L

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

19 TH JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

COUNTY MATTER

MR. B. BIRCH - APPLICATION FOR THE COMPOSTING OF GREEN WASTE – BEECH TREE FARM, SPROXTON (MELTON BOROUGH)

2005/0566/06 - 20 th June 2005

Background

1. This proposal was considered at the Board meeting on 15 th December 2005 when it resolved to defer a decision, so that Members could undertake a site visit. That visit will take place on 17 th January and the outcome will be reported separately at the Board meeting.

2. The application relates to the composting on farmland of green waste and other wastes collected from various sources. The County Council was first approached in September 2004 by a company called Land Network International, which promotes so-called “deep clamp” composting sites. These use static piles as opposed to the more conventional windrow composting. The proposed operation would be the first “deep clamp” composting site within . Officers advised Land Network International that the proposal would constitute a material change of use and would therefore require planning permission.

Location of Proposed Development

3. The village of Sproxton is located in the eastern part of Melton District, approximately 11km east northeast of . The B676 Melton Mowbray to road runs 2km south of the village.

4. The application site is located in a field to the south of the village, adjacent to the Sproxton to Buckminster Road at its junction with a smaller unclassified road leading south towards Coston and the B676.

5. The site is set in open, gently rolling landscape with extensive views mainly to the east, south and west. A number of properties at the southern edge of Sproxton are also visible from the site. The proposed composting area is located in the north eastern corner of a large arable field measuring approximately 140 x 240 metres, which slopes gently towards the east and south. Field boundaries are formed by hedges of varying heights, the hedge along the northern field boundary being approximately 1.7 – 2m high.

2 2005/0566/06 – continued

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006

3 2005/0566/06 - continued

6. Footpath E68a runs in a north-south direction from Sproxton to the Sproxton- Wymondham Road and runs along the western edge of the field in which the application site is located. Footpath E57 runs from Sproxton south east to Buckminster and crosses fields south of the village. The footpath meets Buckminster Road approximately 60m north of the site access and 150m north of the composting site.

7. The River Eye, a local stream, runs to the west and south of Sproxton and at its closest point comes within 700m of the site. A small unnamed tributary watercourse runs parallel to the Sproxton to Coston road and at its nearest point is approximately 350m west of the site.

Description of Proposal

8. The proposed development involves the construction of a hardstanding and access road and the processing (composting) of green waste and other organic waste materials brought to the site from various sources. The resulting product would act as an organic fertiliser which would only be used on the farm itself. No sale or export of the finished product would take place.

The composting site

9. The composting and working area would measure 30x40m. Topsoil would be stripped from this area to a depth of 150-250mm. The resulting voidspace would be backfilled to original ground levels with inert materials such as crushed hardcore and road scalpings to create a hardstanding on which to place and process the waste materials.

10. The stripped topsoil would be placed in a stockpile along the eastern edge of the working area. The proposed stockpile would be 40m long, 10m wide and approximately 1m high.

11. Following the stripping of topsoil, a drainage system would be installed downhill of the operational area. This would consist of a collecting drain running parallel to the eastern edge of the working area and leading to a holding tank located in an inspection pit in the south eastern corner of the working area. Any surface water and leachate from the working area would be collected by the drain and channelled to the holding tank.

12. The site would be accessed from Buckminster Road via an existing farm track which the applicant proposes to improve as part of the proposal. Topsoil would be stripped off the track and inert materials would be used in the same way and to the same depth as on the working area to create a hard-surfaced access track.

Proposed Operations

13. The applicant proposes to import green waste from various sources. The material would be delivered to the site by heavy goods vehicles and deposited in the composting area. It would then be stacked in a single pile, referred to in the application as a “clamp”, where it would remain during the composting process. The maximum height of the clamp would be 3m.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 4 2005/0566/06 - continued

14. The clamp would be turned as necessary using a telescopic loader. The applicant advises that the frequency of turning would depend on the type of material present, the stage of the process and the desired speed of the operation. The risk assessment accompanying the application states that the speed of the process would depend on the types of material involved, the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the material, its moisture content and the frequency of shredding. The residence time of material in the clamp would also depend on whether or not waste material is shredded before it is placed in the clamp. Not all material would require shredding (e.g. grass cuttings). The applicant advises that he intends to "avoid the energy input requirements of shredding" and therefore it may take between 3 months (if shredding is involved) and 10 months (if material is not shredded) for waste to be fully composted.

15. The applicant intends to process the following materials: • Municipal, landscaping, or other green waste of plant origin; • Wood products including MDF (medium-density fibreboard), chipboard and hardboard; • Paper-based products or residues from paper production; • Salad, bread waste or food production waste (excluding meat remains) as permitted by the Animal By-Products Order; • Crop residues from production operations such as oil seed rape pressing or salad production, provided that no solvents were used in the process; and • Farm waste such as animal manures.

16. Not all these materials would be present on site at all times. The exact nature of the material to be imported would depend on the waste disposal contracts which the operator would secure.

17. The operation has been registered with the Environment Agency as exempt from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Regulations states that the composting of biodegradable waste is exempt from Waste Management Licensing Regime if the total quantity of waste being composted at any time does not exceed 1,000 cubic metres.

18. The applicant anticipates that on average 1-2 vehicles per day would deliver material each to the site. Loads are estimated to be approximately 5-10 tonnes each, depending on the type and volume of material.

19. Following maturation, the material may be stored in a separate stockpile before it is spread onto the applicant’s land during a suitable crop window. The applicant has substantial landholdings to the north, south and west of Sproxton. This may necessitate transhipment of the composted material to other parts of the landholding using the public highway. The number of vehicle movements associated with this activity would depend on the amount of material composted. The transport of composted material to other parts of the applicant's landholding would be an agricultural activity which would fall outside the scope of this planning permission.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 5 2005/0566/06 - continued

20. The applicant advises that the application site was chosen through an elimination process taking into account a varied and complex list of criteria, and that careful consideration was taken to ensure the site was positioned in the most suitable location taking into account Environment Agency guidelines, as well as criteria such as access, transport, visual appearance, proximity to the village, wind direction, soil condition, and proximity to roads, footpaths and watercourses.

Planning Policy

21. Government advice on waste management is set out in Waste Strategy 2000 and in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management .

22. Waste Strategy 2000 describes the need to change in the way in which waste is managed. It lists the Government’s targets for the recycling and composting of waste:

• To recycle or compost at least 25% of household waste by 2005; • To recycle or compost at least 30% of household waste by 2010; • To recycle or compost at least 33% of household waste by 2015; • To reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste landfilled to 85% of 1998 levels by the year 2005.

23. Waste Strategy 2000 also provides guidance for on farm composting scheme promoting farm diversification, compost for use in growing food crops, and the establishment of local composting units.

24. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (July 2005) states that planning authorities should prepare and deliver planning strategies that help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment. It continues to promote sustainable development and the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting and energy recovery with disposal as the last option.

25. Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) deals with the relationship between the planning and pollution control regimes. It advises that any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development possibly leading to impacts on health are capable of being material planning considerations in so far as they arise, or may arise from, or may affect any land use. It also states that the planning and pollution control regimes should complement rather than duplicate each other.

26. The development plan in this instance comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the (adopted March 2005), the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan (adopted March 2005), the Melton Local Plan (adopted June 1999) and the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan (adopted September 2002). The most relevant policies are as follows:

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 6 2005/0566/06 - continued

Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands

27. Policy 38 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands states that a Regional Waste Strategy will be drawn up, based on the principles of working towards zero growth in waste at the regional level, reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, exceeding Government targets for recycling and composting, and taking a flexible approach to other forms of waste recovery.

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996 to 2016

28. Strategy Policy 8 aims to protect the countryside for its own sake and limits the type and amount of development in the countryside. Waste management development may be accommodated if it cannot be located satisfactorily within built-up areas, if there is an overriding need for the development to be located in the Countryside, and if appropriate works of mitigation are undertaken.

29. Resource Management Policy 1 requires all new development to minimise or avoid air, noise, water, land and light pollution. Decisions concerning new sites for environmentally sensitive development will take account of the detrimental effects of existing and proposed sources of pollution. Resource Management Policy 8 requires that when allocating land or considering planning applications for waste management development, sufficient provision will be made to meet needs, based on the principles of consideration of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), regional self-sufficiency, the proximity principle and the waste hierarchy.

30 Resource Management Policy 9 states that when applications for waste management development are considered, account will be taken of its likely impact on the environment and the need for the development. Resource Management Policy 12 : When allocating land for waste management developments account will be taken of the transport implications of the proposed development. Where road borne transportation is involved, associated heavy lorry movements will be restricted from using unsuitable roads. Resource Management Policy 14 : Waste management proposals for the recovery of waste will be permitted, provided any adverse environmental impacts of the development can be kept to an acceptable level.

Melton Local Plan

31. Overall Strategy Policy OS2 clarifies which type of development will or will not be permitted in the open countryside. Countryside and the Natural Environment Policy C2 states that planning permission for farm-based diversification proposals will be granted if the development is ancillary to the main agricultural use, the development is compatible in terms of scale, design and layout, there is no significant adverse impact on the rural landscape, access, servicing and parking would be provided without detriment the rural character of the area, and the traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated on the local highway network without reducing road safety.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 7 2005/0566/06 - continued

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan

32. Policy WLP 4 contains a presumption in favour of composting sites, subject to proposals meeting the criteria in Policy WLP 8. Policy WLP 6 lists those details which should be included in planning applications for waste management. Policy WLP 7 lists the considerations the planning authority will take into account when determining applications for waste management development.

33. Policy WLP 8 indicates those instances where new waste management facilities will not be permitted by virtue of the effect they would have on environmentally sensitive areas, unless there is an overriding need or the impact can be alleviated by appropriate measures. Policy WLP 10 states that heavy lorry movements associated with waste management operations will be restricted from using unsuitable roads by means of traffic management or other appropriate measures such as lorry routeing agreements. Policy WLP 11 states that when granting permission for waste management proposals, conditions will be attached aimed at minimising the effect of such development.

Other Supplementary Guidance

34. The Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy (Jan 2003) provides a County-wide integrated waste management strategy, which includes priorities for recycling and composting 33% of household waste by 2005/06.

Consultations

Melton Borough Council (Planning)

35. No objections.

Melton Borough Council (Environmental Services)

36. In relation to the involvement of the Borough Council as Waste Collection Authority, MBC comments that if planning permission is granted, the site could be used by the Council, subject to all necessary agreements, to dispose of some/all of its garden waste. As such the development would be welcomed by the Council, subject to normal planning conditions being attached to the permission. Melton Borough Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer supports the assertion that, if properly managed, the proposed development would not give rise to a public nuisance.

Sproxton Parish Council

37. No objections, as any queries have been answered in the supporting document.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 8 2005/0566/06 - continued

Environment Agency

38. No objections in principle, but recommends that if planning permission is granted, conditions covering protection measures for fuel tanks and the submission of a scheme of foul water drainage works should be imposed. In addition, the Agency advises that compliance with the relevant schedules of the Waste Management Regulations 1994 has to be ensured, otherwise the activity may be removed from the register of exemptions.

39. Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or underground waters. Any areas where waste is received, handled, treated or stored should be provided with an impervious base and peripheral bunding, minimum height 150mm, and an access ramp in order to contain any potentially polluting process liquors and all contaminated surface water. Composting liquors and contaminated surface water drainage should be collected by a means of a sealed drainage system.

Health Protection Agency (East Midlands)

40. As the nearest residential dwelling to the composting site is 400 metres away and the predominant wind direction in the UK is south-westerly (towards openland), the risk to public health is low (based on information contained in the application and assuming the applicant adheres to the Composting Code of Practice).

Highway Authority

41. No objections to the proposal, subject to conditions covering: limits to daily vehicle movements; design of site access; the proposed operation always remaining ancillary to the agricultural use of the site; use of wheel cleaning equipment; and provision of site access with suitable width, radii and visibility splays.

Ecological Advice

42. The field-by-field and SINC survey data indicate that the land concerned is of minimal ecological significance. Computer data shows that water vole and barn owl have been recorded near the site. It is noted from the application that runoff from the composting is non-polluting, in which case the water voles in the River Eye are unlikely to be adversely affected. Similarly, as no demolition or works to trees are proposed, the proposals should not affect barn owls.

43. As protected species may move around and set up new homes, we recommend that the applicant be requested to walk and search the site to ensure none are present in the vicinity. If any protected species are discovered, it should be reported to English Nature so that mitigation measures for the safety of the animals may be put in place before the composting area is set up.

44. If trees are to be planted, only native species and locally provenanced stock should be used.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 9 2005/0566/06 - continued

Publicity

45. The proposal has been advertised by three site notices, posted at the proposed site access, at the corner of Buckminster Road and Stow Hill, and on the village noticeboard on the corner of School Hill and Main Street. Notices also appeared in the Melton Times and the Journal on 29 July 2005. In addition, seven properties closest to the site were notified by individual letters.

Representations Received

46. 54 representations have been received from 33 properties in Sproxton and 10 properties in Buckminster. 28 letters are in a standard format, objecting to the development on grounds of odour; likelihood of debris being spread outside the site; increased traffic; noise; visual impact; and the application not restricting the proposed materials to green waste. 22 further letters and e-mails raise objections on similar grounds. A petition bearing the names of 17 residents of Sproxton was also submitted. Multiple representations were received from a number of properties.

47. The majority of representations object to the proposal. One letter of objection was subsequently withdrawn. The main concerns can be summarised as follows:

Potential Environmental Impact/Operational Issues

• Odour • Noise • Flies • Vermin/large increase in rat population • Leachate, and resulting pollution of groundwater, drinking water and nearby watercourses • Knock-on effect on wildlife at nearby River Eye if watercourses are polluted by leachate • Potential for wind-blown waste materials • Environmental impact arising from the processing of wastes other than green waste • Health risks associated with the development

Traffic/Access

• Road safety issues relating to the use of the proposed site access • Turning HGVs would cause traffic hazard • Mud on road • Roads have weight restriction • Proposal would result in HGVs travelling through village – this is dangerous, and the roads in the village are not suitable • No guarantees given that the proposed number of 2 deliveries per day would not be exceeded

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 10 2005/0566/06 - continued

Other

• Visual impact • Proximity to housing • Proximity to cricket ground (and resulting adverse impact) • Proximity to the village, which is a Conservation Area • Possible use of poison to control increase in vermin, and knock-on effect this would have on human and animal health (e.g. pets) if exposed to it • No information given as to what would happen to reject materials which are unsuitable for composting • Proposal is an industrial process which is unsuitable for a rural location near a village • No information has been provided about the merits of the chosen location • No assessment of potential alternative locations has been carried out • Would set a precedent for similar proposals elsewhere • Alternative sites like Wanlip should be considered

47. In addition, four letters of support were received, making the following points:

• This form of composting is the way forward for farmers intending to go down the organic route • The farmers involved in this application are highly responsible and if a regulatory authority advised them that a guideline is being breached, they would immediately rectify the matter • The end product of the proposed activity would add further to the wellbeing of the land around the village, provide more nutrients to the soil and improve its structure. This would prevent erosion by wind and weather and also aid absorption of water • The venture would eventually be of long term benefit to the community and its residents • Adverse impacts claimed by objectors need to be put into perspective – the wind would blow towards the village on perhaps 20-30 days per year, with another 15-20 days per year being totally calm. Also, many people living in the village work elsewhere during weekdays. Therefore, restricting operations to weekdays and suspending them on days when the wind blows towards the village would minimise or eliminate nuisance • There is little likelihood of waste being spread outside the site and into the village • The venture would be useful as an educational project to illustrate how to make savings and benefit from composting suitable waste • Composting reduces the requirement for petrochemical based fertilisers • The compost will improve the soil quality • The use of compost is less harmful to wildlife than the use of petrochemical fertilisers

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 11 2005/0566/06 - continued

Assessment of Proposal

48. Section 36 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the Development Plan be the starting point for the consideration of all development proposals. Development has to be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The principal policy considerations relevant to this planning application are set out in paragraphs 18 to 31 above.

49. Material considerations include current relevant Government guidance and advice, other relevant statutory and non-statutory policies and any environmental impacts the proposal may have. These include:

• Odour • Noise • Dust/wind-blown litter • Traffic • Leachate • Health Risks • Visual Impact.

Development Plan

50. Policy WLP 4 of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan supports the establishment of composting sites, provided that such sites meet the environmental criteria set out in Policy WLP 8. Other relevant policies relate to the appropriateness of development in the countryside, and the environmental impacts of waste management development.

51. Government guidance encourages local authorities to support proposals for sustainable waste management development. Such development can contribute to the requirements of the European Landfill Directive for progressive reductions in the amount of waste that is taken to landfill as set out in Waste Strategy 2000 and to recover and recycle more waste. A number of changes to waste management decision making principles in Waste Strategy 2000 came into effect in July 2005, following the publication of PPS10. The Government looks to Waste Planning Authorities to take full account of the policies described in the strategy, including the need to move substantially away from landfill towards recycling, composting and energy recovery from waste.

52. The current Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy was published in 2002 and is currently under review, with a consultation draft expected to be published early 2006. The strategy outlines the current situation (at the time of the strategy’s publication). The development of the strategy was influenced by a number of key national policies such as the Government’s Waste Strategy 2000, as well as local priorities and objectives.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 12 2005/0566/06 - continued

53. To achieve the 2010 recycling target without having to acquire additional landfill permits or introduce alternative treatment methods, additional waste diversion, in particular biodegradable waste diversion, will be required. This could be achieved through the additional collection of organic waste, in particular kitchen waste, at the kerbside or increased diversion at Recycling and Household Waste Sites, followed by composting.

Environmental Effects

54. Government advice as contained in PPS10 and PPS23 is that the planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land rather than the control of the processes or substances themselves. The latter is a matter for those bodies with the relevant expertise and the statutory responsibility for that control. In this case, the relevant pollution control authority is the Environment Agency.

55. The environmental effects to be considered are odour; noise; dust/wind-blown litter; traffic; leachate; health risks; and visual impact. These are addressed in turn below.

Odour

56. Composting can produce odour but, if operations are managed properly, odour should not become a nuisance. If, however, the material is not turned on a regular basis it will become anaerobic due to the lack of oxygen, resulting in strong unpleasant odour, which has the potential to become a nuisance. The application claims that “odour is not a problem with materials such as green waste” . The accuracy of such a general statement is doubtful, as odour generation is largely dependent on the management of waste material.

57. The generation of odour could be controlled to a certain extent by ensuring that the site is run in accordance with good practice for composting operations. The applicant advises that "in the unlikely event that a clamp produced a strong odour, mixing and turning the clamp would be implemented to introduce air into the process, and another material could be introduced to correct the C:N [carbon to nitrogen] ratio within the clamp. This could be straw for example, which is readily available on the farm."

58. The impact of potential odour generation has been taken into account during the preparation of the application by selecting a site which is relatively remote from sensitive receptors such as residential properties. The nearest properties in Sproxton are approximately 430-500m north west of the site. The cricket ground at the southern edge of the village is 360-450m north-northwest of the site.

59. Wind information obtained from a five-year (1998-2002) summary of wind speed and direction from the observing station at Nottingham East Midlands Airport indicates that the predominant wind directions at the observing station are from the southwest and the south-southwest, occurring for approximately 11% and 10% of the time, respectively. Calm winds occur relatively frequently at 21% of the time but may be due to the anemometer measurement method utilised at the observing station. Any other wind directions occur between 2% and 4.5% of the time for each individual wind direction.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 13 2005/0566/06 - continued

60. Based on this information, the prevailing winds would therefore blow past the village into an area of open farmland to the east of Sproxton, which contains no sensitive receptors.

61. Due to the location of the application site in relation to the village and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptors it is therefore considered significant odour impacts are unlikely to be generated by the proposal, provided that the operations are run in accordance with good practice. Should planning permission be granted it would therefore be subject to a condition requiring a detailed operational statement to be submitted. In addition, it would be appropriate to control the development by granting a temporary permission. This would allow the situation to be re-assessed in the future, and if the operator intends to apply for a further permission at the end of the initial period, the past site management record in terms of environmental impact, including odour control, would be taken into account.

Noise

62. The composting process itself is silent. Potentially noisy activities relating to this proposal are:

• the manoeuvring of vehicles delivering waste to the site; • the shredding of material prior to placing it in the clamp; and • the loading and turning of the clamp.

63. Waste would be delivered to the site by vehicles of various sizes. Like the nature of the material, the types of vehicle delivering waste would also be dependent on the waste contracts supplying the site. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the operation of vehicles at considerable distances (430-500m) from residential properties would not be unacceptable, especially in the light of the fact that, in the event that planning permission is granted, waste deliveries would be restricted to a maximum of two deliveries per day, and deliveries would be restricted to daytime hours on weekdays.

64. The shredding of material is the activity most likely to cause a noise nuisance. The applicant advises that not all material delivered to the site would require shredding. As the exact nature of the material to be composted would depend on the waste disposal contracts which the applicant wishes to secure, it is not possible at this time to estimate how frequently a shredder would be operated on the site. However, due to the scale of the operation it is unlikely that a shredder would be operated more than 2 times a week.

65. The applicant advises that the clamp would be loaded and turned using a telescopic loader or a 360° loader. The turning frequency would depend on the materials present and the desired speed of the composting operation. It is unlikely that the material would need to be turned on a daily basis. Due to the amount of waste being delivered per day being relatively small, the loaders would not be in operation for prolonged periods of time.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 14 2005/0566/06 - continued

66. Taking into account the scale of the operation, its location at considerable distance from residential properties and the fact that noisy operations on the site would be intermittent rather than continuous for several hours every day, it is considered that the development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise in the village of Sproxton. Should planning permission be granted, it would be subject to conditions requiring plant and machinery to be properly silenced and limiting the delivery of waste and the operation of machinery, including shredding equipment, to specified hours, thereby ensuring that noisy activities on the site can be adequately controlled. In addition, a planning condition would require that in the event of complaints about noise from the site being received, the operator is to investigate the complaint and implement measures to ensure that operations do not give rise to further similar complaints.

Dust/wind-blown litter

67. Dust and wind-blown litter are also significant concerns for local residents. The risk assessment accompanying the planning application states that dust and litter are to be controlled by ensuring a sufficient moisture content in the material on site. The application also lists the erection of litter fencing as an alternative way of controlling wind-blown litter. Due to the openness of the area and the height of litter fencing required it is considered that this would not be suitable due to its adverse visual impact. Provided that the site is operated in accordance with good practice, dust and wind-blown litter arising from green waste, wood products, farm wastes and crop residues are unlikely to have a significant impact.

68. Notwithstanding this, a detailed assessment of the impact which the proposal may have would require knowledge of the exact types of materials which are being brought to the site. Any planning permission would therefore be subject to a condition requiring the operator to notify the Waste Planning Authority in advance of the type of material intended to process at the site, so that the impact of such materials can be assessed. In addition, in the event of complaints about dust or wind-blown litter, the operator would be required to take suitable steps to ensure that operations on site do not give rise to such complaints.

Traffic

69. The applicant advises that accessing the site from the B676, which runs between Melton and the A1, would not involve any vehicles travelling through the village of Sproxton. The application does not address the possibility of vehicles accessing the site from the north, e.g. from Waltham on the Wolds or Croxton Kerrial, in which case vehicles would have to negotiate the village. In this respect it has to be borne in mind that the roads through Sproxton are currently not the subject of a weight restriction.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 15 2005/0566/06 - continued

70. Following its initial consultation response, the Highway Authority was advised of the highway and traffic-related concerns of local residents. In addressing these, the Highway Authority made the following further comments:

"Although the road between Buckminster and Sproxton is a popular local route it should not be regarded as so busy that it has no further capacity. Generally throughout its length it is approximately 6 metres wide, which is sufficient for two-way traffic including HGVs to pass in comfort.

The route is not subject to a weight restriction although many of the side roads from it are restricted.

The main route passing the entrance has a reasonably straight alignment which allows good visibility. In order to achieve visibility for the main route it will be necessary to carry out a severe trim, even a mild cut-back, at each side of the existing gate that is proposed for the access. It would require a fair bit of work in any case in order to provide the dimensions required by the suggested conditions.

To improve the intervisibility between the adjacent junction and the access it would be advisable to trim severely or cut down approximately 50 metres of hedge from the existing gateway round the corner into the side road towards Coston. The established tree in the hedgeline need not be affected. The work on the hedgeline should provide general improvement to visibility for the benefit of all turning manoeuvres.

The most contentious issue will probably be the impact on the hedge. Nevertheless if it is unacceptable to chop the hedge severely, there is unlikely to be a sustainable reason for refusal on highway grounds."

71. Taking into account the initial comments from the Highway Authority, combined with the advice above, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the village of Sproxton in terms of vehicle traffic. In the event that planning permission is granted, it would be subject to planning conditions limiting the number of waste deliveries per day to the site, and restricting deliveries to exclude Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays. In addition, visibility splays at the site entrance would need to be established. The submission of details of visibility splays and their implementation would be required by a planning condition. Any such works would need to be implemented before the site starts accepting waste.

72. The applicant advises that the site has been registered with the Environment Agency as exempt from the Waste Management Licence Regulations. To qualify for an exemption, the amount of material present on site at any one time must not exceed 1,000 cubic metres. On the basis that it takes approximately 12-13 weeks for material to be composted (using the conventional windrowing method), the maximum annual throughput should therefore not exceed 4,000 cubic metres.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 16 2005/0566/06 - continued

73. To clarify the quantities of waste inputs involved, it has to be stressed that the conversion factor between cubic metres and tonnes is very approximate due to variations in the weight, density and moisture content of waste in the transporting vehicles. This is further complicated by the fact that the applicant intends to process different types of waste which are likely to have varying moisture content and therefore varying volume to weight ratios.

Leachate

74. The application claims that “leachate never, repeat never, comes out of the main body of the clamp under normal circumstances. In heavy weather there may be an edge effect.” The validity of this statement appears doubtful. Officers have inspected other “deep clamp” composting sites, developed by Land Network International in co-operation with local farmers, in and North Lincolnshire. Both sites showed clear evidence of leachate generation under normal weather conditions.

75. The Environment Agency requires that any disposal or recovery operation must meet the relevant objectives set out in Schedule 4 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations, namely;

(a) ensuring that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and in particular without (i) risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals; or (ii) causing nuisance through noise or odours; or (iii) adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest etc.

76. The Environment Agency expects the applicant to take note of the Schedule 4 objectives. If the Agency finds that the operations do not meet the ‘relevant objectives’ of Schedule 4 then the Agency could “de-register” the operation (i.e. remove the operation from the register of sites which are exempt from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations) and/or take enforcement action.

77. The applicant advises that the ground underlying the application site contains a clay layer of several metres thickness. Two trial pits were excavated for inspection by the Environment Agency. The excavated material had a clay-like texture and, although not analysed, did appear adequate for the operation. The application site is not on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) or on a major/minor aquifer. The Environment Agency advises that the proposed types of waste could have been composted by open air windrow without an impermeable pavement or sealed drainage and therefore considers that a concrete base would not be necessary for this proposal.

78. Notwithstanding this, Land Network International on behalf of the applicant confirmed in a letter to the Environment Agency that a drainage ditch leading to a sump would be constructed and the leachate generated during the composting operation recirculated. Should planning permission be granted, it would be subject to a condition requiring submission of details of the proposed drainage system to the Director of Community Services for approval, to ensure that leachate generated on site can be adequately controlled.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 17 2005/0566/06 - continued

Health Risks

79. The main health risk associated with composting activities is the release of bioaerosols (airborne micro-organisms) from material undergoing composting. It is the potential for these micro-organisms to become airborne as the compost is being handled that leads to concern that exposure could be detrimental to respiratory health. The allergenic fungus Aspergillus fumigatus is a significant component of compost bioaerosol.

80. According to most published research, bioaerosol levels decline to background levels within 200 metres from a compost bioaerosol source, although in some cases levels above background have been detected at greater distance. Background or typical ambient bioaerosol levels may differ by orders of magnitude depending on location, weather and season, which hinders interpretation of data. Few published studies exist where the health of residents near composting sites has been investigated, but where such work has been done there is no evidence of ill health compared to controls.

81. In August 2001, the Environment Agency issued a position statement in relation to composting and health effects. The Agency will object to any planning application for new composting sites where the boundary of the facility is within 250 metres of a workplace or the boundary of a dwelling, unless the application is accompanied by a site-specific risk assessment. In this respect it has to be noted that the distance between the site and the nearest workplaces and dwellings exceeds the 250 metre limit set by the Agency.

82. It is very important that the composting process is properly managed. Levels of potential pathogens in municipal waste have been shown to be greatly increased in badly managed compost. In well managed compost, pathogens are killed off rapidly. Good management practices may reduce exposure to bioaerosols.

83. In the specific case of this application, the nearest properties in Sproxton are approximately 430-500m north west of the site. Taking into account published research on bioaerosols, it appears unlikely that the proposed operation, if well managed, would pose a health risk to receptors in the village due to predominant wind direction and distance of the site from receptors.

84. The risk assessment accompanying the application states that the fall-back position with regard to vermin control would be baiting. Consequently, local residents have expressed concern over the health hazards of such baits being taken by pets or handled by children, and the potential effect which this would have on the health of pets, children, pet owners and their families.

85. According to the risk assessment accompanying the application, vermin has to date not been of significance at similar sites run by the “Land Network” consortium. Notwithstanding this, the applicant advises that problems with vermin on site could be avoided by ensuring that the temperature of the compost material is sufficiently high. The application refers to vermin fencing and baiting only as a fall-back position.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 18

2005/0566/06 - continued

86. The Countryside Code requires dog owners to keep their dogs under close control. In the event that animals or unauthorised persons access the proposed site, under health and safety regulations it would be the responsibility of the site operator to ensure that these are not endangered by operations on the site. In addition to this duty of care, persons using the countryside also have a more general responsibility to ensure that they are not trespassing. Whilst baiting is to be used as only as a fall-back position, the operator should consider posting warning signs in case baits are deployed.

Visual Impact (Landscape Advice)

87. The site is visible from footpath E68a, from the minor road running parallel to the application site, and from Buckminster Road, from which it is seen through an avenue of trees. Whilst it is considered that visually compost materials could be acceptable in this situation, there is concern about the inclusion of non-farm wastes in the process, particularly wood products and bread waste. Whilst this is not a landscape issue, the question arises whether MDF waste would be acceptable on an organic farm.

88. The possible need for litter or vermin fencing or fencing against fire risk causes concern, as any of these would affect the appearance of the site.

89. The 1m high soil bund would not, as claimed, create a “sight barrier”. The bund would need to be grassed and maintained by cutting. Planting trees on the bund would create an incongruous landscape feature within the field and would only serve to draw attention to the clamp. The roadside hedge gives a certain amount of screening, particularly nearer to the site, and could perhaps be conditioned to be maintained at a minimum of 2.5m above road level (i.e. approximately its present height). If further screening was necessary, a straw bale fence as suggested in the supporting information would probably be the most appropriate solution given the agricultural setting of the site. A stand-off should be maintained to the hedge along the northern side of the proposed site.

90. On balance it is considered that the proposal in its proposed location would not present an unacceptable landscape impact.

91. Another point raised in representations received from the public is the fact that the village of Sproxton is designated as a Conservation Area. The proposed development is located 400m from the closest point of the Sproxton Conservation Area and is therefore considered not to have an adverse impact on the conservation area or its setting.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 19

2005/0566/06 - continued

Conclusion

92. Composting of organic waste reduces the amount of waste being sent to landfill. Government guidance therefore promotes composting. The EU Landfill Directive sets targets for Member States for the recycling of waste. The Development Plan also supports proposals for composting, provided that such operations do not give rise to adverse environmental impacts, or that any such impacts can be adequately controlled.

93. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan and that the potential environmental impacts of the development are unlikely to be of a scale which would warrant a refusal of planning permission. Due to the likely scale of the operation and the location of the site some distance from the village of Sproxton, the impacts of the development on residential properties in the village is likely to be low and could to a certain degree be controlled by planning conditions, provided that the site is run in accordance with good practice.

94. Nevertheless, the potential for nuisance is significant enough to require appropriate controls. In addition, there are some aspects of the proposal which give rise to concerns, mainly in respect of operational procedures and certain claims made in the supporting statement accompanying the application.

95. PPS10 states that it should not be necessary to use planning conditions to control the pollution aspects of a waste management facility where the facility requires a permit from the pollution control authority. In the case of this application, the operation has been registered as exempt from the Waste Management Licensing regime, and therefore the available controls are very limited. PPS10 goes on to say that “in some cases, however, it may be appropriate to use planning conditions to control other aspects of the development. For example, planning conditions could be used in respect of transport modes, the hours of operation where these may have an impact on neighbouring land use, landscaping, plant and buildings, the timescale of the operations, and impacts such as noise, vibrations, odour, and dust from certain phases of the development such as demolition and construction”.

96. In order to ensure that proper controls are in place in the absence of a Waste Management Licence, the operator should submit a general operational statement containing information on items such as the receipt and handling of material in greater detail than that contained in the application document.

97. On balance, given the location of the site in relation to potential sensitive receptors, the type and scale of the proposed operation and the suggested planning controls, it is considered appropriate to grant permission on a short-term basis. Department of the Environment Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions provides advice on the issue of temporary permissions and in particular "Trial Runs". Paragraph 111 states:

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 20 2005/0566/06 - continued

"Where an application is made for permanent permission for a use which may be 'potentially detrimental' to existing uses nearby, but there is insufficient evidence to enable the authority to be sure of its character or effect, it might be appropriate to grant a temporary permission in order to give the development a trial run, provided that such a permission would be reasonable having regard to the capital expenditure necessary to carry out the development.

98. In the light of the above, it is considered that a temporary planning permission should be granted for a 3 year period, with the planning conditions listed in the appendix to this report imposed to control the development. This would enable the operator to construct the site and establish a composting operation. A continuation of the operation would then require a fresh planning permission. The environmental record of the operation would be monitored during this initial period and the findings taken into account in the determination of an application to extend the duration of the development.

Recommendation

A. Permit, subject to the conditions set out in the Appendix.

B. To endorse, as required by the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended) a summary of the:

(i) Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government's current planning policy guidance and the relevant Circulars, together with the relevant Development Plan Polices, including the following and those referred to under specific conditions as set out in the appendix: -

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996 to 2016 Strategy Policy 8 Resource Management Policies 1, 8, 9, 12 and 14

Melton Local Plan Policies OS2 and C2

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policies WLP 4, WLP 6, WLP 7, WLP 8, WLP 10 and WLP 11

(ii) Reasons for the grant of planning permission as follows:

The County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development gives rise to no material harm, is in accordance with the development plan and that there are no material consideration that indicate that the

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 21 2005/0566/06 - continued

decision should be made otherwise. The County Council also considers that any impact to the amenities of the area as a result of the proposed development would reasonably be mitigated by the imposition of the conditions as set out in the appendix.

Background Papers

Planning Application 2005/0566/06

Circulation Under Sensitive Issues Procedures

Mr. J.B. Rhodes, CC

Officers to Contact

Mr. G. Urban (Tel. 0116 265 6756) E-Mail: [email protected] ______

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 22 APPENDIX

2005/0566/06 - continued

Conditions

General

1. This permission shall be limited to a period of 4 years from the date of commencement of any operations in conjunction with the development, which shall occur within 2 years from the date of this permission. Composting operations shall cease no later than 3 years from the date of commencement. The site shall be restored to agriculture no later than 4 years from the date of commencement in accordance with a restoration scheme to be submitted to the Director of Community Services for approval.

2. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be given to the Director of Community Services within 7 days of commencement.

3. All operations associated with the development hereby permitted shall only take place within the area edged red as shown on the 1:2500 scale plan submitted with the planning application.

4. No development hereby permitted shall take place until the operator has submitted an operational statement containing further details of waste reception and handling procedures, including dust and odour control, for the written approval of the Director of Community Services. The composting operation shall at all times be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Hours of operation

5. No deliveries of compostable material shall take place except between the hours of;

08.00 to 17.00 hours Monday to Friday; and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays.

No sorting, shredding, movement or turning of material shall take place except between the hours of;

08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday; and 08.00 to 14.00 hours on Saturdays.

No activities shall take place on a Sunday or Bank or Public Holiday.

6. Any deliveries which need to be dealt with outside the specified hours must be treated as emergency cases only and notified to the Director of Community Services within 48 hours of the occurrence, together with details of the reason why it was necessary.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 23

2005/0566/06 - continued

Site Construction

7. The construction of the hardstanding, access road and soil storage bunds shall be carried out in accordance with precise details to be submitted to the Director of Community Services for approval and in general accordance with the details provided in the planning application.

8. No development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the drainage collection system have been submitted in writing to the Director of Community Services for approval. The drainage collection system shall be laid out in such a manner as to ensure that any leachate and rainwater runoff from the operational area is drained into a sealed tank. The drainage collection system shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and maintained throughout the duration of the development.

9. No topsoil or subsoil shall be removed from the site. All soils shall be permanently retained on site and used in the restoration of the site.

10. The soil storage bund shall be seeded with a suitable grass seed mixture. Once established, the sward shall be managed throughout the period of storage and kept weed free.

Access and Highways

11. Any vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions which are to be erected shall be set back a minimum distance of 15 metres behind the Highway boundary and shall be hung so as to open inwards only.

12. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until turning facilities have been provided within the site in order to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward direction. The turning area so provided shall not be obstructed and shall be available for use throughout the duration of the development.

13. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the vehicular access to the site has been provided with 6 metre control radii on both sides of the access.

14. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until visibility splays of not less than 2.4 metres by 160 metres have been provided at the junction of the access with Buckminster Road. These shall be in accordance with the standards contained in Places, Streets and Movement and the current County Council design guide and shall be so maintained throughout the duration of the development. Nothing shall be allowed to grow above a height of 0.9 metres above ground level within the visibility splays.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 24

2005/0566/06 - continued

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the vehicular access to the site has been widened to an effective minimum width of 6 metres over a distance of at least 20 metres behind the Highway boundary. Once widened, the access drive shall be so maintained throughout the duration of the development.

16. No vehicles shall enter the public highway from the site unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the highway.

Delivery of material

17. Deliveries of compostable materials to the site shall be limited to a maximum number of 12 per week and subject to a maximum of 2 in any one day.

18. A record of daily lorry movements and tonnages shall be maintained at all times and shall be submitted for inspection to the Director of Community services at 3- monthly intervals, commencing with the date of first reception of waste at the site.

Operational Matters

19. Unless previously approved in writing by the Director of Community Services, the types of waste which may be brought to and processed at the site shall be limited to: • Green waste from plant origin; • Wood products (including MDF, chipboard and hardboard); • Paper-based products or residues from paper production; • Farm wastes such as animal manures; • Crop residues from production operations such as oil seed rape pressing (provided no solvents are used in the production process). No other materials shall be brought onto the site for composting. Incidental arisings of non-compostable material shall be placed in an enclosed container prior to their removal from the site.

20. As and when a contract for the disposal of waste at the application site is entered into, the operator shall notify the Director of Community Services of the types and quantities of waste to be disposed of under the contract.

21. Following their delivery to the site, wastes shall be sorted, shredded (if necessary) and moved to the composting area within 48 hours. No waste material or containers or skips shall be stored on the site except as may be required by condition 14 above.

22. No stockpiles of material on the site shall exceed a height of 3 metres.

23. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Community Services the final compost product shall be used as a soil conditioner/fertiliser within the land in the ownership of the applicant at Beech Tree Farm only and no material whatsoever shall be exported beyond the agricultural holding.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 25

2005/0566/06 - continued

24. No sales of compost shall take place from the site.

25. The volume of compost materials being processed, stored or treated on site at any one time shall not exceed 1000 cubic metres.

26. In the event of any complaint being received about the composting operation hereby permitted, the operator shall inform the Director of Community Services within 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the Director of Community Services, it is considered that the complaint warrants further investigation, a report shall be submitted to him prior to further operations taking place. Where necessary, a scheme of mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Services and subsequently implemented. The scheme of measures shall seek to mitigate the effects of the operation that gave rise to the original complaint.

Drainage

27. All material shall be stored in the operational area with suitable drainage to a collection container constructed in accordance with the details submitted under Condition 8 above.

28. There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either the groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

Environmental Protection

29. Any facilities for the storage of oil, fuel or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The size of the bunded compound shall at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling point vents and sight glasses must be located within the bund. There must be no drain through the bund floor or walls.

30. All vehicles, plant and machinery shall operate only during the permitted hours, and shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers.

Lighting and Fencing

31. No lighting installations or fencing shall be provided or erected on site unless details of any installation have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Community Services.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 26

2005/0566/06 - continued

Ecology

32. No development hereby permitted shall commence until the application site has been checked for the presence of protected species. Any protected species discovered on the site shall be reported to the Director of Community Services and English Nature so that suitable mitigation measures may be implemented before construction of the site commences.

Landscaping

33. The hedgerow along the northern boundary of the operational area shall be maintained at a minimum height of 2.5 metres.

Restoration

34. A scheme detailing the restoration of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Community Services no later than 2 years from the date of commencement of the development. Such a scheme shall include the removal of all hardstandings, the access road and the drainage system, the reinstatement of soils across the site, and the return of the site to agriculture. Following the cessation of composting operations the agreed scheme shall be implemented as approved in accordance with the timescale set in Condition 1 above.

Reasons

1,2,3, To enable the Waste Planning Authority to adequately control the 4,7,8, development and to minimise and assess its impact on the amenities of the 17,18, local area. 19,20, (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policies WLP 8 and 24,25 WLP 11) &34

5,6, To ensure minimum disturbance from operations and avoidance 21,22, of nuisance to the local community. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland 23,26 Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11) 30&31

9&10 In the interest of satisfactory restoration of the site. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 13)

11 To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway whilst the gates are opened/closed and protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

12 To enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction in the interests of the safety of road users. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 27

2005/0566/06 - continued

13 To enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a slow and controlled manner, in the interests of general highway safety, and to afford easy access to the site and protect the free and safe passage of traffic in the public highway. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

14 To afford adequate visibility at the site access and road junction to cater for the expected volume of traffic joining the existing highway network and in the interests of general highway safety. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

15 To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway and not cause problems or dangers within the highway. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

16 In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

27,28 To minimise the risk of pollution of watercourses and aquifers. &29 (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 8)

32 To prevent any harm or disturbance being caused to protected species as a result of the development. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan Policy 3A)

33 To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area. (Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 11)

Notes to the Applicant

Protection of nesting birds – The applicant is reminded that nesting birds are protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore, any disturbance of nesting birds would constitute an offence under the law. It may be prudent, therefore, to defer any works to hedges and trees until the fledglings have left the nest and are fully independent.

The bird nesting season occurs between early spring and late summer, when resident and migratory bird species nest and rear their young. Trees and hedgerows are common nesting sites. The presence of nesting birds may have direct implications on the development, particularly where it involves works to trees or the removal of hedgerows.

Soil handling - No soil movement operations should take place except when the full depth of soil to be stripped or otherwise transported is in a suitably dry soil moisture condition, such that damage to its structure shall be avoided. Conditions shall be sufficiently dry for the topsoil to be separated from the subsoil without difficulty. Soil handling and movement shall not be carried out

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 28

2005/0566/06 - continued

a) between the months of October to April (inclusive); b) when it is raining; or c) when there are pools of water on the surface

All soil handling operations should be carried out having regard to the Defra Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils.

Site access improvements – All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Northern Area Manager (telephone 01509 412316). In order to provide the visibility splays detailed in the planning conditions, it may be necessary to trim the hedge back and maintain it at the highway boundary.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006 29

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all preceding applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Education and the Director of Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970, the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

You are advised to contact the County Council’s Assistant Personnel Officer (Disabled People) if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPLUSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Strategy, Structure Plan or any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

DC®. BOARD 19/01/2006