AGENDA ITEM .5B

AGENDA ITEM .5b......

DR/08/12

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION

Date 23 March 2012

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Use of the site as a recycling centre for inert and non-hazardous household, commercial and industrial waste and end of life vehicles. Proposed associated development to include the erection of a workshop, modular building, weighbridge and 6m high boundary fencing (part-retrospective) Location: Unit 7, Maple River Industrial Estate, River Way, Harlow, Essex, CM20 2DP Reference: ESS/52/11/HLW

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Tom McCarthy Tel: 01245 437507

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602 DR/08/12 1

1. BACKGROUND

The planning application for the above development was considered at the Development and Regulation Committee on Friday 24 February 2012. The officer report (inclusive of the addendum) is attached at Appendix 1.

Members resolved to refuse the application for the recycling centre for inert and non-hazardous household, commercial and industrial waste and end of life vehicles (part retrospective) for the following reasons:

Over-intensification of use of the site Detrimental impact to the adjacent business units by way of increased vehicle movements on the private access road „Maple River‟

It was noted that as the development has already, in part, been carried out, the unauthorised development may require enforcement action to secure its removal.

In accordance with the Committee Protocol, a formal decision on the application was deferred until the March 2012 meeting of the Development and Regulation Committee. The deferral was to allow officers to provide an appropriate and reasonable recommendation, based on planning policy, setting out the reasons for refusal in full as well as a consideration of whether it is expedient to undertake enforcement action to remedy the existing breach of planning control.

2. SITE

The site is located on the north eastern edge of Harlow, within the Templefields/River Way Industrial Estate and covers an area of approximately 0.26ha. The site was previously in use as a ready-mix concrete plant however is now derelict. Since the application was submitted the various structures and building on site previously used in connection with the concrete plant have been removed. In addition to this, some works with regard to the new proposed „waste‟ use have taken place including the erection of the perimeter fence, weighbridge and staff amenity portacabin office.

The site is accessed from a shared private access to the north of River Way. The subject unit is located at the end of this dead-end road. The shared access is used by the range of uses which occupy the industrial/warehouse/distribution style units located either side of the road. In terms of the locality, the Maple River Industrial Estate is separated from the main centre of Harlow by the railway corridor, 500m south of the site. To the north of the site is a belt of woodland containing mature trees along the river Stort and this rear boundary line of the site also marks the start/end of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

In 2011 the area to which this application relates, and the surrounding north eastern part of the Templefields Industrial Estate was awarded Enterprise

DR/08/12 2

Zone (EZ) status by the Department for Communities and Local Government. In principle the aim of the EZ is to attract businesses and create jobs for local people which in turn will create growth.

A full description of the development is set out in the report at Appendix 1.

3. CONSIDERATION

Harlow Local Plan (2006) (HLP) Policy ER6 (Retaining Existing Employment Areas) states that planning permission for change of use or redevelopment to uses other than those identified in policy ER5 (full appraisal of HLP policy ER5 is contained in the original officers report at Appendix 1) will be permitted if:

1) The amount or range of sites or premises available for employment use would not be reduced below the level required in the Local Plan period; 2) The proposal will not lead to the loss of an employment site of high quality; 3) There is a demonstrable lack of market demand for employment over a long period, and the efforts made to market the site for business, industry and warehousing have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council; 4) The development would be accessible by means other than the car; 5) The proposal would be in accordance with the sequential approach to development; 6) The proposal would not generate levels of traffic on surrounding roads which would result in congestion or loss of amenity.

Given the resolution that the proposed development represents an over- intensification of use which would result in a detrimental impact to the adjacent business units by way of increased vehicle movements on River Way, accordingly the proposal is considered to conflict with (point 6, above of) the Harlow Local Plan (2006) (HLP) in force in the area which the land to which this application relates.

Given the resolution made at the February 2012 Committee meeting, and that the development proposed was part retrospective, it is necessary to consider whether enforcement action is required to remedy the breach of planning control.

As an industrial area, the site is able to benefit from Part 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GDPO) – Industrial and Warehouse Development. Whilst some of the works which have occurred on site would fall within this remit, the 6m high perimeter fence and staff amenity/office building would normally require express planning permission, and not be classed as permitted development under Part 8 of the GPDO.

Given that the site is located within an allocated industrial area and that use

DR/08/12 3

of the land for a waste management facility has not commenced, and accordingly there are no vehicle movements associated with such a use, it is not considered expedient to secure the removal of the perimeter fence and office building from the site. Any use of the site for industrial or commercial development would be a matter for the District Council to consider.

Nonetheless, should any waste management use commence on site in the future without the necessary planning permission, enforcement action may be necessary to prevent any harm caused to local amenity.

4. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development represents an over-intensification of use of the site and would lead to an unacceptable increase in vehicle movements, which would be detrimental to the efficient and safe use of the private access road and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjacent business units, contrary to Harlow Local Plan (2006) policy ER6 (Retaining Existing Employment Areas)

5. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DM/TM/ESS/52/11/HLW

6. LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

HALROW – Harlow North

DR/08/12 4

APPENDIX 1

AGENDA ITEM ...5a......

DR/04/12

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION

Date 24 February 2012

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Tom McCarthy Tel: 01245 437507

„The site‟ – Unit 7

„Private‟ access road

DR/08/12 5

1. BACKGROUND & SITE

The applicant is a skip hire and waste company. It currently operates from a site in Hastingwood, Epping Forest however the intention is to close this site and redevelop it as housing. As such the company is seeking a new base to operate from and have identified this site as suitable.

The site is located on the north eastern edge of Harlow, within the Templefields/River Way Industrial Estate and covers an area of approximately 0.26ha. The site was previously in use as a ready-mix concrete plant however is now derelict. Since the application was submitted the various structures and building on site previously used as part of the concrete plant have been removed. In addition to this, some works with regard to the new proposed „waste‟ use have taken place including the erection of the perimeter fence, weighbridge and staff amenity portacabin office. This work however has stopped, at the request of the County Council, until the formal determination of the application.

In terms of the locality, the Maple River Industrial Estate is separated from the main centre of Harlow by the railway corridor, 500m south of the site, with Harlow Mill railway station located 600m south-east of the site. The site is surrounded by a number of industrial/commercial premises as part of the Estate, as a whole. To the north of the site however, is a belt of woodland containing mature trees along the river Stort. The rear boundary line of the site also marks the start/end of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is located within a Flood Zone 2.

The site has a limited planning history; the original use permission for a B2 development, allowing the concrete mix plant, was permitted by Harlow District Council in 1992. In 2011 the area to which this application relates, and the surrounding north eastern part of the Templefields Industrial Estate was awarded Enterprise Zone (EZ) status by the Department for Communities and Local Government. In principle the aim of the EZ is to attract businesses and create jobs for local people which in turn will create growth. Within the EZ incentives such as no business rates and relaxed planning laws have been suggested to promote this growth. It is anticipated the EZ would be sector-led, focusing on medical technologies and advanced manufacturing.

2. PROPOSAL

The proposal constitutes a change of use of the site from B2 (general

industrial) to a sui generis use, that of; a recycling centre for inert and non hazardous household, commercial and industrial (HCI) waste and end of life vehicles.

The facility is proposed to handle up to 75,000 tonnes of waste, of which 70% of the materials handled would be sourced from within the county of Essex, approximately spilt:

Inert – 52,999 tonnes per annum Non-hazardous (non-bio), HCI waste – 17,000 tonnes per annum ELV wastes – 3,000 tonnes per annum Non-hazardous black bag waste (bio) [incidental waste found in skips] – 2,000 tonnes per annum

Waste would generally be brought to the site in skips, and for the ELVs in flat-bed light goods vehicles. “Roll-on-off” and articulated lorries would then be used to transport the separated recyclables for onward processing. In terms of the skip waste processing, once on site skips would be emptied into the „waste reception area‟ where large items would be removed by a mobile mechanical grab. The skip waste would then be loaded onto a hopper feeding a static trommell for mechanical removal of fines before any remaining waste would then finally be manually separated.

To facilitate the processing/management of the waste it has been proposed that a building for use as a workshop and to strip/de-pollute end-of-life vehicles (ELV) would be constructed to the west of the existing site entrance and to the east, of the site entrance, a modular (portacabin) building would be erected for use as an office/staff amenity area. A weighbridge and 6m high fence perimeter fence would also be installed as part of the proposal.

The facility would be open 6am – 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am – 4pm Sundays and Bank Holidays (although only for waste processing – no heavy goods vehicle movements).

3. POLICIES

The following policies of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2001 and the Replacement Harlow Local Plan (HLP) 2006 provide the development framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

WLP HLP Policy W3A Best Practicable Environmental Option W3C Need for Waste Development W4A Water Pollution and Flood Control W4C Highways W7D Inert Waste Recycling W7E Materials Recovery Facilities W7F Scrap Yards W8A Preferred Sites

W8B Alternate Sites W10E Material Considerations: Policy Compliance and Effects of the Development ER5 Existing Employment Areas ER6 Retaining Existing Employment Areas T9 Vehicle Parking NE13 Water Environment BE1 Achieving a Sense of Character and Identity BE12 Archaeology BE17 Noise Pollution

4. CONSULTATIONS

HARLOW DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection to the development in principle however suggest conditions to ensure potential pollutants are dealt with correctly and that no material or equipment is stored higher than 5m, in order to prevent dust and litter nuisance.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection to the development in principle subject to the provision of an impermeable site surface and sealed drainage system. Engineering works including the installation of an effective dust suppression system should be completed before the commencement of operations.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection.

BAA AERODROME SAFEGUARDING – No objection.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Urban Design & Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY & HIGHWAYS – No objection.

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (Archaeology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY & HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a programme of investigative archaeological work.

THE COUNCIL‟S WASTE STRATEGY TEAM – Offer no comment.

LOCAL MEMBER – HARLOW – Harlow North – Any comments received will be reported.

5. REPRESENTATIONS

69 properties were directly notified of the application. The application was also advertised in the local press and on site. Nine letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:

Observation Comment

Passing HGVs would cause vibration See appraisal. to the adjacent units. The „previous‟ concrete plant use by See appraisal. no means resulted in the vehicle movements suggested in the applicant‟s supporting statement. The access is insufficient to support See appraisal. such an increase in vehicle movements. The proposal would cause congestion as well as making the highway unsafe. There is an insufficient turning circle See appraisal. for large lorries on the site therefore vehicles would be required to reserve and possibly back-in to the site and River Way is a clearway. The site is insufficient in size to See appraisal accommodate the proposed volume of material. Work with regard to this application As previously stated, upon this has already started to take place. coming to Essex County Council‟s attention, the applicant was contacted and the work subsequently stopped. Fears that many of the existing See appraisal. businesses would vacate the Estate if the recycling facility is given planning permission. Concerns over health and safety See appraisal. (noise and pollution) and the potential that the proposed use could attract vandals resulting in the need to improve security to the area. Vehicles backing-in to the site would See appraisal. restrict access to the adjacent units. There are already recycling centres See appraisal. in the vicinity, what is the justification for another?

6. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

A Need B Design C Highway Impact D Impact on Landscape & Amenity E Flood Risk

A NEED

WLP policy W3A identifies the need for proposals to have regard to the following principles:

consistency with the goals and principles of sustainable development; whether the proposal represents the best practicable environmental option for the particular waste stream and at that location; whether the proposal would conflict with other options further up the waste hierarchy; conformity with the proximity principle.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS 10) (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) encourages waste to be managed as per the principles set out in the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy promotes, in this order; prevention of waste; re-use of waste; recycling of waste and then any other recovery. It states that the disposal of waste is the least desirable solution and only suitable when none of the above is appropriate. Given that the proposal is in essence a recycling operation, it is considered that the proposal is in compliance with the objectives of PPS 10 and WLP policy W3A as the proposal seeks to move waste management further up the waste hierarchy.

The supporting text of the WLP around policies W7D and W7E suggests that, respectively, inert recycling and material recovery facilities can make a significant contribution to the re-use and recovery of primary aggregates and material from waste. However, it is noted that such facilities can increase vehicular movements locally and subsequent noise, dust and odours from operations can harm local amenity. In relation to this, WLP policies W7D and W7E both indicate that sites suitable for proposals such as this, apart from those identified in Schedule 1, should be located in industrial locations (potentially in association with other waste management development) and meet the other stipulations of the WLP including particularly policy W8B. This is however also subject to the considerations of WLP policy W8A which stipulates facilities will only be permitted if there is; a need for the facility, it represents Best Practicable Environmental Option, shows compliance with the other policies of the WLP and has been designed and landscaped to a high standard.

WLP policy W8A relates to major sites (facilities with a capacity above 50,000 tonnes per annum). With regard to this policy, six sites are put forward as preferred waste management sites. In relation to this developers should demonstrate, within any application at an alternate site, why the preferred sites would be less suitable or not available for their proposal. Within the application details, the applicant has assessed the Schedule 1 sites and concluded that these sites are either; unavailable, unsuitable or less suitable for the proposed use than the identified site in Maple River Industrial Estate. This is further considered below.

A number of concerns received, with regard to the proposal, raised that there are a number of „waste‟ sites in the vicinity of the area and another is not

10 justifiable. In respect of this, and the above, the applicant has stated that approximately 70% of the materials handled would be sourced from within the county of Essex. Given the site location in the County, i.e. the proximity to Hertfordshire and Greater London it is considered that this is initially acceptable. However in view of WLP policy W3C it is considered that a condition stipulating that no waste other than waste derived within the administrative area of Essex and Southend and/or within a radius of 15 miles from the site boundary be imposed on any approval. The 15 mile extension to the Essex and Southend borders is considered appropriate given the proximity principle and the location of the site.

The applicant has stated that whilst they are willing to accept the condition they would prefer no or a more generous restriction. In support of this the applicant has stated that the management of commercial and industrial waste is unpredictable and arrangements for the management of waste are more short term than those for municipal wastes. As such the sector is largely governed by free market economics. In further support the applicant has stated that their existing site is not subject to such a restriction. However this application has to be considered on its own merits irrespective of the applicant‟s existing operation/site. In consideration of the argument put forward, whilst it is accepted that limiting the site to Essex and Southend waste only would be unreasonable, in view of the site location the 15 mile radius exemption is considered appropriate and in line with other „strategic‟ waste management sites in the vicinity.

Where applications come forward on sites that are not allocated, PPS 10 states that they should be considered favourably were they are consistent with the policies and criteria set out in PPS10 and the Waste Planning Authority‟s (WPA) Core Strategy (WDD). As the WDD has not yet been adopted, in Essex, the relevant policies are those in the WLP. PPS10 goes on to require consideration of the physical and environmental constraints of any sites, the neighbouring land uses, cumulative impacts of existing waste management facilities and the capacity of the transport infrastructure. In addition, it encourages waste management facilities to be on previously developed land. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) promotes a positive approach to consideration of economic development proposals, and requires consideration of the impacts of development on local employment and any wider benefits/impacts of the development.

In view of WLP policy W3C, and the Schedule 1 sites, it is considered that given the proposed site location and the location of the existing applicant‟s site in Epping Forest the most relevant site to be considered is North Weald Airfield, North Weald Bassett. In support of the application, as previously stated, an assessment of Schedule 1 sites was submitted and the conclusion of this was that this site was unsuitable. It is considered the final conclusions are justifiable in view of the proposed scale of the activity. In consideration of the comments received with regard to the number of „waste‟ sites in the area, it is nevertheless noted that ECC as a determining authority cannot directly control where industry choose to set up. So whilst in principle the

11 proposal complies with WLP policy W3C, a further assessment to ensure the environmental impacts of the proposal do not outweigh the perceived benefits is needed to ensure this (for further assessment of these impacts see the other sections of the appraisal section of this report).

WLP policy W8B identifies types of location other than those in Schedule 1 of the WLP at which waste management facilities would be permitted. WLP policy W8B suggests that areas suitable for such development include employment areas (existing or allocated) or existing waste management sites where the proposed facility would not be detrimental to the amenity of any nearby residential area.

The site, and the whole of Maple River Industrial Estate, is designated as an existing employment area. With regard to this HLP policy ER5 stipulates that within such areas planning permission will be granted for offices and research and development, general industry, light industry and warehousing development within use classes B1, B2 and B8. Further to this HLP policy ER6 details that planning permission for change of use or redevelopment to uses other than those identified in policy ER5 will be permitted if:

7) The amount or range of sites or premises available for employment use would not be reduced below the level required in the Local Plan period; 8) The proposal will not lead to the loss of an employment site of high quality; 9) There is a demonstrable lack of market demand for employment over a long period, and the efforts made to market the site for business, industry and warehousing have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council; 10) The development would be accessible by means other than the car; 11) The proposal would be in accordance with the sequential approach to development; 12) The proposal would not generate levels of traffic on surrounding roads which would result in congestion or loss of amenity.

The site is currently derelict however the site was previously operated as a ready-mix concrete plant. In relation to this, until recently, plant and machinery prudent to this previous use remained on site. A concrete mixing plant is a fairly industrial process and a facility which could potentially be quite intrusive in terms of impacts. It is considered in essence that this and the proposed waste use are similar in principle being relatively specialised uses which are vehicle heavy in terms of movements. Being a sui generis use, the application represents a change of use from the permitted B1, B2 and B8 uses. However, in view of the above, it is considered that the proposed use, development and impacts would be akin to a B2 (General Industrial) use and therefore would not conflict with HLP policy ER6. Further to this, the applicant has stated that whilst the proposed use is not considered, in planning terms, a class B employment use the proposal would provide employment for 20-30 people on an area which is currently derelict. The applicant therefore believes that the availability of employment land

would not be reduced by the proposal, in fact contrary in that the proposal is sustaining the employment aspect of the site albeit through a different use than originally intended within the HLP. The site, being on an industrial estate, has good access to transport links. That being said, although the industrial estate shows no obvious signs of being in disrepair, it is not considered that the site is of a particular quality, over and above that would be expected from an industrial estate such as this. The proposed „waste‟ use is anticipated to generate vehicle movements, which could possibly generate traffic on the surrounding roads. A more detailed assessment of this can be found in section C of this appraisal but initially with regard to the above it is considered that the proposal would comply with principles for a change of use under HLP policies ER5 and ER6 and be an appropriate site for a waste use in relation to the principles of WLP policies W7D, W7E, W8A and W8B.

In relation to this, and the proposed ELV aspect of the proposal it is also considered that WLP policy W7F is relevant. With regard to this however, similarly to the above given the detail of WLP policy W8B and HLP policy ER6 it is considered that the proposal would comply with W7F.

Further to the above, as previously stated the site does form part of one of two EZs in Harlow; Templefields East. The Templefields East EZ has been suggested as suitable for manufacturing and light / heavy industrial uses. With this in mind and the above conclusion, of a waste use being akin to a B2 industrial use, it is considered that the use would not be inconsistent with the EZ designation. This opinion is supported by the fact that the EZ designation was not raised as potential concern/objection by Harlow District Council in its consultation response.

B DESIGN

To upgrade the site for use as a waste recycling centre, it is proposed to erect a small industrial style warehouse building for use as a workshop and for ELV processing. The building would be located to the south western corner of the site, to the left of the site entrance (if you were looking into the site from River Way). The building would measure 15 metres in length, 5 metres wide and be of a maximum 8 metres in height (to the top of proposed pitched roof). To the other side of the site entrance, the south eastern corner, it is proposed that a modular building would be erected on site. This would be used as an office staff amenity area and contain a meeting room, office, toilet and kitchen. The modular building would measure 14.8 metres in length by 3.4 metres in width and be 3.1 metres in height.

It is also proposed that, to enclose the site, a 6 metre high fencing would be erected around the site to ensure operations are contained and the site secured. The site is currently sealed but this is in a poor state of repair in places. The proposal therefore includes the repair of the existing hardstanding and the installation of a new sealed drainage system to ensure no contamination to the water environment.

In respect of the above it is noted that part of the works proposed has, in part, already been carried out. This work, which has been carried out on site, namely; the installation of the perimeter fence, weighbridge and staff amenity/office building was noticed by ECC during at site visit however following a request to cease activities no further development has taken place onsite. A number of representations raised this and that planning seemed a forgone conclusion, given that the site was already being prepared and developed. Such works have been been carried out at the applicant‟s own risk and, although no criminal offence has been committed, should planning permission be refused then enforcement action could be taken to require the unauthorised development to be removed.

HLP policy BE1 inter-alia states that all new and extended buildings should relate to their setting to enhance, protect or create local character. In respect of the criteria, prudent to this application, it details sites and proposals should be; well connected; of a height, massing, layout, appearance appropriate to the existing form of the surrounding area and; of a design specific to the site. The buildings proposed are of an industrial nature born from necessity and practicability rather than pure design quality. The site is designated as an employment area, within an industrial area, and therefore the design proposed is in keeping with adjacent units. This opinion is supported by ECC‟s Urban Design officer who has no comments to make with regard to the proposal.

In terms of the design of the facility, a number of the representations received raised concerns regarding the manoeuvrability of vehicles onsite and River Way. These specific concerns in relation to vehicles are appraised in the relevant section below. However, further to this, a few of the representations received raised fears that the character of the industrial cul-de-sac would change and this could potentially cause existing businesses to vacate. A few representations cited the 6m fencing, which has already in part been constructed, as demonstration as to the change in appearance and character the use of the site for waste recycling would cause. In respect of this, it is accepted that the fencing is quite imposing and represents a significant barrier into the site. In relation to this it is however also considered that this is not uncommon in industrial areas and given that this site backs on to the boundary of the industrial area and, as a whole, is acceptable in defining the area. Given the activities that would be occurring inside the site, it is considered that in terms of operational requirements, in effectively containing litter and dust and preventing noise echoing and begin carried across the industrial estate, that the fence is not excessive and would assist in mitigating the impacts of the activity. In view of this and that potentially a similar natured „industrial‟ use (within B2 Land Use Class) which could operate from the site and install comparable features, it is considered that the proposed waste use, alone, is unlikely to result in a significant character change to the industrial area, as a whole. Therefore it is considered that the proposal complies with HLP policy BE1.

With regard to the above, it is noted that Harlow Roman Temple which is a

scheduled ancient monument is approximately 160m from the site. HLP policy BE12 details that planning permission will not be granted for development proposals that would adversely affect the site or setting of a scheduled monument or other archaeological site of national or particular importance. In respect of this it is important to consider that the site forms part of a larger industrial area and therefore initially given the site is within the „heart‟ of this area, 160m away from the monument, that the proposal is unlikely to materially affect the existing setting of the scheduled ancient monument. In relation to this, Harlow District Council states that a contribution towards the setting of the monument was secured through a Section 106 (planning obligation) agreement as part of the change of use application for the Vintner House site which is on the same industrial site. However it is important to note that the Vinter House site is directly adjacent to the scheduled ancient monument. In respect of the above, ECC‟s archaeology department were consulted on the application. Whilst not objecting to the proposal, in principle, the ECC archaeology officer suggested, that if planning permission is to be granted, a condition, given the close proximity of discoveries of Roman remains be imposed requiring a programme of archaeological work/monitoring whilst the construction phase of the development is ongoing. Given that Harlow District Council also does not raise an objection to the proposal in the context of the scheduled ancient monument, it is considered that the proposal would not unduly affect the scheduled ancient monument or its direct setting and as such it is deemed compliant with HLP policy BE12.

A number of letters of representation received raised concerns about the size of the site in relation to throughput. Importantly it is noted that the site would be subject to an Environmental Permit, issued by the Environment Agency, which would stipulate conditions to prevent harm to the environment or human health from the actual site operations/practice. In respect of this and the site, given that the Environment Agency did not raise any concerns with regard to the proposed operation it is considered that principally this would not form grounds to refuse the application. An analysis of the site in respect of impacts to highways and amenity is further considered.

C HIGHWAY IMPACT

Access to the site, as previously mentioned, is via a private access road „Maple River‟ off the main thoroughfare through the Estate „River Way‟. With regard to the approved use of the site, as a ready-mix concrete plant, the applicant has suggested that this would have resulted in approximately 20 HGVs operating from the site on a circa 2 hour turnaround (worst case scenario). Therefore based on this, and a 10 hour working day, there would be 100 round-trips completed by the HGVs / 200 single movements. In additional to this, the applicant suggested the site would have produced an additional movements caused by staff or general day-to-day operation from the site, approximately 30 vehicle movements per day.

With regard to the above, the applicant has suggested that the proposed daily traffic generation from the use of the site for waste recycling would

15 result be:

Type of vehicle Proposed number of daily vehicle movements Skip lorry (6 tonne) 72 Roll On, Roll Of 4 HGV bulker 26 ELV transit 10 Staff 30 Other Vehicles 10 Total number of movements 152

In respect of the above, WLP policy W4C details that access for waste management sites will normally be by short length of existing road to the main highway network. Where access to the main highway network is not feasible, access onto another road before gaining access onto the network may be accepted if, in the opinion of the Waste Planning Authority having regard to the scale of the development, the capacity of the road is adequate and there would be no undue impact on road safety or the environment.

The application is not proposing any significant amendments to the existing site access. As proposed, vehicles would use the shared private access off River Way to access the site. A number of representations have been received raising highway concerns and the potential intensity/frequency of vehicle movements to and from the site. A number of representations received also disagree with the figures suggested in relation to the concrete plant and felt these were highly exaggerated. Irrespective of the information that was submitted in relation to the vehicle movements of the concrete plant, this application should be appraised on its own individual merits in view of the local infrastructure, particularly whether the local infrastructure capable of being able to support this use without undue impact on the highway itself and other users of it.

In relation to the factual site and planning history submitted, it is noted that the consent for the concrete plant had no restriction on vehicle movements. With regard to this it is assumed that the local infrastructure was at the time considered sufficient to support this use no matter what the likely vehicle movements were to be. In any case another business, or operation, within the B2 Use Class as the existing permission allows could take over the site and operate from the site, without the need for planning consent, with vehicle numbers far in excess to those predicted from the „waste‟ use.

The Highway Authority states that it considers the site to be within an established industrial estate with excellent links to the surrounding highway network. In this context it concludes that the local infrastructure would be able to support the „waste‟ use and the projected vehicle movements without detrimental impact to highway safety or efficiency.

It is noted that as existing some of the other units within the estate block

access when deliveries are made to their relevant units. In consideration of this, although it is noted that this is a problem and a nuisance particularly for those units along River Way it is considered that it would be unreasonable to discriminate against this proposal, for this reason, given that other units already on this site already perform this practice and cause this problem. In terms of potential accumulation or intensification of this problem, given the Highway Authority‟s response it is considered that this proposal does not pose a significant risk to highway safety. The Highway Authority considers that there is appropriate turning within the site and therefore this situation should only, if at all, be an infrequent occurrence.

Another concern raised is that of parking and an insufficient amount of parking being proposed onsite, off Maple River. In consideration of this, it is noted that River Way is a clear way and no waiting is allowed along the road between 09:00 – 17:00 (Monday to Friday). This clear way status on the road was put in place to prevent HGVs waiting along River Way to ease congestion through the whole industrial estate. As part of the proposal, in line with the Essex Parking Standards (2009) and HLP policy T9, 15 car parking spaces are proposed and it is considered that this would be sufficient for the site and not result in additional demand for parking along Maple River.

In view of all the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with WLP policy W4C as it has been concluded, by the relevant statutory consultees, that the highway network is adequate to support the additional vehicle movements without causing an undue impact on road safety or the environment.

D IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE & AMENITY

WLP policy W10E states that inter-alia developments would only be permitted where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from noise, smell and dust. Further to this it details provision needs to be taken for the effect of the development on the landscape, the impact of road traffic generated, the effect on historic and archaeological sites and the Green Belt (N.B. points listed are those to which are considered relevant to the proposal). The issues considered by this policy are the majority of factors to which the letters of representation, received, raised in respect of the proposal.

With regard to the above; vehicle movements and historic and archaeological sites have already been appraised as part of this report however, purely in relation to landscape, given the industrial nature of the fencing and buildings proposed, it is considered that the development in principle is unlikely to improve the landscape quality of the area. That being said, it is noted that what is proposed is generally in keeping with the adjacent units and therefore would not materially harm the existing character of the Estate or it appearance. In respect of the Green Belt designation, to the north of the site, it is considered given the existing use and the designation within the HLP that the use is unlikely to affect the openness of

17 the Green Belt. The Council‟s landscape officer has no comment to make in respect of the proposal.

The applicant states this site was selected as it is within an industrial area separated from any sensitive receptors, such as dwellings or schools. The proposed operations would be effectively contained via a 6m steel clad perimeter fence, with additional 1m litter fence, angled along the top of the perimeter fence along the northern aspect, to further prevent any litter escape. The ELV activities are to be undertaken within a steel framed building onsite, and the applicant considers this should be sufficient to prevent excessive noise nuisance. All plant and machinery installed and used on site would only be used during the proposed opening hours of the site, in accordance with the manufacturers‟ guidelines.

HLP policy BE17 details planning permission will be granted where potentially noisy development are located in areas where noise will not be an important consideration, or adequate provision has been made to mitigate the adverse effects of noise likely to be generated or experienced by others. The site is located in a general employment area within an industrial estate and it is considered that the surrounding uses to the unit are unlikely to represent particularly sensitive receptors. In view of this, and the general ambient noise level of the industrial it is considered that the proposed location is appropriate to the site use and therefore in terms of noise is compliant with HLP policy BE17.

In terms of litter; skips and waste loads that enter and leave the site would be sheeted/netted, as would stockpiled light waste when stored onsite. This should limit the chances of litter and debris being blown around the site and into adjoining units. The site operator has suggested a regular site inspection would be carried out on the surrounding area with appropriate litter picking, if required. Given the industrial nature of the site and the proposed impermeable concrete surface it is considered that mud and debris being deposited or transported outside the site by vehicles coming and leaving the site is also unlikely. Vehicles are nevertheless proposed to be regularly checked, as part of site operations, and should a vehicle appear particularly muddy then the vehicle wheels would be washed and debris brushed off.

With regard to the dust, the trommel proposed to be installed onsite would have an integral cover and dust suppression system which should reduce potential dust nuisance caused from site operations. The applicant is also proposing a separate dust suppression system, i.e. the installation of sprinklers, to be installed on the site, as a whole. Should permission be granted, a suitably worded condition could be imposed on to any decision issued to ensure effective site management and use of this system to ensure dust spree potentially caused during separation and sorting is kept to a minimum.

The nature of waste proposed to be accepted by the site is not especially malodourous. In respect of odour it is anticipated that all waste would be

removed from site within 3 days of entry. In the event that an odorous waste is discovered onsite, during sorting, it would be placed in sealed bags and removed from site within 24 hours. The same conclusion is considered apparent from nuisance arising from pests and vermin, which in consideration of the nature of waste, is not anticipated to be a significant problem. In consideration of this, it is also noted that the waster transfer area would be cleared at the end of each operational day and deodorises, in the event of a problem, can be added to the dust suppression system. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal complies with WLP policy W10E and satisfactory provision has been made and can be secured by way of conditions to ensure the amenity of neighbouring properties is not unduly affected by the proposal.

As previously referred to a number of concerns regarding potential associated impacts of the proposed vehicle movements, namely; air quality and vibration. In relation to this it is accepted that these factors potentially pose an impact to the adjacent business particular, the latter, vibration. This concern was raised in a few of the representations received in view that that their operation was specialist and required controlled settings which potentially would be interrupted by external vibration. With regard to this, although it is considered a valid concern it is considered that this is an extreme point of view in the context of the site and the designation within the HLP. Further to this, it is also considered that the use of the site for such purposes would not act as an attraction for unwanted visitors, in the form of would-be thieves or vandals, and increase vulnerability to these everyday concerns as raised within representations received in objection to the proposal.

E FLOOD RISK

WLP policy W4A states waste management development will only be permitted where; there would not be an unacceptable risk of flooding, there would not be an adverse effect on the water environment and existing and proposed flood defences are protected and unaffected by the proposal. The proposed development site is outside a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. However, there is a local surface watercourse; the River Stort located 16m north-west of the site. An area of dense woodland separates the site from the river but nevertheless the area is designated within Flood Risk Zone 2. In consideration of this and Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) (PPS 25) a flood risk assessment is required to accompany the submission to demonstrate the potential impacts of the proposal from a flood risk perspective.

The flood risk assessment and supporting topographical survey, submitted with the application suggest that the site ground level is at least 0.34m above predicted extreme flood levels. In view of this the applicant considers that the probability of flooding (including existing flood defences) is less than 0.1%. During redevelopment of the site, the ground levels would remain the same as existing and there are no proposed changes to the surface water management. In consideration of the assessment, the Environment Agency

is satisfied that adequate information has been made submitted demonstrating the development will be safe and that the development is an appropriate land use vulnerability for the site. Given this, it is considered that the application does comply with WLP policy W4A.

In respect of the water environment, in general, HLP policy NE13 details that any proposal which adversely affects watercourses will be opposed. Furthermore the River Stort is to be protected, maintained and where possible enhanced. The site to the north-west boundary does, as previously mentioned, back on to an area of woodland (which also forms part of the Green Belt) behind which is the River Stort. Given the existing industrial nature of the site, and area as a whole, the fence screening to the rear of the unit and the woodland it is considered that the operation is sufficiently screened from the River not to have an adverse impact on its quality or setting. In relation to HLP policy NE13 it is considered the River is outside the scope of consideration given the proposal context.

7. CONCLUSION

It is acknowledged there is a clear need to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill through recycling. However, planning policy aims to ensure that proposals are nevertheless appropriate to their surrounding area in the context of the potential associated impacts.

The site, although not a preferred site within the WLP is located in a designated employment area. With regard to this, and other relevant planning policy, it is considered that the application has demonstrated mitigation against the potential impacts of the development to adjacent properties. In respect of the representations received, it is further considered that the main concerns raised, namely; noise, vibration, dust, traffic and congestion although of concern are likely to unduly significant in context of the area, in general. Although the site is located within Flood Zone 2 it is considered, a view supported by the Environment Agency, that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to a significant impact in terms of flood risk. As such the proposal, overall, is considered to comply with the relevant WLP policies; W3A, W3C, W4A, W4C, W7D, W7E, W7F, W8A, W8B and W10E and HLP policies ER5, ER6, T9, NE13, BE1, BE12 and BE17.

8. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. COM3 – Compliance with Submitted Details.

2. Operations authorised by this permission, including vehicles entering or leaving the site, shall be restricted to the following durations:

06:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Saturday

and shall not take place on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays, other

than as indicated below:

The site may in addition be open solely for the purposes of processing material (no HGV movements):

10:00 to 16:00 hours Sundays and Bank Holidays.

3. DET4 – Ground Surface Finish.

4. HIGH4 – Prevention of Mud and Debris on Highway.

5. HIGH6 – Lorry Sheeting.

6. ODR1 – Odour Suppression Scheme Implementation.

7. DUST1 – Dust Suppression Scheme Implementation.

8. ARC1 – Advance Archaeological Investigation.

9. POLL1 – Surface and Foul Water Drainage.

10. POLL4 – Fuel/Chemical Storage.

11. WAST4 – Waste Handled in Designated Areas.

12. WAST7 – Essex & Southend-on-Sea‟s Waste only and/or with 15 miles of the site.

13. ELV1 – Processing in Storage Bays.

14. ELV3 – Restriction of Sale of Vehicle Parts.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DM/TM/ESS/52/11/HLW

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

HALROW – Harlow North