Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 4 (i)

29 September 2015

Waste Planning Application (County Matter)

Variation to conditions 2 and 20 of WSCC/017/09/WS with regard to the final restoration of the site at Windmill Landfill Site, The Hollow, Rock Road, Washington, West , RH20 3DA

Application No: WSCC/016/15/WS

Report by Executive Director of Residents’ Services and Strategic Planning Manager

Local Member: Philip Circus District:

Executive Summary

This report concerns a proposal by Biffa Waste Services Limited to vary conditions 2 (approved schemes for waste disposal and restoration) and 20 (approved planting scheme) of planning permission WSCC/017/09/WS at the Windmill Landfill Site, Washington.

The applicant wishes to vary the site’s approved, and partially implemented, restoration scheme, which comprises woodland, with hedgerow planting, and areas of good quality agricultural grassland. The proposed restoration would result in a lesser area of woodland and hedgerow planting and a greater area of good quality agricultural grassland. Should the proposed restoration be approved then any approved plans, schemes and related conditions concerning the currently approved restoration and aftercare including timescales, would also require amending and updating.

The principle of the site’s use as a landfill site requiring the completion of its approved restoration with aftercare has been established through the grant of the 2009 permission and predecessor permissions. It is solely the implications of varying the site’s approved restoration that is relevant to the assessment of the present proposal.

The report provides a generalised description of the site and a detailed account of the proposed development, and appraises it against the relevant policy framework from national to local level.

The main policies of relevance to this application are policies W11, W12, W13, W14, W16, W17, W18, W19, W20 and W21 of the Waste Local Plan (WLP 2014), policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC5, DC6 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Development Control Policies (2007).

Washington Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that the site should be restored as approved to ensure it is in keeping with its rural location; they also state that the impacts the National Park be fully considered. The County Council’s Ecologist and Landscape Architect, as well as the South Downs National Park Authority, have objected to or raised concerns about the proposed changes being sought to the site’s approved restoration and aftercare schemes. Other consultees, including the Horsham District Council, Environment Agency, Natural and the County Council’s Drainage Advisor and Highway Authority raise no objection.

Seventy-seven third-parties representations have been received, all objecting and raising concerns. Many refer to the possibility of the Windmill Landfill site access being used to restore the adjacent Rock Common Sand Pit (with concerns also raised about the final restoration of that site to landfill). However, access to, and the restoration of, the adjacent Rock Common Sand Pit is not relevant to the determination of the current application. Third parties also require that the approved restoration be enforced to ensure that the area’s ecology and biodiversity is protected and sustained.

Consideration of Key Issues

The main material planning considerations are whether the amended development: • is justified; • is acceptable in terms of impact on landscape and biodiversity; and • has an acceptable impact on local amenity.

Justification for the Amended Development

The applicant is seeking to amend the approved restoration scheme by retaining the existing landform and not infilling ‘the Valley’; by reducing the tree and hedgerow planting required; and by retaining infrastructure on site. The site has been closed for landfilling since 2004, and in regulatory terms, reopening it for infill, as the operator has previously sought to do, would be unachievable. There is, therefore, considered to be justification in logistical terms for not filling ‘the Valley’ area, and in terms of providing a scheme which can be delivered in a timely manner, thereby finalising the restoration of the land. The retention of infrastructure on site is considered to be necessary for environmental monitoring purposes, and to enable the site’s restoration. Finally, retaining larger areas within the site for agricultural purposes is considered to have some benefit in increasing the land available to sheep grazing. Overall, therefore, there is considered to be justification for retaining the existing landform and site infrastructure, and some justification for the reduction in woodland/hedgerow provision (though this must be balanced against the likely landscape and ecological disbenefits).

Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity

The application site is situated within a countryside location, and is relatively well- screened by vegetation around its perimeter. The present proposal would reduce the amount of tree and hedgerow planting provided when compared with the approved scheme, and has been opposed by WSCC’s Landscape and Ecological Officers, along with Washington Parish Council. While not necessarily a positive scheme in ecological terms, it is not considered that the proposed scheme is without environmental merit, or that the impact of the reduced planting would be so significant as to warrant refusal.

Impact on Local Amenity

The site is remotely located from the nearest residential and commercial properties as well as to Washington village. The site has been largely restored and so the present proposal would only involve minimal use of vehicles and equipment to carry out planting and the installation of fencing. The scheme would have minimal impact on residential amenity, but would be more feasible than the approved restoration and so it is likely to bring about the final restoration of the site and associated reinstatement of the public right of way.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered to be finely balanced. It would have several key benefits through finalising the site’s restoration with a feasible scheme acceptable to the landowner; not reopening the landfill to require ‘the Valley’ to be filled; and by providing planting to screen immediate local views. Overall, the adverse landscape and ecological impacts of reduced planting are not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, compared with the potentially unachievable approved restoration.

Recommendation

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Windmill Landfill Site at Washington has had numerous planning permissions granted since the mid-1980s for the extraction of minerals, and the subsequent restoration through landfilling with mixed wastes.

1.2 The applicant now wishes to vary the site’s approved, and partially implemented, restoration scheme. At present, the approved scheme comprises woodland, hedgerow and agricultural grassland planting. The proposed revised scheme includes less woodland and hedgerow planting and more good quality agricultural grassland planting.

2. Site and Description

2.1 Windmill Landfill, is a closed and restored landfill site incorporating a former landfill known as ‘the Rough’. It extends to some 15 hectares in area, and is situated within Washington Parish in Horsham District (see Appendix 2 - Location Plan).

2.2 The application site includes an environmental management compound adjoining its western boundary and an access road connecting to The Hollow (see Appendix 3 - Aerial Photograph of Windmill Landfill Site).

2.3 The application site is bordered by the Hollow and Rock Common Sandpit to the west. To the north, east and south of the application site are the other parts of the closed Windmill Landfill that have been restored to farmland.

2.4 The nearest residential property to the site is Green Farm Barn, situated approximately 100m to the south. Other residential and commercial properties are situated along The Hollow with the nearest being those at Rock Common Sandpit, some 160m to the east, and Rock House/Rock House Nurseries, some 350m to the east.

2.5 The village of Washington is situated approximately 1km to the south-west of the site. The site is situated approximately 120m north of the A283. Vehicular access is achieved via The Hollow, which links to the A283 some 110m south of the site, and the A24 some 650m to the north-west.

2.6 The site is not subject to any statutory landscape, ecological or historic designations although the boundary of the South Downs National Park lies approximately 130m south of the site access, along the southern boundary of the east-west running A283. Public footpath 2604 was legally diverted prior to landfilling operations commencing and a section of it runs along the north- western boundary of the application site.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 The application site was, until the mid-1980s, a quarry from which sand was extracted.

3.2 Planning permission WS/14/85 permitted the restoration of Windmill Quarry through infilling with imported waste materials until 30 July 1996. The site’s restoration was to be completed no later than 30 July 1998.

3.3 Planning permission WS/18/95 allowed the extraction of minerals until 31 December 2002 with restoration through the deposit of imported putrescible wastes to be completed by 31 December 2004.

3.4 Five subsequent permissions modified the time periods relating to the operation and restoration of the site; WS/22/97, WS/34/01, WS/21/02, DC/781/06 (WS) and WSCC/017/09/WS.

3.5 WSCC/017/09/WS permitted the deposition of inert materials until 31 March 2013 with restoration being completed not later than 12 months afterward and in accordance with the approved restoration scheme (see Appendix 4 - Approved Restoration Scheme). A revised planting scheme was subsequently approved by officers in 2011, reducing the provision of woodland planting (see Appendix 5 - Approved Planting Scheme).

3.6 County Planning officers visited the site in 2014 and noted that the site appeared to have been restored to the levels required in the approved restoration scheme (with the exception of ‘The Valley’ in the site’s south- western corner), and that the site had been topsoiled and seeded. However, tree planting had not been carried out as was required, and the haul road, tracks and structures had not been removed.

3.7 The present application was submitted to regularise the restoration of the site in response to these concerns.

4. The Proposal

4.1 It is proposed to vary conditions 2 (approved schemes for waste disposal and restoration) and 20 (approved planting scheme) of planning permission WSCC/017/09/WS. The existing conditions are set out below.

Condition 2: “The use of the land for the disposal of waste and the restoration of the site shall not take place other than in accordance with the plans and statements approved under planning permission WS/18/95 as modified by the plans and statements dated 1st July, 1997 submitted with this application and the conditions hereunder.”

Condition 20: “The scheme for the planting of the site containing the details of the species to be planted, specification of planting method and aftercare of the woodland submitted to the County Planning Authority on 7th December, 1998 and thereafter approved on the 1st December, 1999 shall be implemented.”

4.2 It is proposed to revise the approved restoration landform so that the existing site levels are retained. No further material would, therefore, be required to be brought to site or landfilled as part of the current proposal. This amendment would mean that the area known as ‘The Valley’ (see Appendix 6 - Valley Feature) would not be infilled or brought up to the levels required by the approved restoration scheme. The levels required on the remainder of the site are considered to have been achieved.

4.3 It is also proposed to amend the approved planting scheme which currently comprises woodland, hedgerow and agricultural grassland planting. The applicant is seeking less woodland and hedgerow planting and more ‘good quality agricultural grassland planting’. The proposed amended landform and planting are shown at Appendix 7 - Proposed Restoration Scheme.

4.4 It is proposed that the sealed haul road between The Hollow and the environmental compound are retained, along with a farm access track extending across the site. In addition, the environmental management compound would be retained, along with landfill gas monitoring boreholes and leachate monitoring boreholes, and fencing. Condition 3 of the extant permission did not preclude plant or works from being retained, but sought details of what may be retained with, if applicable, a programme of removal.

Proposed Timescales

4.5 The applicant advises that a period of two years would be necessary to complete the proposed restoration. Should permission be granted before the end of 2015, a cessation date of 31 December 2017 is sought.

4.6 Following the completion of restoration works, a five year period of aftercare would be entered into by the applicant. This period is necessary to monitor planting and carry out replacement planting if required.

Hours of Operation

4.7 Restoration and aftercare operations, including any associated vehicular movements to and from the site, are proposed to remain as currently permitted, between the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 on Mondays-Fridays and 07.30 to 12.30 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.

4.8 It should, however, be noted that the planting and seeding works proposed would not have significant off-site impacts.

5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

5.1 The proposal is considered to fall within Part 11(b) (ii) and (iii) of Schedule 2 to the EIA Regulations 2011 as it seeks a ‘change to a development that is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed’. There is, therefore, a need to consider whether the development would have the potential to result in significant environmental effects which require EIA.

5.2 The present proposals would not involve any import of waste or other activities which could be considered to result in significant environmental effects. The main proposed amendments to the extant permission would not render the proposal ‘EIA development’.

6. Policy

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the statutory ‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise (as confirmed in paragraphs 2 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the NPPF’)). For the purposes of this application, the statutory development plan is considered to comprise the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014), and the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

6.2 The key policies in the development plan, which are material to the determination of the application, are summarised below, and their conformity or otherwise with the National Planning Policy Framework considered. In addition, reference is made to relevant national planning policy guidance and other policies that guide the decision-making process and which are material to the determination of the application.

West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014)

6.3 The West Sussex Waste Local Plan (WLP) (2014) was formally adopted on 11 April 2014. Consequently, great weight can be afforded to it.

6.4 Policies W11 - W20 relate to development management and are designed to ensure that there would be no unacceptable harm to amenity, character, and the environment or to other material considerations from waste development proposals. Of particular relevance to this proposal are; Character (Policy W11), High Quality Development (Policy W12), Protected Landscapes (Policy W13), Biodiversity and Geodiversity (Policy W14), Air, Soil and Water (Policy W16), Flooding (Policy W17), Public Health and Amenity (Policy W19), Restoration and Aftercare for Temporary Development (W20) and Cumulative Impact (Policy W21).

6.5 Policy W21 relates to cumulative impact and seeks to ensure that an unreasonable level of disturbance to the environment and/or local communities will not result from waste management and other sites operating simultaneously and/or successively.

Horsham District Core Strategy (2007)

6.6 The key relevant policy is: Landscape and Townscape Character (CP1).

Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007)

6.7 The relevant policies are: Countryside Protection and Enhancement (Policy DC1), Biodiversity and Geology (DC5), Woodland and Trees (DC6) and Development Principles (Policy DC9).

Horsham District Development Framework (2014)

6.8 This emerging policy document was modified by the District Council in March 2015 following a Planning Inspector’s examination in late 2014. It is at an advanced stage in its determination and the Inspector’s final decision is expected this autumn. Once published, it will be formally adopted and supersede the District’s Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies that currently form the adopted ‘development plan’. Accordingly, due to the Framework’s advanced stage, its policies must be given some sufficient weight.

6.9 The relevant policies are: Sustainable Development (Policy 1), Landscape Buffer, Landscape Character, Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure (Policy SD6), Design (Policy SD7), Environmental Protection (Policy 24), Natural Environment and Landscape Character (Policy 25), Countryside Protection (Policy 26), Protected Landscapes (Policy 30), Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity (Policy 31), High Quality of New Development (Policy 32) and Development Principles (Policy 33).

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6.10 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policies for England and outlines how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF does not form part of the development plan but is a material consideration in determining planning applications. One of its stated intentions is to guide decision-makers as to what matters are material to the decision- making process.

6.11 The paragraphs in the NPPF of greatest relevance to the present proposal are:

Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development, and approving development that accords with the development plan); 17 (core planning principles); 103 (ensuring flood risk is not increased elsewhere); 109 (contribute to and enhancing the natural environment), 113 (protected landscape areas), 120 (ensuring new development appropriate for location taking into account impact of pollution on health and the environment); 123 (impact of noise on health and quality of life); 125 (limit light pollution impacts); 186 (positive decision making); 187 (secure developments that improve environmental conditions); 196 (determining applications in accordance with the development plan); 197 (presumption in favour of sustainable development); and 203 and 206 (use of planning conditions).

National Planning Policy for Waste (2014)

6.12 Paragraph 7 of the NPPW relates to determining waste planning applications. It states that in doing so, waste planning authorities should, in summary and as relevant to this application: • Consider the likely impact on the local environment and amenity against the locational criteria set out in Appendix B (see below) and advice on health implications; • Ensure that facilities are well-designed, contributing positively to the character and quality of the area; • Concern themselves with implementing the strategy in the Local Plan and not control of processes which are a matter for pollution control authorities [such as the Environment Agency], on the assumption that such regimes are properly applied and enforced; and • Ensure that landfill sites are restored to beneficial uses at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards. 6.13 Appendix B to the NPPW sets out locational criteria for testing the suitability of sites, namely the protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management; land instability; landscape and visual impacts; nature conservation; conserving the historic environment; traffic and access; air emissions including dust; odours; vermin and birds; noise, light and vibration; litter; and potential land use conflict.

Planning Practice Guidance: Waste

6.14 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): Waste (October 2014) includes further detail relating to waste matters. Paragraph 50 notes that there exist a number of issues which are covered by other regulatory regimes which waste planning authorities should assume will operate effectively, focusing on whether the development is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of the use. However, “before granting permission they will need to be satisfied that the issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice [sic] from the relevant regulatory body.”

Waste Management Plan for England (2013)

6.15 The Waste Management Plan for England (2013) provides an overview of waste management in England and aims to deliver the objectives of the EU Waste Framework Directive, namely to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste, and reducing the impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use. It notes the requirement for everyone managing and producing waste to take all reasonable measures to apply the waste hierarchy.

EU Council Directive 2008/98/EC

6.16 By virtue of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 when determining any application for planning permission that relates to waste management (article 18) the planning authority is required to take into account EU Council Directive 2008/98/EC which sets out the objectives of the protection of human health and the environment (article 13) and self-sufficiency and proximity (first paragraph of article 16(1), article 16(2) and (3)). Case law has confirmed that these articles are objectives at which to aim. As objectives they must be kept in mind whilst assessing the application and provided this is done, any decision in which the furtherance of the objectives are not achieved, may stand.

7. Consultations

7.1 Horsham District Council: No comments.

7.2 Washington Parish Council: Objection. The site should be restored as approved; including the restoration of ‘The Valley’ area, as it is essential to both aiding drainage and to the site is in-keeping with a countryside location.

7.3 Environment Agency: No objection. The continuing provision of the environmental compound, including access, is essential and is supported. The proposed changes sought reflect the current condition of this closed landfill site. Note that the site currently has two Environmental Permits in place, neither of which permit the infilling of ‘The Valley’.

7.4 Natural England: No comments.

7.5 South Downs National Park: Concerns that landscape impacts on the National Park have not been fully referenced and assessed.

7.6 Health and Safety Executive: No response received.

7.7 WSCC Drainage: Proposal unlikely to impact on flood risk or existing drainage infrastructure and/or routing.

7.8 WSCC Ecology: Cannot support proposed variations to the approved restoration due to an overall reduction in the long-term ecological value of the land.

7.9 WSCC Highways: No objection to the retention of the site’s established access to and from The Hollow.

7.10 WSCC Landscape: Objection. Notes that the hardstanding area to be retained could be reduced in size; the planting includes inappropriate species, particularly Ash; the planting areas have significantly reduced from 25,000m2 in the revised scheme to 9,900m2; planting density has reduced from 1 plant/0.5m2 to 1 plant/6.22m2 - considered a ‘token gesture’. Significant concerns over the viability of the scheme and the effectiveness of the restoration.

8. Representations

8.1 The application was publicised in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This involved the erection of five site notices located around the application site, an advert being placed in the locally read newspaper and also being publicised on the County Council’s website.

8.2 In response, seventy-seven representations were received, all objecting and raising concerns. Many refer to the possibility of the Windmill Landfill site access being used to restore the adjacent Rock Common Sand Pit (with concerns also being raised about the final restoration of that site). However, access to, and the restoration of, the adjacent Rock Common Sand Pit is not relevant to the determination of the current application.

8.3 Third parties also require that the approved restoration for the Windmill Landfill site be enforced to ensure that the area’s ecology and biodiversity is protected and sustained.

9. Consideration of Key Issues

9.1 The main material planning considerations are whether the proposed development: • is justified; • is acceptable in terms of impact on landscape and biodiversity; and • has an acceptable impact on local amenity.

Justification for the Amended Development

9.2 If the present application is not approved, the ‘fallback’ is for the County Council to require the approved scheme to be implemented. A key consideration in relation to this application is, therefore, whether there is a need for the submitted scheme, and whether the amendment is justified.

9.3 The present application has been submitted to regularise the current landform created at the site, and to update the planting required so that it accords with the land use sought by the landowner and farmer. It is also proposed to retain some site infrastructure.

9.4 WSCC/017/09/WS permitted the deposition of inert materials until 31 March 2013 with restoration being completed not later than 12 months afterward. However, the deposit of inert restoration material ceased in 2009. The majority of the land has been in post-restoration ‘aftercare’ since at least 2011.

9.5 The exception to this is ‘the Valley’ area which remains unfilled (see Appendix 6 - Valley Feature. Prior to 2009, the operator sought to infill this with inert waste but could not do so due to regulatory constraints (the landfill was considered to be ‘closed’ and a way forward could not be agreed). The Environment Agency (EA) notes in their response that this area is not subject to an extant Environmental Permit.

9.6 WSCC/017/09/WS was granted in 2009 to allow these regulatory delays between the applicant and the EA to be resolved so that restoration using imported inert materials could be carried out and completed as approved.

9.7 In addition, given that planning permission for the importation of inert materials to the site has expired, a new planning permission would be required to infill ‘the Valley’ with waste/materials.

9.8 The proposal to retain the Valley area as unfilled is, therefore, considered to be justified. Even without considering whether the infilling has environmental benefit, it would be difficult to require the operator to fill this area. The present proposal is, therefore, considered to be beneficial in terms of providing a scheme which is feasible, thereby allowing the restoration of the land to be finalised. 9.9 The amended planting scheme is considered to have some justification in terms of agricultural practice. The applicant notes that the landowner and farmer wish to retain the site restoration in its current form, namely to high quality agricultural grassland in use for sheep grazing. The revised restoration scheme would maximise the availability of agricultural land on the site, albeit at the cost of the provision of woodland and hedgerows of ecological and landscape benefit.

9.10 The retention of site infrastructure, including monitoring equipment, the environmental compound, site access road and track, is considered to be justified. The monitoring equipment and associated compound is necessary to ensure that the environmental impacts of the landfill can be assessed. The access road is required to access the environmental compound and to carry out the site restoration. The track is also necessary for agricultural purposes, and for the remaining site restoration.

9.11 Overall, there is considered to be a need for an amendment to the approved landform, and the retention of the site infrastructure. There is also considered to be some justification for the reduction in woodland and hedgerow provision, though this needs to be balanced against the concerns raised by WSCC’s Landscape and Ecology Officers which are considered below.

9.12 The applicant is seeking to amend the approved restoration scheme by retaining the existing landform and not infilling ‘the Valley’; by reducing the tree and hedgerow planting required; and by retaining infrastructure on site. The site has been closed for landfilling since 2004, and in regulatory terms, reopening it for infill, as the operator has previously sought to do, would be unachievable. There is, therefore, considered to be justification in logistical terms for not filling ‘the Valley’ area, and in terms of providing a scheme which can be delivered in a timely manner, thereby finalising the restoration of the land. The retention of infrastructure on site is considered to be necessary for environmental monitoring purposes, and to enable the site’s restoration. Finally, retaining larger areas within the site for agricultural purposes is considered to have some benefit in increasing the land available to sheep grazing. Overall, therefore, there is considered to be justification for retaining the existing landform and site infrastructure, and some justification for the reduction in woodland/hedgerow provision (though this must be balanced against the likely landscape and ecological disbenefits).

Impacts on Landscape and Biodiversity

Landscape

9.13 The proposal has the potential to result in landscape and visual impacts through amending the approved landform by not infilling ‘the Valley’, by reducing the amount of planting provided, and by retaining site infrastructure, particularly the access road.

9.14 The application site is generally well-screened by mature boundary woodland and planting, particularly on its southern, north-western, northern and north- eastern boundaries all of which would be retained. Other sections of boundary planting, notably the eastern, south-eastern, south-western and western boundaries are not so dense or contiguous with gaps in sections, some of which are significant. Some gaps and thinner sections of planting do exist along the site’s north-western, northern and eastern boundaries.

9.15 The applicant is proposing to amend the approved planting by, in particular, reducing the amount provided along the northern site boundary but also along the eastern boundary (see Appendix 7 - Proposed Restoration Scheme). Additional planting is proposed along the site’s southern boundary with The Hollow, and along the western boundary, alongside the access road.

9.16 The WSCC Landscape Architect, Washington Parish Council and a number of interested third parties have expressed concern about the reduction in woodland and hedgerow provision.

9.17 Although there would be a significant reduction in planting along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, additional planting along the road and site access would help to soften immediate views into and out of the site. This would be particularly beneficial in terms of views from the key local vantage points. The WSCC Landscape Architect has, however, expressed concerns that more distant views would be affected as the planting provided along the northern and eastern boundaries would be at a low-level relative to the site. It would, therefore, have limited benefit in screening the landform which he considers, with its domed form, to be out of keeping with the surrounds.

9.18 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would have some adverse landscape impacts when compared with the approved planting (as less woodland would be provided). However, there would be some local benefits in terms of improved appearance to users and residents of The Hollow through the provision of additional planting alongside the site’s access road, and adjoining the site entrance and its boundary with The Hollow.

Ecology

9.19 The County Council’s Ecologist does not support the proposed variation to the site’s approved restoration because it contains no compensatory measures and will result in a lower-quality ecological land value in the long-term. This view is also shared by Washington Parish Council and other interested third parties.

9.20 Although neither the application site nor its adjacent land are designated for their biodiversity importance, Policy W14 of The West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014), seeks to “permit waste development that where appropriate, creates, enhances and/or manages habitats, ecological networks and ecosystem services along with wider environmental objectives, including Biodiversity Opportunity Areas.”

9.21 The proposed development would reduce the provision of woodland and hedgerow planting over the approved planting scheme. The proposal would include planting around the periphery of the site that would have ecological benefit and blend in with existing woodland. Although not necessarily a positive scheme in ecological terms, it is not considered that the proposed scheme is without environmental merit, or that the impact of the reduced planting would be so significant as to warrant refusal.

9.22 The application site is situated within a countryside location, and is relatively well-screened by vegetation around its perimeter. The present proposal would reduce the amount of tree and hedgerow planting provided when compared with the approved scheme, and has been opposed by WSCC’s Landscape and Ecological Officers, along with Washington Parish Council. While not necessarily a positive scheme in ecological terms, it is not considered that the proposed scheme is without environmental merit, or that the impact of the reduced planting would be so significant as to warrant refusal.

Impact on Local Amenity

9.23 The application site is largely restored and, therefore, the use of vehicles, plant, equipment and machinery would be limited to that needed to import small amounts of soils, trees/plants/seeds, fencing and to carry out any other associated works on site. The potential for adverse impact on local amenity is therefore limited. The operational hours relating to the site would remain unchanged, limited to between 07:30 to 18:00 on Mondays to Friday inclusive and 07:30 to 12:30 on Saturdays only. This would ensure that any impact would be minimised.

9.24 Horsham District Council’s Environmental Health Department had no comments to make relating to the proposed restoration, including on operational hours, noise and dust control.

9.25 The proposed amendment would bring forward a scheme which is feasible for the operator and, therefore, the restoration is likely to be carried out, with benefits to the amenity of the surrounding area and the reinstatement of public right of way (footpath 2604) along its original route.

9.26 The site is remotely located from the nearest residential and commercial properties as well as to Washington village. The site has been largely restored and so the present proposal would only involve minimal use of vehicles and equipment to carry out planting and the installation of fencing. The scheme would have minimal impact on residential amenity, but would be more feasible than the approved restoration and so it is likely to bring about the final restoration of the site and associated reinstatement of the public right of way.

10. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

10.1 The proposal is considered to be finely balanced. It would have several key benefits through finalising the site’s restoration with a feasible scheme acceptable to the landowner; not reopening the landfill to require ‘the Valley’ to be filled; and by providing planting to screen immediate local views. Overall, the adverse landscape and ecological impacts of reduced planting are not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, compared with the potentially unachievable approved restoration.

10.2 It is recommended, therefore, that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

11. Resource Implications and Value for Money

11.1 This is not a material planning consideration and cannot therefore be considered in determining this application. There will be no requirement for additional resources unless the decision is challenged and there is a requirement to defend the County Council’s position at any subsequent appeal.

12. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

12.1 There are no implications.

13. Equality Act Implications

13.1 The County Council has a duty to have regard to the impact of any proposal on those people with characteristics protected by the Equality Act. Officers considered the information provided by the applicant, together with the responses from consultees and the representations made by third parties, and determined that the proposal would have no material impact on individuals or identifiable groups with protected characteristics. Accordingly, no changes to the proposal were required to make it acceptable in this regard.

14. Risk Management Implications

14.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If this is not done, any decision could be susceptible to an application for Judicial Review.

15. Human Rights Act Implications

15.1 The Human Rights Act requires the County Council to take into account the rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of (inter alia) public safety and the economic wellbeing of the country. Article 1 of protocol 1 provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.

15.2 For an interference with these rights to be justifiable the interference (and the means employed) needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. The main body of this report identifies the extent to which there is any identifiable interference with these rights. The Planning Considerations identified are also relevant in deciding whether any interference is proportionate. Case law has been decided which indicates that certain development does interfere with an individual’s rights under Human Rights legislation. This application has been considered in the light of statute and case law and the interference is not considered to be disproportionate.

15.3 The Committee should also be aware of Article 6, the focus of which (for the purpose of this committee) is the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 provides that in the determination of these rights, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 has been subject to a great deal of case law. It has been decided that for planning matters the decision making process as a whole, which includes the right of review by the High Court, complied with Article 6.

Cathryn James Michael Elkington Executive Director of Residents’ Services Strategic Planning Manager

Background Papers As set out in Section 6.

List of Appendices Appendix 1 - Conditions and informatives Appendix 2 - Location Plan Appendix 3 - Aerial Photograph of Windmill Landfill Site Appendix 4 - Approved Restoration Scheme Appendix 5 - Approved Planting Scheme Appendix 6 - Valley Feature Appendix 7 - Proposed Restoration Scheme

Contact: Sam Dumbrell, ext. 26947

Appendix 1: Conditions and Informatives

GENERAL

Restoration and Aftercare Timescales 1. Restoration of the site in accordance with the conditions of this permission, shall be completed not later than 31 December 2017 and aftercare, in conjunction with Condition 3 below, shall be completed within five years of the completion of restoration. Written notification of the date of commencement of each phase of restoration and aftercare works shall be sent to the County Planning Authority not less than seven days before their commencement.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and ensure a satisfactory restoration of the site.

Approved Plans and Documentation 2. The restoration and planting of the site shall not take place other than in accordance with the approved information and plans;

• Drawing No WIND003 Rev A ‘Revised Restoration Scheme’ (dated August 2015);

• Goods Vehicle Turning Area Plan (dated 25/08/15);

and supporting information, save as varied by the conditions hereafter.

Reason: To secure an orderly programme of working and ensure a satisfactory restoration of the site.

Restoration and Aftercare Scheme 3. Notwithstanding the details depicted on Drawing No WIND003 Rev A ‘Revised Restoration Scheme’ (dated August 2015)’ and in the DBLC Aftercare Proposals report (ref: 007.001, dated August 2015), the development hereby permitted shall not take place, including any clearance and preparatory works, until a revised Planting Schedule that includes the species and spacing of all planting (with reference to the National Plant Specification schedule) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority

Thereafter, the approved revised Planting Schedule and approved restoration and aftercare schemes shall be implemented in full and in conjunction with Conditions 1 and 2 above. Any plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased during restoration works and the subsequent five year aftercare period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the County Planning Authority gives written consent for any variation.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109 and 120 of the NPPF (2012) to ensure that the site is restored in appropriately in the interests of the general amenities of the locality.

Environmental Management Compound 4. No work to modify the Environmental Management Compound shall be undertaken unless the County Planning Authority has agreed the details of the proposed modifications in advance and in writing. Any subsequently approved changes shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved modifications.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and local residents.

Vehicular Access 5. All vehicular access to and from the site shall only take place via the existing access road to and from The Hollow (as identified on Drawing No WIND003 Rev A ‘Revised Restoration Scheme’ (dated August 2015)).

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and local residents.

Operational Hours 6. No operations required to carry out the development hereby permitted, which shall include the use of plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles, shall take place outside the hours of:

• 07:30 to 18:00 on Mondays to Friday inclusive; • 07:30 to 12:30 on Saturdays; and

No operations involving the use of plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles, shall take place on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.

Testing and/or maintenance of plant, equipment, machinery and/or vehicles required within the development hereby permitted shall only be carried out between the hours of 09:00 and 17:00 on Monday to Friday (excluding where those days are designated as either Bank or Public Holidays) inclusive.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and local residents.

Removal of Required Temporary Infrastructure 7. With the exception of the Environmental Management Compound, all buildings, fences, signage, structures, plant, equipment and machinery required on site throughout the operation of the development hereby permitted shall be dismantled/demolished and removed from the site and the site thereof restored in accordance with the scheme of restoration approved under Condition 1 above.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109 and 120 of the NPPF (2012) to ensure that the site is restored in appropriately in the interests of the general amenities of the locality.

Conveyor Tunnel 8. At no time whatsoever, shall the backfilled conveyor tunnel between the Windmill Landfill Site and Rock Common Sand Pit under The Hollow be reopened.

Reason: In the interests of the satisfactory restoration of the site and the protection of groundwater quality.

Footpath 2604 9. Throughout the course of the development hereby permitted, the diverted route of footpath 2604 shall continue to be protected by fencing of a specification not less than that described in applicants letter reference JY/2040MA dated 1 July 1997 which shall be maintained in effective condition to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect users of the right of way.

Dust Mitigation Scheme 10. No development authorised by this permission shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the dust mitigation measures described in the applicant’s letter of 24 September 1996 and agreed by the County Planning Authority on 16 July 1997.

Reason: To protect adjacent land from damage and nuisance from dust.

Site Operations and Environmental Controls 12. Throughout the duration of the restoration and aftercare works hereby permitted:

• No vehicle, plant or machinery shall be operated on the site unless fitted with silencing equipment to a standard not less than the manufacturer's standard U.K. specification for the equipment;

• Any plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles, containing warning alarms and within the operators control, shall use white noise alarms as apposed to single tone ‘bleeping’ alarms.

• No vehicles, plant, machinery or equipment shall be parked or maintained on the site other than those directly used for the operation of the restoration works and works relating to activities at the Environmental Management Compound;

• The site shall not be artificially illuminated, other than by intruder activated security lighting, except during the permitted hours of working and no lighting fitment shall be installed or at any time operated on the site from which the source of light is directly visible from the public highway or residential properties having views toward the site; and

• No surface water, sand, mud or debris shall be discharged onto the public highway.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122, 123 and 125 of the NPPF (2012) to protect the amenities of local residents and in the interests of road safety.

Availability of Approved Documents 13. A copy of this decision notice together with the approved plans and schemes, or details subsequently approved pursuant to this permission shall be kept at the site office and the terms and contents of them shall be made known to all supervising staff on the site.

Reason: To ensure that site operatives are conversant with the terms of the planning permission.

INFORMATIVES

A. The applicant is advised that should protected species be present on site work must stop and Natural England be informed. A licence may be required from Natural England before works can re-commence, Natural England will advise.

B. The Environmental Health Authority, Horsham District Council, may use their powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) to enforce against any nuisance (including waste disposal, water pollution, noise, atmospheric pollution and public health; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid) from the site. For any queries on this matter, please contact the Environmental Health Department of Horsham District Council on 01403 215641.

C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.