD 2009. 2. Inadequate details and justification has been submitted with regard to the proposed land raising operation and the Council is not satisfied that such land raising does not constitute a waste disposal operation and an imprudent use of resources not necessary for the reduction of noise levels from the existing Motorway. Materials used in land raising could be better used in association with restoration work elsewhere. Accordingly, the proposal fails to accord with policies WCS3 and WCS5 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 DPD and policies WDC11 and WDC13 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD 2009.

3. The proposed development involves land raising which fails to promote or maintain the quality, character and appearance of the historic environment and fails to demonstrate that public benefits of constructing a bund at this location would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage assets. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and contrary to Policy WDC9 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD 2009

4. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that it avoids or mitigates against significant adverse impacts to amenity, noise from construction, vibration and transportation of waste. The Council is not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the local environment and the residential amenity of local residents due to noise and dust created in connection with the proposed site operations. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy WDC2 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD 2009. 5. The traffic generated from this proposal would use roads which by virtue of their function in the highway network and their inadequate width, alignment and junctions, are considered unsuitable to accommodate the type of vehicles and increase in traffic associated with this development. The proposals are contrary to Policies WDC2 and WDC11 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Development Control Policies DPD 2009.

Appendices: Site location Plan.

Background Documents Used in the Preparation of this Report: