Buckinghamshire County Council Visit democracy.buckscc.gov.uk for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL Agenda COMMITTEE
Date: Tuesday 9 June 2015
Time: 10.00 am
Venue: Mezzanine Rooms 1 & 2, County Hall, Aylesbury
WEBCASTING NOTICE
Please note: this meeting may be filmed for subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.
You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy.
Therefore by entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If members of the public do not wish to have their image captured they should sit within the marked area near the door to Mezzanine Room 1.
If you have any queries regarding this, please contact Member Services on 01296 382876.
Those wishing to speak at Development Control Committee regarding any of the items below, must register by 10.00am on Friday 5th June. Please see details on how to register at the bottom of the Agenda.
Agenda Item Page No
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE / CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To disclose any Personal or Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
3 MINUTES To follow.
4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANT / MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY 5 - 52 (MRF), SAMIAN WAY, ASTON CLINTON APPLICATION NO: CM/78/14 Electoral Division: Aston Clinton / Bierton Local Member: Bill Chapple OBE Town/Parish Council: Aston Clinton / Bierton/ Wingrave / Tring Rural / Drayton Beauchamp / Aylesbury Town / Buckland
Report of the Planning Manager
5 WOOD RECYCLING FACILITY, THORNEY BUSINESS PARK, THORNEY 53 - 72 LANE NORTH, IVER, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE APPLICATION NO: CM/02/15 Electoral Division: Iver Local Member: Ruth Vigor-Hedderly Town/Parish Council: Iver Parish Council
Report of the Planning Manager
6 ST LOUIS CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARRIS COURT, 73 - 86 AYLESBURY APPLICATION NO: CC/14/15 Electoral Division: Aylesbury North Local Member: Raj Khan, Phil Gomm Town/Parish Council: Aylesbury Town Council Bierton with Broughton Parish Council
Report of the Planning Manager
7 PROPOSED ERECTION OF TWO STOREY BLOCK TO THE EXISTING 87 - 100 SCHOOL BUILDING / PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING NURSERY, OAK GREEN SCHOOL, OAK GREEN, AYLESBURY APPLICATION NO: CC/16/15 Electoral Division: Aylesbury South West Local Member: Brian Adams Town/Parish Council: Aylesbury Town Council
Report of the Planning Manager
8 ST MICHAEL'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL, DAWS HILL LANE, HIGH 101 - 116 WYCOMBE APPLICATION NO: CC/20/15 Electoral Division: Abbey Local Member: Lesley Clarke OBE
Town/Parish Council: n/a
Report of the Planning Manager
9 LITTLE MARLOW CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL, SCHOOL LANE, 117 - 126 LITTLE MARLOW APPLICATION NO: CC/24/15 Electoral Division: Flackwell Heath, Marlow Local Member: David Watson Town/Parish Council: Little Marlow Parish Council
Report of the Planning Manager
10 DELEGATED REPORTS UPDATE Decisions made under Delegated Powers.
Report of the Head of Planning and Environment.
11 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC To resolve to exclude the press and public as the following item is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
12 ENFORCEMENT REPORT 127 - 136
13 DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting of Development Control Committee will be held on Tuesday 28 July 2015 at 10.00am in Mezzanine Rooms 1 and 2.
Site visits (if necessary) will take place on Thursday 23 July 2015.
If you would like to attend a meeting, but need extra help to do so, for example because of a disability, please contact us as early as possible, so that we can try to put the right support in place.
For further information please contact: Reece Bowman on 01296 382548, email: [email protected]
Members
Mr C Ditta Mr B Roberts (VC) Ms N Glover Mr D Schofield Mr A Huxley Mr D Shakespeare OBE Mr R Reed (C) Mrs J Teesdale
Members of the public wishing to speak at Development Control Committee should apply in the following ways:
Registering on the website at: http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCommitteeDetails.asp?ID=105 Contacting Democratic Services, on 01296 382548/01296 382876
The Committee will not consider anyone wishing to address the meeting, unless your request to speak has been received by 10.00am on the Friday preceding the Committee meeting at which the item will be presented. (This applies when Committee Meetings are held on a Tuesday).
Agenda Item 4 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee Date: 9 June 2015
Title: PROPOSED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANT AND MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY AT SAMIAN WAY, ASTON CLINTON, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HP22 5WJ PLANNING APPLICATION NO: CM/78/14 APPLICANT: OLLECO AND ARLA FOODS LTD BUCKS STREET ATLAS PAGE 117 D8
Author: Head of Planning and Environment
Contact Officer: Anna Herriman (01296) 382819
Electoral divisions affected: Aston Clinton/Bierton
Local Members: Bill Chapple OBE
Recommendation: A The Development Management Committee is invited to APPROVE application number CM/78/14 for the proposed anaerobic digestion plant and materials recycling facility at Samian Way, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Environment including:
i. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the external cladding material to be used in the construction of the MRF buildings(containing the offices, de-pack area, MRF and bale storage building), and the digesters and silos hereby permitted including the colour finish, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
ii. The combined maximum total number of heavy goods vehicle movements from this planning permission shall not exceed 126 associate (63 in, 63 out) per day.
5
iii. A record of the number of daily vehicle movements and the tonnage of waste being imported to the site shall be maintained for the duration of the development hereby permitted and shall be made available to the County Planning Authority no later than one week after any request to view them has been made.
iv. No wastes other than food waste and general waste from single source quick service restaurant chain shall be imported to and processed at the site.
v. The combined maximum annual waste throughput from this planning permission shall not exceed 130,000 tonnes per annum.
vi. No burning of waste materials shall take place at any time.
vii. The developer must ensure that the noise mitigation measures discussed in the report ref.8356/0933/10 are carried out to ensure that noise from sources like buildings, plant and equipment are effectively controlled to minimise noise breakout. The operational noise attributed to fixed plant and industrial noise associated with the Anaerobic Digestion and Materials Recycling Facility shall not generate noise levels of more than 5dB below background noise levels, or 25dB in instances where the background noise level is 30dB or less expressed as a LAeq in accordance with the British Standard 4142 that is current at the time of the planning application. viii. The overall site noise including on site transportation noise sources must not exceed 53 dBLAeq 16 hrs during the day and 43 dBLAeq 8 hrs during the night.
ix. Prior to the occupation of the buildings a noise monitoring scheme including a plan which specifies the location of the main receptors and the monitoring points, which shall be principally located at or near the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with the approved details. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with the latest British Standard 4142.
x. Given the scale of the building project the hours
6 of construction on the site must be restricted as follows. Monday to Friday 07.30 – 18.00, Saturday 08.00 – 13.00 with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
xi. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
xii. Following checks for nests by a qualified ecologist, all vegetation clearance shall be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (1 March to 30 August inclusive). xiii. The detailed methods & mitigation measures for the avoidance of harm to European Protected Species, as specified in the Ecological Method Statement, submitted in support of this application shall be implemented fully during the construction of the development and the precautionary mitigation provisions indicated in the Ecological Method Statement shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the operation of the site as a waste transfer station. xiv. The hard surfacing shown on the approved plans shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
xv. No part of the building shall be occupied until details of cycle storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be in accordance with the approved details. xvi. No fixed plant or machinery shall be erected on the site without the prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
That an acceptable planning obligation under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act be completed in order to secure the routeing of the incoming waste vehicles via the A41 and to control the local area from where waste will be imported into Buckinghamshire County.
B That the reasons for approval of the application
7 are that subject to conditions as above, the application is compliance with the requirements of Policy 28 (Amenity) and 29 (Buffer Zones) of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP); Policies CS9, CS10, CS16, CS18, CS19 and CS22 of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (BMWCS); The following Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan Policies have also been taken into consideration: GP8 (Amenity), GP24 (Car parking guidelines), GP35 (Materials), GP38 (Landscaping), GP39 (Existing vegetation), GP45 (Secure by Design), GP.95 (Amenity), RA.29 (New employment uses in the Countryside), RA.36 (Traffic adversely affecting rural roads) and RA.37 (New accesses to inter-urban A-class or Trunk Roads). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) is also relevant.
Resources Appraisal: Not relevant
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Summary
1. The application site is on land to the north and opposite the Arla Dairy development which was granted permission (ref no: 11/00962/APP) by Aylesbury District Council on 27th October 2011. It also encroaches slightly onto land to the west currently benefiting from an outline planning consent for B8 warehouse development (AVDC reference 11/00963). This application seeks the erection of an anaerobic digestion plant including Materials Recycling Facility with a total footprint of 6599 sqm. The proposed development of the Anaerobic Digestion Plant is being undertaken in partnership with Arla Foods Ltd (Arla) and the planning application is submitted in joint names.
2. An EIA Screening Opinion Request was carried out and assessed against the 2011 EIA Regulations concluding that the A D plant / MRF falls within the threshold of a Schedule 2 project by virtue of the nature of the proposal and the site size. It was concluded that the proposed AD / MRF development would not result in significant effects on the environment. Buckinghamshire County Council response was dated 23rd October 2014 and concluded that a full EIA was not required.
Site Description
3. The site comprises 2.3 ha of agricultural land located to the north east end of Samian Way, opposite Arla Dairy to the east of College Road North, adjacent to the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass and junction of College Road North with the A41. The site of the proposed development is also on land north east of the dairy benefitting from an approval for a Vehicle Maintenance Unit (VMU) under AVDC planning application reference: 12/02205/APP. This land would be subject to a lease agreement between Arla and Olleco. Samian Way runs to the north east off College Road North. The application site is a triangular parcel of land between the Arla Dairy and the Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal. The canal’s towpath runs west east of the site’s north boundary which is separated from the site by a 3m bund with 2m acoustic fencing on
8 the top and where the bund is 0.2m higher as it turned the corner on the eastern side of the site. The eastern boundary is defined by a lane, Buckland Road.
4. Aylesbury is located approximately 4km to the west, Aston Clinton 1.5km to the south and Buckland approximately 1.5km to the south east separated by the A41. The site is accessed from the north eastern end of Samian Way opposite the main gated entrance to the Arla Dairy plant. College Road North serves a number of industrial / commercial uses including a HWRC site.
5. Residential properties in the wider locality are College Farm along College Road North (approx. 750m away), and Merrymead Farm located over the canal bridge to the west of College Road North (approx. 850m away), north west of the application site approximately . To the north east is Monks Court and Monks Farm both of which are in excess of 200m distant from the site. However, a nearby former agricultural building at Canal Farm has recently benefited (August 2014) from conversion to a dwelling under the Prior Notification Procedure of the GPDO and this is located at a distance of less than 200 metres from the north eastern corner of the site. Rectory Farm, Puttenham is located further to the north east at 750m away. Cherry Farm is a residential property sited south of the over bridge approx. 800 metres away on Buckland Road and there are properties south of the A41 on College Road South. .
6. The character of the landscape is of undeveloped open fields with hedgerow boundaries. The Chilterns AONB and Metropolitan Green Belt are located approximately 2.5km beyond the site and beyond Aston Clinton to the south and south east. An existing hedgerow runs north-south across the site. This has previously been identified an Important Hedger by virtue of the fact it reflects a previous parish boundary.
7. RAF Halton lies approximately 3 – 4 km to the south.
8. Drayton Mead Brook runs in a north south direction on the western side of the site and enters the site as a culvert at the north western corner which then discharges into the canal.
9. The boundary with Darcorum Borough Council is located some 800m to the east of the application site.
10. Within Dacorum Borough to the east is Tring Woodlands SSSI (approximately 5.25km away to the south east) and Tring Reservoir SSSI (approximately 2.5km to the east). Other SSSI sites include Aston Clinton Ragpits SSSI is approximately 3km away to the south, Weston Turville Reservoir approximately 4.25km to the south west and Dancersend waterworks SSSI approximately 5.4km to the south east.
9 Canal Farm
Grand Union Canal (Aylesbury Arm) Arla Dairy Olleco Application site
Samian Way
A41
The application
11. The application seeks to erect an Anaerobic Digestion plant with Materials Recycling Facility on land off Samian Way, College Road North, Aylesbury.
12. The proposed development will process up to 50,000 tonnes of food waste per annum. Plant structure would compose, principally of a food waste reception and handling building (Depackaging Building); the anaerobic digestion tanks; several associated mixing, storage tanks and pasteurisation tanks; three CHP engines with an associated stack; a biogas cleaning plant (to convert the biogas to biomethane) and the storage of digestate. The gas would be used to run combined Heat and Power (CHP) containerised engine / generator sets to generate up to 5MW of renewable electricity for onsite use and export to the Arla dairy facility. The materials recycling facility / plant will process up to 80,000 tonnes of general waste per annum primarily from quick service restaurant chains. The plant and all associated waste will be housed in the MRF area of the Building. Food waste will come from the local area and be delivered in covered vehicles. Delivery routes will follow those agreed for the Arla development.
Main building and structures:
13. The proposed development includes the following plant:
• 2 enclosed stainless steel Digestate / Gas Storage vessels 25.61m diameter x 6.37m high walls with a double layer reinforcement membrane roof rising to 6m high above the walls (12.363m high in total from base level).
• 2 enclosed steel digestion vessels 21.34m Ø x 16.87m high walls and 19.99m to the top of the conical roof from base level.
10 • 1 stainless steel mixing tank 12.81m diameter x 12.675m high walls and 14.24m high to the top of the conical roof.
• A range of stainless steel clad preformed tanks / cylinders and associated equipment.
• A steel Sequence Batch Reactor (SBR) for treatment of waste water 18m dia x 8m high. • A range of smaller adjacent steel tanks – SBR Buffer – 9.5 dia x 8m high, Recycled Water tank - 9.5 dia x 8m high, Post Digester 10m dia x 8m high.
• 4 stainless steel Liquid Tanks size 2.1m dia x 11m high, and Main Liquid Tank 6.11m dia x 10.87m walls and 11.43m to top of conical roof.
• 2 fibreglass Prefilter Tanks 2.35m dia x 8.5m high for odour control adjacent the Gas Stores.
• A stainless steel Receiving Tank size 8.54m dia x 8.56m total height.
• 3 Pasteurisation Tanks in stainless steel 2.325m dia x 7.950m high / 9.050m to top of flanges.
• A separate lower level Energy Centre building housing CHP engine, boiler, and heat exchangers etc. 16 x 12m overall plan and 12m to top of parapet walls, with low pitched portal framed roof behind a parapet wall. All constructed to match the main building group.
• A range of lower level containerised equipment and medium scale external equipment forming the Gas Upgrade Plant likely to be up to 15m high for Planning Statement Proposed AD Plant and MRF - Olleco April 2015 6 the 3 no gas scrubbing tanks but dependant on final detail design from specialist supplier
• A flue for the Steam Boiler / CHP Engine 25m high to achieve adequate dispersion modelling characteristics sited within the Energy Centre.
• An AD Process Control Room adjacent Digester 1 – size 16 x 10m x 5.1m high to top of parapet walling (subject to final design of technical equipment within).
• A Solid Separation Building adjacent the SBR Tank – size 14 x 10m x 6.1m high (subject to final design of technical equipment within).
• A Security Flare for infrequent use – approx 8m high.
14. In terms of buildings, the proposal includes the erection of a number of buildings. The energy centre (as set out above) is located on the southern boundary adjacent to Samian Way whilst the main office / depack / MRF / bale storage building will be located along the western boundary. This building comprises of a steel framed unit of varying height with the MRF being the tallest at 14.825m to top of the parapet. The office unit to the front of the site is circa 8m to the roof line with the DePackaging Building rising to 13m before rising again to the MRF. The Bale Storage Area adjacent the MRF is the same height as the Depackaging Building at 13m. All are clad in Kingspan Optimo insulated cladding.
11 15. The MRF building is 48 x 60m and the Bale Store is 24 x 30m maximum plan and will generally be open plan internally to provide greatest flexibility for layout of the recycling equipment. Vehicular access into the building will be minimal but will be via either of two sectional doors in the eastern elevation of the MRF and a further door to the Bale Store. Materials delivered to the MRF will come in sealed tote bags on lorries and be taken into the MRF via a series of Dock Shelters along the eastern elevation. The dock shelters will have roller shutter doors and internal dock leveller platforms for ease of delivery.
16. Odour control of the Depackaging Building will be dealt with by a specialist air ionisation system that will eliminate odours at source.
17. In terms of building floor areas these are:
• Offices (over two floors) - 816m²
• Amenities (over two floors) - 430m²
• De-Packaging - 1,314m²
• MRF - 2,942m²
• Bale Store - 605m2
• AD Process Control - 160m2
• Solid Separation Building - 140m2
• Energy Centre - 192m²
• Total Floor Area (external face of Building) - 6,599m²
In terms of building heights:-
• Offices – 8.1m from roof to ground floor level.
• De-Packaging Building & Bale Store – 13m to top of parapet upstand from floor level Planning Statement Proposed AD Plant and MRF - Olleco April 2015 7
• MRF – 14.825m to top of parapet upstand from Floor level.
• Energy Centre – 12m to top of parapet
• AD Process Control – 5.1m high to top of parapet walls
• Solid Separation – 6.1m high to top of parapet walls
18. The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme with planting along the main frontage with Samian Way and within the site adjacent to the staff car park and main entrance to the office element. Planting at the site entrance will reflect the position of any existing hedge which will be removed. The new hedge to site frontage will be a mix of native species providing habitat improvements over and above those already provided by the existing hedge. The hard paved areas will be provided with drainage which will be connected to the onsite drainage system. The drainage concept drawing no 25839 / 102E prepared by GGP Consult gives an indicative layout of the installation having been designed by a specialist drainage engineer to ensure that the
12 flow and quantity of discharge from the site is in line with the overall drainage strategy for the Arla Dairy site.
Materials Recycling Facility
19. The proposed MRF will be used as a reception centre for recycling a mixture of food waste and packaging from a single source quick service restaurant chain. MRF’s can play an important role in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill sites. A MRF is a specialised plant that receives, separates and prepares recyclable materials. The materials go through a variety of mainly mechanical and some manual processes to obtain maximum recovery of materials that will re-enter the manufacturing process as a valuable commodity.
20. MRF facilities use a range of technologies to sort recyclables by their physical and chemical properties; shape, size, weight, magnetism and optical scanning. Although the recycling and sorting of waste is increasingly more sophisticated and mechanised, there remains a significant reliance on manual operations, particularly hand-picking, to ensure quality standards are met.
21. The proposed MRF will receive general waste (comprising predominantly card, paper, food (around 10%) and plastic) from a single source quick service restaurant chain in air tight plastic totes. The totes will be opened and the compacted plastic bags containing the mixed waste will be fluffed up using a bag splitting machine. The loose material will then be passed through a vibrating screen to separate the material into light and heavy fractions. The separated material will flow along conveyor belts for manual segregation into component parts e.g. cardboard, plastic. The component materials will be re-baled for off-site recycling. A positive sorting approach produces excellent quality outputs, in order to reduce saleable material ending up in the residuals line. The maximum throughput of the materials recycling facility would be 80,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
22. In July 2014 The European Commission set out proposals to increase the target for the amount or packaging and waste recovery from 60% to 80%. In order for the UK to meet such targets a greater effort has to be made to reuse the valuable resources contained in our everyday packaging if we are to avoid more and more going to landfill. It is expected that by 2020 all of the UK’s landfill sites will be full. This point is fast approaching.
23. Olleco is the fastest growing food waste recycling company in the UK and they provide waste management services to catering and hospitality customers. Their aim is to provide 100% resource recovery solutions for their customers. Food waste is collected via a weekly collection service ensuring service user’s bins are kept clean and odour free by replacing the bin liner at every collection.
Assessment
24. The proposed development of the Anaerobic Digestion plant is being undertaken in partnership with Arla Foods. Arla’s philosophy has always been to make the Aylesbury Dairy a show piece facility with leading environmental performance and has set the objective of achieving Zero Carbon status for the dairy. The AD Plant will produce enough renewable energy to deliver Arla’s zero carbon footprint at the Aylesbury dairy.
13
25. In the assessment of the project our client considered the options available for the siting of this proposed new facility. After consideration it was concluded that the proposed site was the most appropriate on which to construct the new Anaerobic Digestion Plant & Materials Recycling Facility Processing Plant. This decision was based on the following:
Proximity to the Arla Dairy Energy Centre. Good access to transport linkages. The availability of a suitably sized plot with previous planning permission for B2 – B8 class usage which had yet to be implemented by Arla. The availability of services and utility connections. The availability of waste heat and a waste water feed from the Arla AD Plant.
26. The Dairy is now an established industrial site built to a high specification, achieving the BREEAM Excellent rating. The vacant land along the northern boundary of the dairy abutting the Grand Union Canal is still to be developed with the current application being the first portion to be taken forward.
27. A traffic infrastructure exists around the site, these being formed as part of the dairy development including upgrade works to College Road North off the A41 and the creation of Samian Way giving access both into the Dairy and to the plots along the northern boundary. The access point into the AD site has been created as part of the original development works and this will be used as the main site access. Whilst all vehicles, both HGV and staff / visitors vehicles, will enter the site via this access the staff and visitor parking will be split off to either side of the entrance with access into the service yard being straight ahead. All access points will be controlled by means of vehicle barriers operated either by ANPR software (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) or proximity readers.
28. Amenities for staff will be provided within the new office / amenity block with toilet facilities, canteen, rest rooms and First Aid facilities provided in proximity to the proposed site.
29. The company has concluded therefore that this site is the most appropriate and practical from which to develop their new Anaerobic Digestion Plant / Material Recycling Facility.
30. Inclusive design has been given due consideration at the initial stage of the design process. The needs of people with mobility, visual and hearing impairments, learning difficulties and people from different cultural and religious backgrounds are respected by both the design team and Client end user. An inclusive environment does not attempt to meet every single need, but by considering people's diversity, inclusive environments will break down barriers and overcome exclusion, hopefully achieving the optimum design solution that is acceptable to all.
31. The storage vessels/tanks and flue are not out of scale with the present buildings within the dairy site and are thus in character with the surrounding development.
32. The building range comprises of a steel framed units of varying height with the MRF being the tallest at 14.825m to top of the parapet. The office unit to the front of the site is circa 8m to the roof line with the DePackaging Building rising to 13m before rising
14 again to the MRF. The Bale Storage Area adjacent the MRF is the same height as the Depackaging Building at 13m. All are clad in Kingspan Optimo insulated cladding. This is similar in design to the Dairy buildings adjacent the site and therefore not out of character with the development as a whole.
33. The new two storey office block will provide both amenities for site operatives e.g. showers, toilets, changing and canteen, as well as office and meeting space for management.
Design
34. It is the intention that the new buildings and structures will be built to a high architectural quality and be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances and appropriately defines the quality of future development on the northern edge of the Dairy site. The Client and Design Team have taken this on board and feel that this is reflected in the design drawings included with the planning application.
35. The 25.61m diameter Digestate and Gas Storage vessels are the largest proposed tank structure within the site. The size of the vessels is based on the volumes of digestate and gas to be housed. See under the sub heading ‘Amounts’. This also applies to the digesters and other vessels. The sizes of these vessels therefore have been calculated by consultants in order to handle the amounts of waste materials estimated to be processed through the AD Plant on an annual basis.
36. The larger tanks will generally be constructed as sectional steel tanks and smaller tanks will come to site in one piece. Some will be stainless steel tanks where this will be the actual external finish. Others will be constructed as standard steel sectional tanks which will be over clad with flexible insulation and Plastisol coated metal cladding. Some smaller tanks will be formed in GRP and be insulated and over clad in stainless steel flat sheet. The Plastisol clad tanks will be finished in banded colours to match the main building group with colours to be agreed with Bucks CC prior to commencement.
37. The main building comprises of four separate areas, for the differing processes involved, namely De-Packaging / MRF / Bale Store / Office & Amenities.
38. The De-Packaging area will then be sub divided again to form the Site Staff Amenities area on two floors. The main part of the building has been designed to provide adequate space for the De-Packaging of food waste from shops and supermarkets, and therefore accommodate the specialist plant and equipment required. Its construction will consist of a steel portal framed structure with shallow pitched roof contained behind a parapet upstand to compliment the Dairy building. The external fabric of the building (roof and walls) will comprise of Plastisol coated metal cladding in a mixture of profiles with low profiled composite horizontal cladding to wall areas and profiled composite cladding to roof areas. At low level the perimeter walls will be constructed in reinforced concrete. Sectional overhead doors will be provided at the main entry door positions, with main doors providing pedestrian access and fire exits. The building will be 13m high to the top of the parapet.
39. The MRF will be similarly designed as the De Packaging building but with a trussed girder roof structure and steel columns due to the larger clear span required to
15 accommodate the MRF equipment. The building will be 14.825m high to the top of the parapet. The Bale Store will be used with the MRF for storage of recycled materials prior to dispatch.
40. The office block will be constructed with a steel frame. The external fabric of the building will consist of external curtain walling and doors which will be in polyester powder coated aluminium sections with sealed double glazed units and Trespa spandrel panels at first floor position. The roof line will have a large overhanging eaves line with supporting bracketry and raking tubular steel props to provide solar shading. All roof cladding will be Plastisol coated Kingspan cladding panels with eaves lines finished in polyester powder coated pressed metal. Guttering will be positioned inboard on the office roof and to the rear of the parapet walls on the larger buildings.
41. The general wall cladding to both the Depackaging Building, MRF, Energy Centre AD Process Control and Solid Separation Building will be in graded RAL colours from dark green at the bottom thought to light green and cream at the top. Concrete walls at low level will be smooth faced concrete. Where tanks and vessels are to be clad in single skin cladding this will also be in graded colours as the buildings will all have to be colours agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The adjoining Dairy is clad in a mixture of colours in “camouflage pattern” but whilst the wish is to compliment the looks of the Dairy the aim in not to replicate it in full as Olleco have their own corporate identity to maintain.
42. The building group will also have corporate signage on main elevations and the Olleco name / logo and text is shown on the application elevational drawings. It is anticipated that the letters will be individual letters on pegs with internal illumination.
Use
43. The site runs to 2.309 Ha / 5.7 Acres and consists of three main areas:- The building group to the west of the site · The AD Process tanks and gas storage to the centre of the site · The Gas Upgrade Plant / Energy Centre to the south of the site where both gas and electricity may be exported to the existing mains just beyond the southern site boundary.
44. The new building will be divided into four sections, the Office / Amenities facing Samian Way, the AD Plant De-Packaging Building to the rear of this and the MRF and Bale Store at the rear of the site to the north. This way the lowest height building is at the road frontage and the tallest furthest away and partially screened by the existing landscaped embankment with acoustic fence on top.
45. The De-Packaging building will receive packaged food waste from supermarkets, shops and other retail outlets, and food waste from restaurants. Packaged food waste will be deposited in a de-packaging machine, which is an assembly of equipment separating the food waste from the packaging. This is then reduced in size and combined with liquids in readiness to be pumped to the storage vessels where the AD process commences in a sealed environment.
46. The floor area measures 36 x 36m overall the frame grid which is considered adequate to accommodate the de-packaging machinery and provide access into and around the building.
16 47. Vehicular access into the AD section of the building will be from the eastern elevation via glazed sectional insulated doors. The vehicles will enter the building and the high speed doors will be closed behind them. The food waste will be tipped into stainless steel hoppers with hydraulic lids which are inter connected to the high speed doors so that doors and hopper lids cannot be open at the same time. The foodstuffs are then reduced in size by screw feeds and crushers then fed into the de packaging machine, which separate the packaging materials out from the organic material. This is then pumped to the first of the storage vessels.
48. The MRF building is 48 x 60m and Bale Store is 24 x 30m maximum plan and will generally be open plan internally to provide greatest flexibility for layout of the recycling equipment. Vehicular access into the building will be minimal but will be via either of two sectional doors in the eastern elevation of the MRF and a further door to the Bale Store. Materials delivered to the MRF will come in sealed tote bags on lorries and be taken into the MRF via a series of Dock Shelters along the eastern elevation. The dock shelters will have roller shutter doors and internal dock leveller platforms for ease of delivery.
49. Odour control of the Depackaging Building will be dealt with by a specialist air ionisation system that will eliminate odours at source.
50. The office / amenity block will provide general amenities for site operatives at ground floor level with a linear plan layout allowing for workers to enter via one door into a clean changing room, with toilet accommodation, where they can change into work clothes, they then pass a shower area and a dirty changing area and toilets before exiting onto the site. At the end of the shift the flow is reversed allowing the staff to shower before changing back into their day clothes and leaving the site. The accommodation also incorporates a staff canteen at the “dirty end” to allow staff to enter without changing. This rear section will be separate from the front section of the ground floor with no direct connection between the two. Whilst connecting doors are shown on the plan at landing level these will be controlled by fob / proximity readers to limit egress to emergency exit only. The front section of the ground floor will be open plan office accommodation and a core services section / entrance plus Dispatch Office with a view over the site entrance and weighbridges.
51. The first floor is similar to the ground floor with Directors offices facing the frontage with main and secondary staircases at each end. Behind the offices is the Plant Managers office, Meeting room and Test Laboratory. Further along is a Plant room and HV / LV Switch Room. The Plant Manager also has access into the DePack building via an internal steel staircase.
52. With Olleco’s experience of operating sites around the country the company fully understands the needs of the proposed facility and these have been incorporated in the design to ensure that all areas are fully accessible to operatives and legitimate visitors alike.
Amounts
53. To process 50,000 tonnes per annum through the AD Plant the proposed scheme requires the construction of the following steel storage vessels and new buildings:
17 2 Digester vessels 21.34m dia. x 16.87m high walls / 19.99m to top of conical roof. (Effective vol shown) 708.9m2 (volume) 11,704m3 2 enclosed Digestate/ gas storage vessels 25.61m dia. x 6.37m high walls/ 12.363m to top of dome. 512m2 (volume 6,044m3) 1 mixing vessel 12.81 m diameter x 12.675m high wall / 129m² (volume 1,568m³) 14.24m to top of conical roof Post Digester 10m diameter x 8m high to conical roof 78.57m² (volume 500m³) SBR Buffer 9.5m diameter x 8m high to conical roof 71m² (volume 450m³) SBR Tank – 18m dia x 8m high 254.5m² (volume 1,782m³) Recycled Water 9.5m diameter x 8m high to conical roof 71m² (volume 450m³) 4 Liquid Tanks 2.1m diameter x 11m high 13.8m² (volume 160m³) 1 liquid tank 6.11m dia x 11.43m high 29.3m² (volume 302m³) Pre Filter Tanks 2.325m diameter x 8.5m high 4.2m² (volume 72m³) Receiving Tank 8.54m diameter x 7.77m high (8.56m total height) 57.3m² (volume 416m³)
Total footprint is 1,675.07m2 and total volume is 21,691m³
54. The Building Floor Area is as follows:
Offices (over two floors) 816m² Amenities (over two floors) 430m² De-Packaging 1,314m² MRF 2,942m² Bale Store 605m2 AD Process Control 160m2 Solid Separation Building 140m2 Energy Centre 192m²
Total Floor Area (external face of Building) 6,599m²
55. It is assessed that the above new buildings and external storage vessels can adequately be accommodated within the site area of 2.309Ha / 5.7 acres.
Layout
56. The proposed layout of the facility has been based on the following:
The shape of the site and its relationship with the existing vehicular access point. The location of the Dairy and mains services running just outside the site boundary in Samian Way. The desire to have roadside presence for the office building.
57. The position of site entrance / roadway provides good access to the new De- Packaging Building / MRF Building from Samian Way via the weighbridge for the
18 delivery of materials, and vehicle control will be provided by remote viewing of the weighbridge from the offices via computer control. The Office / Amenities Building will be accessed via a separate access from the main access point for both staff and Visitors Car Parking.
58. The internal layout of the new De-Packaging Building is very specific. Within the de- packaging area the plant and equipment layout is dictated by the de-packaging process. To ensure that all operatives can access the plant and equipment the building has been designed around the fixed plant.
59. The main entrance to the new De-Packaging Building is off the service yard to the east elevation. The building is sited to allow sufficient forecourt for vehicles to turn around and also to reverse into the De-Packaging area, and therefore drive out facing forward across the forecourt and onto the existing roadway. A similar scenario applies to the MRF.
60. Staff will be encouraged to use sustainable modes of transport as the site is close by the existing bus route no 786 Aylesbury (Watermead) to Aston Clinton operated by Z & S Buses of Aylesbury which operate 8 services a day Mon / Tues, 12 on Wed, 4 on Thurs / Fri and 8 on Sat / Sun. Preliminary discussions have also taken place with Arla regarding the use of their Aylesbury shuttle bus service by Olleco staff. As both plants will be operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Parking will be provided for employees travelling by car in accordance with statutory requirements. Parking for staff can be accommodated in the staff car park which is located to the front of the site. Staff will clock in at the Staff Entrance and make their way on foot following dedicated pedestrian walkways to their place of work on site. Office based staff can also park in the office car park.
61. A secure, covered cycle shelter will be provided within the Staff Car Park as well as dedicated motor cycle parking.
62. Visitor’s car parking has also been provided in front of the office block fronting Samian Way and 2 disabled parking bays have been included.
63. Sufficient space has been created to accommodate the new employees.
Scale
64. The proposed new buildings have a footprint of 6,599m2.
65. The building heights are:-
Offices – 8.1m from roof to ground floor level. De-Packaging Building & Bale Store – 13m to top of parapet upstand from floor level MRF – 14.825m to top of parapet upstand from Floor level. Energy Centre – 12m to top of parapet AD Process Control – 5.1m high to top of parapet walls Solid Separation – 6.1m high to top of parapet walls.
19
66. The existing buildings within the Arla Dairy are of similar design, construction and on a similar or larger scale and thus the proposals will be in keeping with their surroundings.
67. The AD Plant storage vessels have been positioned in groups to create a unified and logical massing of the main structures.
68. The smaller scale elements such as the gas upgrade kit is again grouped together as a visual mass. These elements will generally be of lower level but some elements will extend to around 15m in height as previously stated. The flue to the Boiler and CHP Engine will be the tallest structures at 25m this being in order to comply with the Dispersion Modelling.
69. The main Anaerobic Digestion vessels therefore will be the most prominent structures along with the main process building, but to some degree will be shrouded by the existing tree planting and embankment to the north and east which is topped with a 2m acoustic fence. Additional planting is being carried out along the southern boundary and this is covered in the next section.
Landscaping
70. It is proposed to hard pave most of the site occupied by the Anaerobic Digestion tanks, around the engine / generation area and to service yards around the building group in order to facilitate safe access and to provide ease of maintenance and to comply with Environment Agency requirements. The office car park and access will be hard paved but possibly in tar macadam. Areas of landscaping within the site are defined on the site plan and more specifically on Barry Chinn Associates Landscaping Proposals Plan no 1497-14-01A submitted as part of this application.
71. The landscape species for trees and indigenous hedges continue the character of the existing infrastructure planting across the building/car park frontage and along the existing access road; Samian Way. The existing grass verge and avenue tree planting extend towards east end of the car park. Here, the indigenous hedge is set forward along the line of the bund wall which will help to soften/screen the security fencing at eye level. This projects to the existing planting on the embankment towards the eastern boundary of the site. Within the car park areas, ornamental evergreen clipped hedges (Escallonia) provide structure and define the edges of the car park and pedestrian access to the building. Around the fringes of the car park, robust low groundcover shrub planting forms a landscape buffer which is punctuated with accent specimen plants to provide height and visual interest.
72. Tree planting species within the car park areas; Acer Campestre (Field Maple) and Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam), have been selected for their relatively narrow crown form to avoid conflict with the building and security fencing.
73. A small lawn ‘staff spill out area’ is provided at the east end of the office elevation adjacent to a broad area of shrub planting which separates the weighbridge lorry entrance/exit from the office building.
20 74. The landscaping will be maintained on a regular basis in order to maintain a good appearance to the site from Samian Way. The landscaping proposals will assist in giving a good roadside presence to Olleco and will help promote their brand.
75. The hard paved areas will be provided with drainage which will be connected to the onsite drainage system. The drainage concept drawing no 25839 / 102E prepared by GGP Consult gives an indicative layout of the installation having been designed by a specialist drainage engineer to ensure that the flow and quantity of discharge from the site is in line with the overall drainage strategy for the Arla Dairy site.
Appearance
76. The proposed building group will be clad in Plastisol coated low profiled metal sheeting with the perimeter walls at low level constructed in reinforced concrete. The wall cladding will extend up to form a parapet at roof level in line with the dairy. It is the intention that the wall cladding be fixed in graduated / shaded band of colour from dark green through light green to cream at the upper levels. The coloured areas will be created in approximately 2m high bands or combinations thereof, this having been discussed at pre application stage and commented on favourably.
77. The Office Block will mainly be powder coated aluminium curtain walling with sealed double glazed units. Column positions on the external faces will be cloaked with stainless steel column encasements. Spandrel panels within the curtain walling at first floor level will be finished with Trespa Meteon panels.
78. The roof line to the Office Block will extend beyond the external wall lines to form a large overhang to provide solar shading to the rooms below. The roof overhang will be supported by means of small powder coated steel trusses supported off the main frame and raking tubular steel props down to ground level. The projecting eaves will be in Plastisol coated polyester powder coated pressed metal.
79. With regard to the storage vessels these will be constructed in a mix of stainless steel, mild steel or fibreglass. Stainless steel tanks will generally be self-finished. Steel tanks will be over clad in Plastisol coated profiled metal cladding. It is envisaged that these will be coloured in bands to tone in with the main building group. All colours to be discussed further and agreed with Buckinghamshire County Council Planning Authority prior to fixing on site.
80. The Anaerobic Digestion vessels are basically simple forms that are a pre-requisite of the requirements of the process. The largest Anaerobic Digestion vessels have been sited away from the smaller forms of the development in order to group them together mainly at the rear of the site.
Access
81. Vehicular access to the building group will be via the existing site access point from Samian Way and new on site roadways from same. HGV’s will access the service yard via the weighbridges forming an “In / Out” system. Staff Parking and Visitor Parking is provided to either side of the access road. Access will be controlled with barriered access and ANPR software. The vehicle movements are as follows:
21
Total Daily two way Vehicle movements generated by the development: Anaerobic Digestion Facility Staff 70 (35 arrival, 35 departures) HGVs 126 (63 arrival, 63 departures) Total 196
82. Pedestrian access for site workers / visitors arriving by public transport will be via the public footpaths on Samian way and new footpaths within the site around the car parks and office / amenities building. A pedestrian crossing will be provided at the site entrance to facilitate safe pedestrian access between the two car parking areas.
83. Office staff will access the building via the onsite footpaths and level access to the main entrance. This will be a level access for disabled users in accordance with current Building and Disabled Equality Act (2010) (DEA) Regulations. Site staff will access the building via a separate entrance to the west of the building frontage which leads to the ground floor site staff changing facilities and amenities and to first floor Plant Managers Office and ancillary accommodation via a secondary staircase.
84. Inclusive design has been given due consideration from the initial concept design but it is not envisaged that disabled access will be required around the main site area as such due to the physical nature of the work involved requiring able bodied staff who are capable of accessing all areas of plant and equipment at low and high levels. However full disabled access and general amenities provision will be provided within the Office Building.
85. Olleco are currently undertaking consultation with the local community via the Arla dairy’s existing Community Liaison Group meetings involving local residents, Parish / Local Councillors etc.
86. The forecourt / service yard to the new building group provides adequate turning space for delivery vehicles to enter and leave the building and there is sufficient onsite roadway provision to access all areas of the site.
87. The pedestrian entrances into the De-Packaging / MRF Building via man doors will be provided with level access. Internally, within the new building the ‘means of escape’ routes will be clearly marked by designated walkways painted on the floor slab. These walkways will also provide clear routes for access to plant and equipment for operation and maintenance.
88. Emergency vehicles will be able to access both the new buildings and the service yard areas via the proposed onsite roadways.
Sustainability
89. The scheme seeks to contribute to the principles of sustainability as follows:
By aspiring to achieve a BREEAM Excellent grading for the proposals. This has not been officially requested by Buckinghamshire County Council Local Planning Authority but is part of Olleco’s ongoing commitment to ensure that their operations
22 are sustainable and that their virtuous circle of “Supply, Collect, Convert” is adhered to by using sustainable materials and methods of construction at all stages of the development. The initial BREEAM Pre - Assessment indicates that the proposals have the potential to achieve the ‘Excellent’ rating. The re-use of food residues from various sources to create sustainable energy. The recycling and reuse of packaging materials from both the DePackaging Building and the MRF to avoid said materials going to landfill. The production of renewable energy from the biogas produced by Anaerobic Digestion. The diversion of a substantial amount of food waste from landfill from its point of production to the AD process. The diversion of a substantial amount of packaging material from landfill. The use of sustainable materials and technologies with respect to the Office / Amenity Building to reduce CO2 emissions and energy costs, which will be selected from the BRE “Green Guide”. The aspiration to link up with Arla dairy for supply of their waste water stream for use in the AD process.
90. The capturing of all surface water on the site in underground storage tanks for use in the AD Plant to reduce reliance on mains water supplies.
The planning application
91. Further to the submission of the original planning application for the dairy in 2011, and subsequent 2012 VMU submission, consideration has been given to the appropriateness of reports previously prepared. These reports have been reviewed by the appointed consultant team where appropriate and amended where necessary to address any specific issues arising with regards the proposed development.
92. The planning application submissions comprise the following documents:
• Completed planning application forms and certificates • Site Location Plan • Proposed Plans and elevations – JHA Ltd • Lighting Scheme – JHA Ltd • Design & Access Statement prepared by JHA Ltd • Landscaping Scheme – Barry Chinn Associates Ltd. • Geo-Environmental Ground Investigation Report – prepared by JPG • Prospect Archaeology 2010 Report - prepared by Prospect Archaeology • Northamptonshire Archaeology 2010 Report – prepared by Northants Archaeological • Flood Risk Assessment – prepared by SLR • Planning Analysis Statement – prepared by IDP • Statement of Community Involvement – prepared by IDP • Transport Statement – prepared by Optima • Ecology Survey Report – prepared by Brooks Ecological • Noise Assessment – prepared by PDA • Air Emission Statement – prepared by Entran • Odour Risk Assessment/ Management Plan – Olleco • Sustainability Statement – Olleco • BREEAM Pre-assessment – GWP Project Services
23 • Waste Policy Statement – Olleco • Visual Impact Assessment – David Jarvis Associates Ltd
93. The amendments to the planning application that were made were as follows:
Height of the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) building significantly reduced from 19m to 14m. This is following discussions with the equipment providers, allowing the layout of the plant to be reconfigured and a reduction in the working height required. The MRF Building elevations are included in the drawing package. This building is now below the maximum height of 18m approved for the outline consent for B1-B8 development on the adjacent Arla site.
Extension of the MRF building to the rear. This is to compensate for the increase in floor area occupied by the MRF equipment. The building has been extended to the rear to accommodate storage of the segregated baled material. This is not a noise generating activity. The height of the extension is 13m (the same height as the De-packaging Building). The proposed cladding arrangement is the same as the main building.
Storage tanks formerly located to the rear of the MRF moved into the main tank farm area. 4 no. stainless steel Liquid Tanks (size 2.1m dia x 11m high), 1 no. stainless steel Liquid Tank (6.1m dia x 11.4m high) and 1 no. stainless steel Receiving Tank (8.54m dia x 8.56m high), have been moved to the central section of the site, grouped on the western edge of the tank farm. There is no change in the height of these tanks. They are now however located more centrally within the site and therefore away from Buckland Lane, the canal and other public viewpoints.
Biofilter tanks (3 no.) formerly located to the rear of the MRF have been omitted. Our revised proposal is to use an air ionization system for odour treatment in the De- packaging Building and bag opening section of the MRF. A concrete plinth for the ionization system units is located at the south eastern corner of the MRF Building. The air ionization system is considered to be more effective than a biological system for treating a large building space; however this will be subject to detailed consultation and agreement with the Environment Agency. A combination of carbon filter scrubbers and biological filter units will be provided for those process tanks which are not gas tight and could emit odours.
Stand alone pump room building replaces the central pump room between the digester tanks. This occupies a floor area of 160m2 and is 5.1m in height. This change has been introduced for operational reasons.
Stand alone solids separation building introduced within the central tank farm area for treatment of the digestate. Formerly this equipment was housed within the De- packaging Building. This change has been introduced for operational reasons. The building occupies a floor area of 140m2 and is 6.1m in height.
Digester No. 1 and No2, the largest tanks at a height of 20m, repositioned. The digesters have been moved further into the site to accommodate an internal access roadway and to improve visual appearance.
24 2 no enclosed stainless steel Digestate / Gas Storage vessels repositioned. We have rotated the position of these tanks and moved them away from the northern boundary to the southern boundary, fronting onto Samian Way and the Arla dairy. There is no change in tank heights (25.62m diameter x 6.363m high walls with a double layer reinforcement membrane roof rising to 6mm high above the walls - 12.363m high in total from base level).
Tanks associated with the digestate treatment system relocated. The SBR Buffer tank (9.5 dia x 8m high), Recycled Water tank (9.5 dia x 8m high) and the Post Digester tank (10m dia x 8m high) have been relocated from the central tank farm area to the north eastern boundary of the site to allow the position of the second digester to be moved further into the site away from the site boundary. This should help to reduce the visual impact of the development from Buckland Lane (Viewpoint 14a). The tanks now positioned along the Buckland Lane boundary have reduced in height by 4m to 8m.
Footprint of gas upgrade plant reduced. This is following discussions with the equipment providers, allowing the layout of the plant to be reconfigured. The maximum height of the gas scrubbing tanks is unchanged at 15m. It should be noted that the final configuration of the tanks may vary slightly, dependant on detailed design from the specialist plant supplier.
Energy Centre repositioned along the southern boundary to accommodate the Digestate / Gas Storage tanks and building height increased. The height of the Energy Centre has increased to 12m to the top of the parapet. This is to accommodate associated plant which would have been sited externally within the building, further reducing noise emissions.
Pipe rack introduced. This is required to carry piped services between the Olleco site and Arla Dairy. The pipe rack will run along the southern site boundary, fronting onto Samian Way. The pipe rack is 3.3m high and will be constructed in steel section with painted finish.
Gas flare repositioned. This represents the optimal operational location for the revised plant layout.
One way road system and third weighbridge introduced. This is in response to comments from the BCC Transport Officer regarding the ability of HGV’s to exit the site through the weighbridge. The length of the weighbridges has also been extended from 16.5m to 18m.
Planning Policy
94. The relevant Planning Policy documents and policies for this planning application are as follows:
Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan policies 28, 29. Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policies CS9, CS10, CS16, CS18, CS19 and CS22. Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan policies GP.8, GP.24, GP. 35, GP.38, GP.39, GP.45, GP.95, RA.29, RA.32, and RA36. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW)
25
View of the District Council
95. The application has been considered by the District Council on both submissions, and I can inform you that this Authority wish to raise no objections but would advise, as follows;
. That the previously approved level of parking for Arla is maintained; . Retention of the bund and the acoustic fence on Canal boundary; . Limitation of the presence of the buildings and AD plant on the local landscape; . Protection and maintenance of residential amenity particularly in respect of the closer dwellings at Monks Court/Farm and Canal Farm
Consultations
96. Local Member Councillor Bill Chapple objects to the above application as per the first submission and has requested to speak at Committee. He commented on the first submission and responded another Arla Liaison meeting on the 3rd February and waited to see if any of my concerns have been resolved, sadly they have only been reaffirmed or worsened.
97. Firstly Cllr Chapple would ask that this application is passed to the Development Committee of Buckinghamshire County Council so that members can decide its fate.
98. Cllr Chapple freely admits that he was going to be sending you a very long Objection letter but having read Councillor Paternoster's excellent objection he whole heartily support her comments and references throughout her submission. A first class and model objection and Cllr Chapple hope, that BCC follows up all her references to planning guidance.
99. Cllr Chapple also commented that when we were given the presentation by Arla and Olleco we were told that they had another plant in Liverpool but when we pressed to know more it transpires that this is still in the Commissioning stage so they have yet to prove it to be successful. Indeed they now say that this plant in Liverpool is different and therefore cannot be compared or indeed reassure us that this new one will be so efficient as they promised.
100. The various heights of the buildings and plants are over twice the height of the lorry servicing area which was in Arla's original application and will have a very negative effect on nearby properties. We must bear in mind that the Lorry servicing area was told to reduce the buildings by two metres from 10 to 8 metres high; now with this application the various buildings and silos are around 20 metres high, with the surrounding noise bunds still at 5 metres, these will have no effect at all. They need to be at least 14 metres high like the rest of the noise bunds on the site. The chimney is 25 metres high. The bunds will not be effective.
101. There seems to be no Environmental Impact Assessment with this application. Surely that cannot be right as this application is totally different to the original Arla's permission
102. Aston Clinton Parish Council commented on the first submitted plans but no response was received for the resubmission with the amendments. The comments to
26 the first submission stated they had several concerns about this proposal and wish to object to the application:
1) Although it's great to use new technology there have been problems already on site with anaerobic digesters causing terrible odours which affect the surrounding areas. Appropriate conditions need to be put on any approval to ensure that surrounding areas are not subject to unpleasant odour. This obviously includes the villages of Aston Clinton, Buckland and Drayton Beauchamp but also should include the actual towpath from the canal as many people use this as amenity land.
2) The applicant says the site will generate an extra 98 vehicle movements a day, 63 of which will be HGV. This will need to be modelled appropriately and the impact on the already overloaded junctions at A41/Broughton Crossing and A41/ New Road Weston Turville need to be assessed.
3) The building will be 19m high with a chimney as high as 25 metres. This is almost as high as the silos. This is very likely to create a significant visual impact on the landscape from public views and is much closer to amenity space i.e. canal towpath
4) If food waste is not completely contained it can attract birds which in turn can increase the risk of bird strikes to light aircraft using RAF Halton. Many will remember proposals for the incinerator which were eventually scraped at least in part due to objections from the RAF. The RAF should be consulted if they are not already a statutory consultee.
5) This was not what the original planning permission was for. It was for a vehicle maintenance depot and this is very different. Whilst I accept the applicant has a right to apply for a change of use, consideration should be given in the planning balance as to the reasons why the original planning permission has not been carried out after 3.5 years of being in place.
103. Tring Parish Council commented on the original submission and stated that the proposed facility appears that it will be hidden from view from most apart from those in the immediate vicinity. Council think perhaps residents in Puttenham might be affected by some light, noise and smell pollution. The rest of the Parish will not be affected. They also stated that the report looked very impressive and Arla had obviously gone to great lengths to ensure any pollution is minimal.
104. Drayton Beauchamp Parish Council commented on the first submission stating that with the important exception of Lock Cottage, is sufficiently removed from the proposed facilities as to be less directly affected than our neighbours in Buckland and Aston Clinton. Residents of the Parish do, however, use amenities such as the canal towpath, and they travel to and from Aylesbury on the A41. In addition, there is a close relationship with our neighbouring parishes, so that we share and support such concerns as they and their residents may have. Consequently we trust that the points we make in this response will be given proper weight. In principle the Parish Meeting supports the creation of enterprises that have green credentials and which bring much needed economic benefits to the area. The proposed activities seem to meet these criteria well, and so in principle the Parish Meeting supports the application.
105. However, the Parish Meeting has two main concerns which we would ask the County Council to address.
27
i. First, the risk of unpleasant odours. Whilst the application addresses this risk, and we accept that in normal operation the risk may be small, it is when things go wrong that urgent and effective action is essential. We would wish the County Council and the Environment Agency to impose appropriate requirements to address these situations, along with enforcement procedures which ensure that problems are resolved quickly. ii. Second, congestion on the A41. We note that the expected increase in traffic arising from the proposals is small in percentage terms, and is within the level allowed for when assessing the improvements to the A41 to be undertaken when development of the Arla site was being considered. The models and assumptions on which these assessments were based are now rather out of date, and the fact is that congestion is already severe, particularly in the rush hour periods. Therefore, even a small increase in traffic volumes is not welcome. The Parish Meeting believes that it is becoming urgent to review fundamentally the roads infrastructure for Aylesbury and its surrounding area, otherwise the benefits of incoming enterprises will be diluted or even dissipated entirely.
106. AVDC Environment Health Officer has commented on the original submission and stated that having considered this planning application he would advise as follows from an Environmental Health point of view. The acoustic report carried out by Philip Dunbavin Acoustics Ltd ref.8356/0933/04 dated 28/11/2014 has been reviewed and the report is satisfactory from an Environmental Health point of view. He recommend the following conditions are applied to any permission granted.
1. The developer must ensure that the noise mitigation measures discussed in the report ref.8356/0933/04 are carried out to ensure that noise from sources like buildings, plant and equipment are effectively controlled to minimise noise breakout. The operational noise attributed to fixed plant and industrial noise associated with the Anaerobic Digestion and Materials Recycling Facility shall not generate noise levels of more than 5dB below background noise levels, or 25dB in instances where the background noise level is 30dB or less expressed as a LAeq in accordance with the British Standard 4142 that is current at the time.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of surrounding premises and external amenity areas.
2. The overall site noise including on site transportation noise sources must not exceed 53 dBLAeq 16 hrs during the day and 43 dBLAeq 8 hrs during the night.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of surrounding premises and external amenity areas.
3. Prior to the occupation of the buildings a noise monitoring scheme including a plan which specifies the location of the main receptors and the monitoring points, which shall be principally located at or near the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with the approved details. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with the latest British Standard 4142.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of surrounding premises and external amenity areas.
28 4. Given the scale of the building project the hours of construction on the site must be restricted as follows. Monday to Friday 07.30 – 18.00, Saturday 08.00 – 13.00 with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of surrounding premises and external amenity areas.
Informative
1. Once operational odour and noise control on the site will be regulated by the Environment Agency by means of a permit. In order to ensure consistency in the future for the operator and the enforcement authorities I would strongly recommend that the planning noise conditions, 1, 2, & 3 detailed above regarding operational and transportation noise levels and monitoring for the site are incorporated into the Environment Agency permit conditions.
107. The Environment Agency has commented on the revised plans and still has no objection. They also confirmed that under their Environmental Permitting department, their Standard Rule 2012 No 12 does not apply to this development due to the size and nature of the development. In their letter dated 29 January 2015 from Olleco with Drawing number 25839/102 Revision G, External works- Proposed drainage strategy layout, dated 28/01/15, produced by GGP Consult. They were pleased that the amended drainage design shows that the overflow from the foul water storage tank connects to foul sewer. Therefore we are able to withdraw our objection on the grounds of unacceptable risk of pollution to surface water quality. Their advice to local planning authority and applicant - Surface water flood risk proforma include the following comments:
The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) based on our Flood Zone map. Whilst development may be appropriate in Flood Zone 1, paragraph 103 (footnote 20) of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a Flood Risk Assessment should be submitted for all developments over one hectare in size. They also note that a FRA has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The West Thames Area is operating a risk based approach to planning consultations. As the site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is between 1 and 5 hectares we will not make a bespoke response on surface water. The following standing advice is provided as a substantive response to you. If this advice is used to refuse a planning application, we would be prepared to support you at any subsequent appeal. In order for the development to be acceptable in flood risk terms the EA advise the following:
i. Surface water run-off should not increase flood risk to the development or third parties. This should be done by using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to attenuate to at least pre-development run-off rates and volumes or where possible achieving betterment in the surface water run-off regime. (The applicant should contact Local Authority Drainage Departments where relevant for information on surface water flooding.) ii. An allowance for climate change needs to be incorporated, which means adding an extra amount to peak rainfall as described in Paragraph 68, part 4, (Reference ID: 7- 068-20140306) of the Planning Practice Guidance. Further guidance can be found on our website at the following:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296964/ LIT_8496_5306da.pdf
29
The residual risk of flooding needs to be addressed should any drainage features fail or if they are subjected to an extreme flood event. Overland flow routes should not put people and property at unacceptable risk. This could include measures to manage residual risk such as raising ground or floor levels where appropriate.
Attached Guidance & Pro-Forma We attach some additional guidance which also contains a pro-forma which the developer should complete and return to you. The completed pro-forma can then act as a summary of the surface water drainage scheme on the site and asks the developer to confirm that surface water flood risk will be adequately managed on site so as to not cause an increase in flood risk.
We trust our advice in this letter will assist you in reviewing the surface water measures for the proposed development and in determining the planning application. We recommend that you liaise with your Land Drainage Engineer if you have any additional queries in respect of surface water.
Advice to applicant and LPA – Environmental Permit All other comments made in our consultation reply dated 27 January 2015 about the environmental permit are advisory only and are not objections to the planning application. Our comments highlight areas which the applicant will need to provide further detail on as part of an Environmental Permit application. We expect that details on the design and construction of the site and the operational controls such as odour management will be fully assessed through the environmental permit application process. The Environment Agency would only issue an Environmental Permit if we are satisfied that the controls and design are satisfactory.
108. Councillor Patrica Birchley has stated on the first submission and gave her thanks for your recent letter and FAQs, which she found very informative. She is fully in support of the proposal and will follow development of the project with interest.
109. Councillor Brian Evans has also commented on the planning application on the original submission. His comments are as follows:
110. “I would like to officially object to the above planning application for the development of anaerobic digester and MRF plants.
111. Firstly, I would like to point out that the proposal is actually in the Parish of Buckland, not Aston Clinton and the residents most directly affected live in Buckland.
112. Since the Arla plant became operational nearly two years ago I have noticed the odour from the existing anaerobic digester already on site, particularly when walking down the lane to the canal. Recently, we have also noticed a background humming noise at night which is coming from the existing plant. We are over 1km from the plant so there must be other residents that are closer to Arla that are suffering much worse noise pollution.
113. I understand that Councillors have received complaints from local residents up to 1km away and from walkers and cyclists using this country village to access the canal and surrounding countryside.
30 114. On reviewing the plethora of information submitted it is clear that Arla and Olleco have been in discussion with Bucks County Council for some time and this is confirmed in the Design and Access statement from the admission that Pre- application discussions had been held. In view of the time that Arla and Olleco have had to prepare their submissions, I believe that it is completely unfair that such a large scale development with huge consequences on the local community has been given such a short timescale for local residents to put their objection together.
115. My initial comments on the application are as follows:
Failure to recognise all the properties in Buckland directly affected by the proposal, particularly the three Buckland residential properties north of the canal but also the residential properties on the opposite side of the A41 which do not het a mention at all as potential receptors.
The Environment Agency stipulates that where digestate is to be spread on the land, the applicant must demonstrate an adequate land source by including a map of the lands to be used with the planning application. This application does not include any such maps.
There will be a massive visual impact due to the scale of the proposed buildings, digester vessels and other processing storage tanks. This site has consent for a vehicle maintenance unit for Arla HGV’s. The original consent, granted in 2011, was for a building of height 10.3m to parapet. Due to the impact of this building on the residential properties north of the canal in Buckland, an amended application was submitted and approved in 2012. The height of the vehicle maintenance unit was reduced to 7.375m to parapet and 8.6m to ridge. The current application proposes buildings with a height of 13m rising to 19m, tanks between 8m and 15m, with cones over 20m to apex. The boiler flue and MRF vents are 25m high. The digestion vessels and gas storage vessels have a total height of over 20m and 12m respectively. These heights are way in excess of the 8.6m for the permitted vehicle maintenance unit, with much greater massing and bulk and greater intensification of the site. The tanks, silos and plant are all located at the eastern end of the site, closer to the canal, bridge and residential properties and these are completely out of scale with the current Planning Consent.
To give an idea of what this might really look like I attach a photograph of a similar facility which has recently opened near Baldock. I am sure you will agree this is completely out of scale when compared to the Planning consent for the vehicle maintenance facility.
The Design and Access statement repeatedly states “in character with surrounding development”. I would argue that this is a skewed perspective because the surrounding area is predominantly agricultural with one building development standing alone in isolation.
Given the scale of the Digester and the gas storage vessels and the proposed location near the canal bridge and three residential properties I think it is laughable that the Design and Access Statement states that “to some extent these will be shrouded by the existing planting and embankment to the North and East which is topped by a 2m acoustic fence”. Some of these large tanks will also be stainless steel finish which will also stand out even more.
31
The existing Arla plant has not yet managed to deal with the noxious smells from it limited anaerobic digestor facility so how can they be treated to get it right on such a massive scale. By Olleco’s own admission they have never done this before so they are entirely reliant on their ‘design consultant’ to get it right. What recourse will there be if they do not get it right?
The Arla plant already creates a back ground noise which can be heard at least 1km away, particularly at night. Olleco have said that the MRF plant ‘uses a variety of mechanical processes’ but does not go into detail about the noise pollution.
In the submissions there is an estimated 98 lorries per day. What monitoring will be put in place to make sure this is not exceeded. I would say it is impossible to manage with limited Council resources and suggest that this is an arbitrary figure but this still exceeds the previous Planning Consent.
In the Design and Access statement, Olleco state “they are currently undertaking consultation with the local community, parish councils etc.”. I live in Buckland and I have not received any such consultation or invite to an open evening and neither have my neighbours.
Another major concern is the possibility of the increased vermin and insects being attracted to the area by the food waste and smells from the plant.
In summary I object to the proposals on the grounds of excessive use of development compared to the existing Planning Consent, increased traffic (without any means of monitoring this), increased noise pollution, light pollution at night and the smells created by the anaerobic digesters. I therefore urge you to recommend REFUSAL of this application.”
116. Councillor Paternoser has noticed the changes to the site following the resubmission and stated that her original comments and objection made on 8th January still stand. In additional to the below, she stated that there still no farms currently signed up to take the digestate and that the Arla anaerobic digestor has still not been repaired and continues to emit odours including hydrogen sulphide. The comments made on the 8th January are as follows:
“I object to the above planning application for the development of anaerobic digester and MRF plants. Although the address on the application is given as College Road North, Aston Clinton, the development is in Buckland Parish, on land adjacent to the Grand Union Canal and the Buckland village road. This proposal is contrary to local and national planning policies and should be refused.
The existing Arla plant has been in operation for nearly two years, and has not yet reached full production. There are several residential properties in Buckland and Aston Clinton already suffering from noise and odour nuisance from the anaerobic digestion equipment on the current Arla site. This has led to complaints to Arla from Parish Councils, Councillors, local residents, and leisure users of the canal and footpaths in the area. Due to the lack of through traffic, this section of the Buckland village road is used extensively by walkers, cyclists, horse riders, etc.
32
Formal and informal complaints have been made to Arla and to the District Council’s environmental health officer, concerning two issues related to the existing anaerobic digestion plant: Noise from the CHP engine Escaping odours, particularly hydrogen sulphide.
The noise nuisance caused to local residents in Buckland village is worse at night and in the early morning. Cherry Farm and Whitethorns are the nearest residential properties to Arla, and are the worst affected by this noise. It should be noted that both these properties (and Buckland village) are located on the opposite side of the A41 dual carriageway to Arla, so the noise from Arla penetrates road noise from vehicles using the A41. To date, nothing has been done by Arla to cease this noise nuisance, although they are well aware of it.
For many months odours, including hydrogen sulphide, have been released from the Arla anaerobic digestion plant. Councillors have received complaints from local residents up to 1km away, from users of the canal, and leisure users of the surrounding countryside. Arla have blamed the odour release on faulty equipment and maintenance, and are promising to renew the equipment in the near future.
However, noise and odour nuisance from the Arla plant continues unabated. For this reason, consent must not even be considered for further anaerobic digestion plants on this site until Arla have proved they can operate such plants without causing a noise or odour nuisance to others. Surely these noise and odour nuisances violate the conditions of the permit from the Environment Agency which Arla already have in order to operate their existing plant?
The documents submitted with the current application fail to include all the information which needs to be taken into account before a decision can be made:
Failure to recognise the three Buckland residential properties north of the canal, very close to the application site, which should all be included as ‘receptors’. These are Monks Court Farmhouse, Monks Court Barn, and Canal Farm. The two Monks Court properties are located 200m from the application site. Canal Farm, which is much closer to the site than any other residential property, has been completely ignored in all the documentation!
Landscape: no further planting is proposed to ameliorate the impact of this enormous development on the landscape. These structures are much larger that the vehicle maintenance unit which currently has consent on this site. There is no attempt for additional planting to ameliorate the adverse impact on the canal. An LVIA must be undertaken, and neighbouring authorities, including the Canals and Rivers Trust, must be consulted.
There appears to be no Environmental Impact Assessment with this application. There should be, because this development will have a significant impact on the environment.
The Environment Agency stipulates that where digestate is to be spread on the land, the applicant must demonstrate an adequate land-source by including a map of the lands to be used with the planning application. This application does not include any such maps.
33
The visual impact on residential properties, the setting of the canal and canal bridge: This site has consent for a vehicle maintenance unit for Arla HGVs. The original consent, granted in 2011, was for a building of height 10.3m to parapet. Due to the impact of this building on the residential properties north of the canal in Buckland, an amended application was submitted and approved in 2012. The height of the vehicle maintenance unit was reduced to 7.375m to parapet and 8.6m to ridge. The current application proposes buildings with a height of 13m rising to 19m, tanks between 8m and 15m, with cones over 20m to apex. The boiler flue and MRF vents are 25m high. These heights are far in excess of the 8.6m for the permitted vehicle maintenance unit, with much greater massing and bulk and greater intensification of the site. The tanks, silos and plant are all located at the eastern end of the site, closer to the canal, bridge and residential properties.
This application is contrary to national and local planning policies. The NPPF supports sustainable development based on 3 roles: economic, social and environmental. These roles are mutually dependent (NPPF paras 7 and 8). In their design and access statement the applicants deal only with the economic role – it will promote up to 75 jobs (para 3.7). The environmental role is dismissed with the phrase ‘consistent with consented and built developments within the wider site’. They remain totally silent on the social role, including the effect on local residents.
Para 3.29 claims the development will not harm the setting of heritage assets. ‘The heritage effects . . . are assessed as being minor adverse on the canal and moderate adverse on the canal bridge’. They admit that the proposed building is larger than the consented vehicle maintenance unit, but ‘it is set further away from the heritage assets and as such effects are considered the same. Existing bunding and planting ...... will assist in mitigating these effects.’ The much larger building will be located further away from the bridge, but the intervening space will be filled with tanks measuring between 8m and 15m some with cones up to 20m to apex. This will have a major negative impact on the canal and canal bridge, contrary to para 129 of the NPPF.
GP8 of the AVDLP saved policies states: ‘Planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of nearby residents when considered against the benefits arising from the proposal.’ Monks Court Farmhouse, Monks Court Barn and Canal Farm are 3 Buckland properties located very close to the site. Para 3.52 of the Design and Access statement states: ‘The proposal will not give rise to any new effects on surrounding residents.’ Noise from the CHP engines, odours from the anaerobic digesters, both currently being experienced by Buckland residents located further from the Arla plant than these properties will be from the new development. Instead of a building measuring 8.6m to ridge (equal to the height of a two storey house), these 3 properties will now be faced with a building up to 19m in height, together with tanks ranging from 8m to 15m to 20m to apex. These three properties lie less than 200m from the proposed development Of course they will be very seriously affected, therefore this development is contrary to GP8.
GP 38 of the AVDLP saved policies states: ‘Applications for new development schemes should include landscaping proposals designed to help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings, and conserve existing natural and other features of
34 value as far as possible’. Although massive in scale and much larger than the consented proposal, this development proposes no new planting or landscaping and is therefore contrary to GP38.
GP 53 of the AVDLP saved policies deals with new development within or near a designated conservation area. Para 3.65 of the Design and Access statement states that ‘the site is not within, or indeed visible from a conservation area. The site is very visible from within the conservation area of Buckland, which has just been re- designated. It is visible from Moat Farm, and all the properties lying to the west of the village road. Therefore the proposal is contrary to GP 59.
GP 95 of the AVDLP deals with unneighbourly uses. ‘In dealing with all planning proposals the Council will have regard to the protection of the amenities of existing occupiers. Development that exacerbates any adverse effects of existing uses will not be permitted.’ Unneighbourly uses are defined as: noise, vibration, dust, fumes, smell or excessive traffic generation or other adverse effects on health, safety or amenity. The current anaerobic digestion plant is currently causing noise and odour pollution to local residents and users of the local countryside. These nuisances have not yet been abated. The proposed development is for a much larger anaerobic digestion plant located very close to residential properties, to which little thought appears to have been given. Para 69 of the Design and Access statement states: ‘The effects of development upon residential amenity are considered under GP8 above. Accordingly, it is considered the proposals can be accommodated on site without harm to residential amenity in accordance with GP 95.’ This is totally incorrect. This application seeks to locate an unneighbourly use very close to residential properties and to leisure amenities. Therefore this application is contrary to GP95. An example of the lack of consideration for local residents is the Olleco odour management plan document. In para 3.2 it lists the surrounding area and odour sensitive receptors. Buckland residents are not even mentioned. This document tries to give the impression that the site is in open countryside. It does mention Monks Court, approximately 200m to the north of the site, but fails to state that there are two properties on this site, as well as Canal Farm, much closer to the site, but which fails to be mentioned in any of the documentation with this planning application. Buckland village residents are also ignored.
I object to this planning application for the reasons stated in the letter (i.e. it is contrary to both the NPPF and Local Plan policies), and would be grateful if you would please take my comments into account when determining this application.”
117. Highways DC have not commented on the resubmission, however, they have commented on the first submission and their comments are as follows: Highway DC can conclude that the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the surrounding highway network.
118. The layout within the site for staff parking is generally adequate in terms of provision and manoeuvring space. However the Highways DC officer has some concern regarding the ability of the HGV's to exit the site through the weighbridge when travelling from either the vehicle wash bay or the defined roadway as shown on drawing 14/092/13F without the need for multiple shunting manoeuvres. Before I make definite comments on the application I would request that the applicant reconfigures the weighbridge area to allow a 16.5m articulated lorry to exit the site in a
35 single movement. This should be demonstrated as a swept path analysis. In addition the barriers currently shown on the weighbridge are not spaced sufficiently apart to allow for a 16.5m articulated lorry. Therefore, this should be amended, so the barriers are a minimum of 17m apart. Once the proposed site layout has been amended, I will be in a position to make final comments on the proposed development.
119. Ecology commented on the first and second submission by stating that no objection. In their comment to the second submission, they refer to their comments of the first which is as follows: The permission would require a suitable worded condition to state that no vegetation shall be removed during the bird nesting season and also area should be checked for the presence of reptiles or nest building birds. If reptiles are found, then should be moved to a safe place by hand. If nest building birds are found then no vegetation should be removed until the fledgings have left the nest.
120. Although none on the site, an informative shall be included.
121. Also a suitable worded condition should be stated requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme that incorporates biodiversity features. They also request a lighting scheme to avoid impact on potential bat roosts and bat foraging but preferably that external lighting is avoided altogether or kept to a minimum.
122. Thames Water commented on the first submission and stated that for their Waste Comments Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application. With regards to Water Comments Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.
123. The Canal and River Trust Board (as part of British Waterways) originally had an objection to the original planning submission due to its potential adverse impact on the users of the towpath of the Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal and its towpath. However, following the submission of the revised plans, the Canal and River Trust Board have removed their objection on the basis that AVDC and the Landscaping consultants are happy with the amended proposals.
124. Commenting on the original submission, the Ministry of Defence Safeguarding team has stated that the proposed site location is well outside our Aerodrome Safeguarding zones and therefore we have no further comments to make at this time.
125. Heathrow Airport Ltd have stated that as the proposed development is outside their Aerodrome Safeguarding zone they have no further comments to make on the application.
126. Archaeology has stated that we have no comments to make in addition to our previous letter. Their previous letter stated the following:
127. “We have consulted the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and note that the following records might be relevant:
36 HER reference Designation Description
Status*
0716800000 HER Late Iron Age to Romano-British settlement found by geophysical survey and evaluation trial trenching.
0840200000 HER Early Iron Age settlement, possibly with late Bronze Age occupation, found in watching brief during construction of bypass and subsequently excavated.
0012901000 SAM Medieval moat recorded in field survey
128. * COA = conservation area; LB = listed building; RPG = registered historic park; SAM = scheduled monument; PLN = planning notification area (undesignated area of archaeological interest); HER= Historic Environment Record entry
129. Note: some records relate to extensive areas such as historic landscapes, historic towns and villages or areas of high archaeological potential. Further information on the above records is available through the ‘Unlocking Buckinghamshire’s Past’ and the ‘Heritage Gateway’ websites. For full HER information and a licence for commercial use please contact the Bucks HER Officer.
Archaeological and related interests
130. Archaeological works were undertaken to the south of this site associated with the Arla Foods site. The archaeological assessment and updated project design for the College Road Aston Clinton report includes the following in the short description section:
131. Archaeological earthwork survey and excavation was undertaken by Northamptonshire Archaeology on land at College Road North, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, between November 2011 and February 2012.The works were undertaken on behalf of Prospect Archaeology for Arla Foods and were monitored on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council. An area of late Iron Age/Romano-British settlement was located on a slight ridge of ground situated adjacent to ponds and marshy ground. There seemed to have been a short-lived attempt at cultivation, perhaps a vineyard, in the Late Iron Age/ early Roman period, but this was quickly abandoned. Activity was subsequently focussed on the slight ridge and comprised multiple enclosures arranged around a series of ponds. A possible rectangular timber building was constructed in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD and a possible round house
37 was built in the 2nd century. Both buildings had fallen out of use by the 3rd or 4th centuries. A number of burials and cremations dated to the 1st and 2nd centuries and included three examples of decapitation.
132. We conclude that the proposed development may impact on buried archaeological remains. If planning permission is granted for this development then it may harm a heritage asset’s significance so a condition should be applied to require the developer to secure appropriate investigation, recording, publication and archiving of the results in conformity with NPPF paragraph 141. With reference to the NPPF we recommend that, based on the advice in DOE Circular 11/95, any consent granted for this development should be subject to the following condition:
No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.
133. This would require that an archaeological ‘strip and record’ is undertaken prior to or during the initial stages of the development and that adequate time is scheduled for this work. The archaeological investigation should be undertaken by a professionally qualified archaeologist working to the agreed written scheme of investigation.”
134. The Chilterns AONB Board has made the following comments on the application following the second resubmission:
“The Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) would like to make some representations on the current proposal for an anaerobic digester within and next to the Arla development at Aston Clinton. These representations are set against the key duty established by section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) 2000 and also as policy in paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), (that great weight is given), to 'have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty'. The application is set well away from and outside the boundary of the AONB. CCB have prepared its own supplementary planning guidance dealing with the setting of the boundary and that is a matter we would ask the County Council to consider when this application comes before planning committee, as we sponsor and seek design reassurances that the light spill from external lighting here does not diminish the wider rural dark skies and general setting of this rural hinterland around the boundary. This point is dealt with in the applicant's Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (at volume one). We feel this is reasonable to ask due to the nature of the escarpment here, rising dramatically from Wendover Woods and visible in the wider landscape from Coombe Hill. Whilst we have to accept that the backdrop view here would be set within the wider Arla development, it would be unsatisfactory for the further introduction of lighting to be cumulatively harmful, especially noting the siting of the proposal along the northernmost boundary of the wider Arla development. Therefore the CCB would seek that the Planning Authority is reassured that lighting levels and design achieve the very best design outcome and the lowest impact.
In response, therefore, the Chilterns Conservation Board would seek that (a) the Planning Committee is assured that any back spill of lighting is of the minimum
38 necessary and that, linked to this, the County Council are assured that the lowest location and luminance is achieved and an expert opinion is sought on the alternatives here. This could be controlled by condition but the County Council must be reassured that the design impact is realistic and achievable. Further, (b) that detailed scrutiny is given to professional standards in the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (The Institution of Lighting Engineers 2005). This guidance includes the point that It is recommended that Local Planning Authorities specify the following environmental zones for exterior lighting control within their Development Plans (and continues with categories that include) E1: Intrinsically dark landscapes National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc. and E2: Low district brightness areas Rural, small village, or relatively dark urban locations. The Chilterns Conservation Board would seek that considerable attention is given to this matter as the longer term impacts of cumulative light gain, is potentially of considerable impact. (c) That in the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) we note that viewpoint 18 considers impacts from Wendover Woods. We would propose an additional viewpoint at Coombe Hill (looking outside - beyond the AONB) is also considered and officers visit this location. The existing Arla development is apparent from Coombe Hill and within the Chilterns AONB and looking beyond its boundary. This illustrates the point that the development as promoted has potential to result in a cumulative impact which has considerable potential to erode the E1 and E2 classifications, as above.
Therefore, the CCB urges very careful consideration of lighting impacts. We seek that full regard is given and careful attention afforded to design impacts. The Chilterns Conservation Board is grateful for the opportunity to submit these representations. We submit these as 'comments' within the protocol of public representations.”
135. Flood Management Team has stated based on the revised flood risk assessment and revised proposed drainage strategy layout the strategic flood management team has no objections to the proposed development. However, the condition from our original response dated 9th January 2015 still stands.
136. The original flood risk assessment ruled out infiltration due to the ground conditions but noted there were no further constraints for including sustainable drainage in the surface water drainage scheme. With this in mind we were disappointed to see that the only truly sustainable solution put forward is a strategic balancing pond, which I cannot find referenced within the proposed drainage strategy layout. Other systems proposed are underground storage tanks and pipes, which do not offer the same water quality and biodiversity benefits as other more sustainable systems. This is particularly disappointing, and we would hope that further SuDS are considered, or that the FRA shows that other systems have been explore but demonstrated to be unsuitable.
137. Highway England has no objection to the application.
138. Landscaping had a few concerns with the first submission due to lack of information and had required further information. Revised LVIA were resubmitted. No further comments have been received following the re-submission.
139. Natural England has commented on both submissions and made comments to the authority in their letter dated 20 January 2015 and email on 27th April 2015.
39 140. The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to this application although we made no objection to the original proposal (CM/78/14). Their previous response was as follows:
141. No objection - no conditions requested. This application is in close proximity to Tring Reservoirs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Aston Clinton Ragpits SSSI, Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI, Dancersend SSSI and Tring Woodlands SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which these sites have been notified. We therefore advise your authority that these SSSIs do not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.
Landscape
142. No comment due to insufficient information
143. Natural England has assessed this application. From the information available Natural England is unable to advise on the potential significance of impacts on Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB Conservation Board. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development further informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the AONB designation. They will also be able advise on whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the AONB management plan.
144. Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. Before sending us the amended consultation, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered. If they are unlikely to do so, please do not re-consult us.
145. No objection and no conditions required. This application is in close proximity to the Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development, carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site is notified. This Authority is therefore advised that the SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.
146. Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
Local Sites (biodiversity and geodiversity; Local landscape character Local or National biodiversity priority habitats and species.
Representations
40
147. Twenty seven communications have been received from local residents following the submission of the original application objecting to the proposal on the grounds of adverse impacts detrimental to both the local visual and residential amenities; increased level of traffic, odour, light pollution, pests, dust, lack of landscaping, litter, timing of the consultation, contrary to policies, sustainability, operation hours, height of building and noise likely to be generated from the site and on-going incremental development, impact on the canal path and concerns about safety. Following the resubmission, four objections have been received from local residents including one who have commented previously on the previous plans. They still air the same concerns as outlined above.
Discussion
148. It is considered that the main issues are compatibility with the Development Plan in relation to the waste management need for the development, locational criteria, landscape, the impact upon the amenities of the local area, ecology, highways and traffic and the water environment.
Waste Management need and location – Policy CS9 (Additional Waste Management Capacity and Net – Self-Sufficiency), CS10 (Recycling and Composting Capacity to be provided for MSW and C&I waste by 2026), Policy CS16 (Management of Imported Waste), Policy CS18 (Protection of Environmental Assets of National Importance), Policy CS19 (Protection of Environmental Assets of Local Importance and Policy CS22 (Design and Climate Change) of the MWCS; the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW))
Need
149. The principle waste management policy document currently in place at the National level is the “Waste Strategy 2007” for England and Wales (published by DEFRA in May 2007).
150. The targets that of the Waste Strategy 2007 are as follows:
Waste Strategy 2007 Recycling and 40% by 2010, 45% by Composting of 2015 & 50% by 2020 household waste Recycling and -- Composting of Commercial and Industrial Waste. Recycling and -- composting of all waste
151. The National Planning Policy for Waste sets out objectives for sustainable waste management and encourages diversion from landfill as well as encouraging the use of reuse, recycling and biological processing. This is also mentioned in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy on pages 43 - 45. The provision of Anaerobic Digestion facilities will make a significant contribution towards meeting this aim. Page 43 of the Core Strategy states:
41
“The strategy for waste is to encourage waste prevention and to safeguarding existing waste management capacity within Buckinghamshire, whilst increasing local provision for recycling and composting so as to increasingly divert waste from landfill”
Regional Self-Sufficiency
152. The above excerpt confirms that Buckinghamshire County Council seeks to provide for an appropriate mix of waste management facilities in order to achieve the targets set forth in the Waste Strategy 2007 and ensure regional net self-sufficiency in waste management capacity. Table 3 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states that the County Council seeks to have an additional 554,000 tonnes of recycling, 112,000 tonnes of composting and 290,000 tonnes of energy recovery by 2026. According to policy CS9, the additional capacity required for commercial and industrial waste is as follows: :
2016 MSW (Municipal C&I (Commercial Solid Waste) and Industrial) Recycling 24,000 86,000 Composting 28,000 47,000 Energy Recovery 109,000 168,000
2021 Recycling 42,000 156,000 Composting 40,000 55,000 Energy Recovery 112,000 183,000
2026 Recycling 60,000 214,000 Composting 51,000 61,000 Energy Recovery 112,000 178,000
153. This proposed Anaerobic Digestion Plant would provide capacity for up to 50,000 tonnes of food waste and the Materials Recycling Facility would be capable of processing up to 80,000 tonnes of dry mixed recyclable waste per annum. Moreover, the facility would also produce up to 80,000 tonnes of digestate per annum and biogas produced from the Anaerobic Digestion Plant will be cleaned so that it is suitable for injection into the gas distribution network or converted into up to 5mw of electricity via heat in the three on site combined heat and power engines. Therefore, the proposed facility at Samian Way would assist the County Council in meeting the need for additional capacity as set forth in Policy CSP 9. .
154. In terms of management of imported waste Policy CS16 of the MWCS states:
“Proposals for facilities in Buckinghamshire primarily intended for management of imported wastes by any means other than landfill will also be resisted.”
155. While this proposal diverts approximately 80,000 tonnes of waste per annum away from landfill, in order to comply with Policy CS16, the applicant is advised to keep the importation of waste as local as possible. Although the applicant has stated
42 that 70% of the waste will be sourced from within Buckinghamshire, they could not confirm at this stage how much would be imported from outside the County. The applicant would like to retain some flexibility so that in appropriate circumstances waste may be imported from outside the locality of a 40 mile radius. A planning obligation under s. 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act would allow the County Council to maintain sufficient control on the importation of waste in line with Policy CS16 while permitting the Applicant to import waste from outside the 40 mile radius under acceptable circumstances.
156. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Moreover, paragraph 8 states that to achieve sustainable development- economic, social and environmental gain should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Paragraph 14 the NPPF identifies that there is presumption in favour of sustainable development.
157. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies a set of 12 core land use planning principles which underpin both plan making and decision taking. The relevant principles are set out below (in italics) together with an assessment of said principle in relation to the proposed industrial development: -
• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth;
The proposed development will provide further economic development in association with the wider Arla development. It is expected the proposed AD Plant / MRF will provide 16 operator/maintenance jobs, two Shift Manager positions and a Plant Manager role. In addition there will be 20 office staff. Total will therefore be 39 jobs with opportunities for future growth (up to 75 jobs working a three shift per day pattern).
• Always seek to secure a high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;
The design and siting of the AD Plant / MRF has been carefully considered to ensure it is in-keeping with the adjacent dairy building and therefore minimises impact on the surrounding area. Consideration has also been given to likely scale of future building on land to the west as well as its relationship with landscape bund. In order to minimise effect on users of Buckland Lane, the main building is set along the western boundary of the site with tanks, silos and plant at the eastern end. The design of the main building is driven by its function with the glazed office element adjacent to Samian Way adding interest to the streetscene. Consideration has also been given to the approved cladding colours for the adjacent dairy development and a similar colour scheme will be adopted for the AD Plant / MRF building and silos. Use of similar colours will assist in terms of visual amenity and also ensure a consistent approach with the Arla development. The main building will be a maximum of 14.825m in height with tallest silo at 20m in height. The outline consent for buildings to the west set a max height of 15m to haunch and 18m to ridge. The ‘Arla North’ outline also consented a building up to 23,226sqm. The proposed building is 5161sqm at GF with a further 816 sqm of offices (GF & FF) and 430 sqm of amenities (GF/FF) giving a total of 6407 sqm. The energy centre adds a
43 further 192 sqm with the building height at 12m. The main dairy building is circa 20m in height with planning permission granted for silos up to 29.425m. In light of the above it is considered the design and layout is entirely suitable for the proposed development and will sit comfortably within the context of the adjacent dairy development and likely future development on land to the west.
The proposal supports the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy); The principle of development on this site has been accepted with the proposed dairy / VMU development. It has been demonstrated the site is not liable to flooding as demonstrated in the supporting FRA. With regards encouraging the use of renewable resources, the proposed AD Plant with MRF is clearly in accordance with this aspiration with potential benefits for Arla, its supply chain and generation of energy / recycling in general. It is also intended that the AD Plant / MRF achieves a BREAAM Excellent rating, further ensuring it meets Government aspirations for a low carbon future.
• Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this framework;
158. The site has little ecological value as demonstrated by the submitted ecology reports. The proposed development has considered a number of ecological enhancements including provision of native species hedgerow to western boundary. The approach to the natural environment is consistent with consented and built developments within the wider site.
159. Therefore, it is considered that this would meet this identified need economically, socially and environmentally through a sustainable development which is in accordance with these development plan policies in this respect.
Location
160. Policy CS10 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and the NPPW states that the County Council would support the provision for an additional 386,000 tonnes of local recycling and composting facilities by 2026. The policy and the NWPF also states that these should be located within the following criteria:
a) Extensions to existing waste management sites; b) Intensification or re-development of existing sites; c) Suitable sites (in terms of Use Class, site size, configuration and access) within employment areas; d) Rural areas for windrow / community composting.
161. The NPPW also states that priority will be given to suitable sites including those that are on derelict land, accessible from existing urban areas and have good transport connections. It is stated that new facilities at sites in the open countryside will not be precluded where there is a demonstrable need, it is consistent with the proximity principle and no other suitable sites exists.
44 162. In these strict policy terms a co facility could be considered acceptable at Samian Way, Aston Clinton. The proposed development is to be located on land intended for use as part of the Vehicle Maintenance Unit. In comparison to the size of the dairy, the Anaerobic Digestion Plant is much smaller in size. There is currently an Anaerobic Digestion site at Westcott which was approved in 2009. Being off the A41 dual carriageway, the site is also more easily accessible to Aylesbury than the one at Westcott. The site off Samian Way is well located in terms of access to the Strategic Highway Network. The NPPW has stated need to minimise any adverse transport impacts and the NPPF is in favour of sustainable development. The policy also states that where a proposal can only be served by road, as in this case, the County Council will only grant planning permission for waste development where the material is capable of being transported to and from sites by the Strategic Highway Network. The NPPW and policy CS10 of the MWCS applies to this application as the site is just off the A41, which is part of the Strategic Highway Network and located on site under c) as suitable site identified for their use.
163. In terms of proximity principle, the facility at Westcott is a little less well located in terms of proximity to the major centre of population in Aylesbury Vale than the proposed site here, especially with the site being almost directly off the A41 and seeks to avoid the transportation of HGVs from going through small villages. A routeing agreement agreed through an Unilateral Agreement would ensure this.
164. By importing the majority of the waste within Buckinghamshire, this would be in keeping with Policy CS22 which seeks to minimise adverse impacts on and from climate change and the NPPF on promoting sustainable development. This includes minimising the distance materials are transported by road. There are no other methods of transporting the waste other than HGVs. The proposed development would see an increase of 126 HGV movements a day including 70 movements from staff vehicles. However, staff are encourage to cycle to the facility through the provision of cycle facilities and it is understood that there have been discussions taking place regarding Olleco staff sharing Arla’s shuttle bus. Also the gas from the site would generate up to 5MW of electricity which would then be used for onsite use and export to the Arla Dairy. The creation of renewable energy makes this a sustainable development.
165. If this proposed Anaerobic Digestion facility on this site was not approved, then this would not assist the County Council to achieve their target for recycling and energy recovery and it would mean that waste from inside Buckinghamshire would need to go to other Anaerobic Digestion facilities outside the county. This means more travelling involved and would therefore be less sustainable and therefore would not comply with Policies CS10, CS22 of the MWCS, the NPPW and the NPPF. It would also mean that Buckinghamshire would be less likely to achieve their target as outlined in policy CS9.
166. I therefore consider that there is arguably still a need for further consents to be forthcoming for Anaerobic facilities such as that proposed in this application. Whilst it is on land earmarked for industrial development, smaller than the Arla Dairy development, and adjacent to land that has permission already approved for a vehicle maintenance unit, the absence of any existing larger scale active Anaerobic Digestion and recycling facility in Aylesbury Vale and the benefits in terms of the proximity principle of the proposed facility at the location lead me to conclude that it would generally be in accordance with policies CS9, CS10 and CS16 of the MWCS and in accordance with paragraph 32 supporting sustainable transport of the NPPF.
45
Environment and Heritage - Policy CS18 (Protection of Environmental Assets of National Importance) and Policy CS19 (Protection of Environmental Assets of Local Importance) of the MWCS, Policies GP53 and GP59 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan and NPPF.
167. Policies CS18 and CS19 of the MWCS and the NPPW state that permission will not be granted for waste development that would be likely to endanger or have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance and affect the setting of designated Locally importance landscapes, nature reserves, heritage assets, water resources including canals. Policy CS18 of the MWCS states that the proposed development shall not have an impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation areas and SSSIs. Paragraphs 109 of the NPPF advises that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment with paragraph 118 seeking to ensure Local Planning Authorities conserve and enhance biodiversity interests. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should require the applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets that could be affected by the development. Policy GP53 and GP59 are along similar lines.
168. The site is to the south of the Grand Union Canal which has some heritage interest. Although the building for the AD and MRF facility is slightly larger than the one approved for the Vehicle Maintenance Unit, it is further away from heritage assets. However, no objections have been received from the District Council on this basis and the site is separated by a bund and landscaping. There is Tring reservoir which is thought to be an SSSI but this is 2.5km away and therefore the site is not considered to be an impact. No objections have been received from the Chilterns AONB Board and as the site is behind the Arla site in views from the Chilterns, it is not considered to be an impact on the character of the local area. There is a public towpath just north of the site but again, with the bund and proposed landscaping as part of the wider site is not considered to have any impact on the recreational facilities. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is in compliant with the above policies and paragraphs.
Amenity - Policy 28 (Amenity) and Policy 29 (Buffer Zones) of the MWLP; CS22 (Design and Climate Change) of the MWCS; GP8 (Amenity), GP24 (Car Parking Guidelines), GP35 (Design of New Development Proposals), GP38 (Landscaping), GP39 (Trees), GP45 (“Secured by Design” considerations), GP95 (Unneighbourly uses) of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP)).
169. Policy 28 of the MWLP and Policy CS22 of the MWCS states that the County Council will protect the amenity of those who may be affected by mineral and waste development proposals and will not grant planning permission for proposals which are likely to generate significant adverse levels of disturbance, both near the site and on routes to and from the site, from noise, vibration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter, birds or pests. It should be noted that no objection has been received from the Environmental Health Officer subject to conditions in relation to these issues.
170. Policy 29 of the MWLP relate to buffer zones. It is noted that there is an SPG from 2006 relating to buffer zones which is referenced in policy MWLP 29. However the SPG is considered to be of little weight given its age and existence of more up to date national guidance. Whilst the principle of buffer zones is noted, the SPG simply
46 gives broad indicative guidance on distance in an attempt to minimise effects on any near neighbours by virtue of noise, odour, air quality, illumination, pests and so on. As set out above, and demonstrated through technical reports submitted, the proposal will not give rise to any such issues and thus seeking to apply an arbitrary buffer is not considered relevant. In addition to assessments undertaken through the planning process, there is also a permitting process to go through which also seeks to ensure proposals do not give rise to any environmental or amenity issues.
171. Policy GP8 of the AVDLP and Policy CS22 of the MWCS states that development would not be permitted where it would unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of the nearby residents when considered against the benefits of the development. Paragraph 123 sets out the planning policy approach to noise when determining planning applications. In essence, it sets out that decisions should aim to :-
• Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; • Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development including through the use of conditions; • Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and • Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which will remain relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreation in amenity value for this reason.
172. A Noise Report has been submitted with the planning application. This is based on the extensive noise survey work undertaken with the 2011 dairy scheme and demonstrates that the proposal does not give rise to any new noise issues. With regard to air quality, paragraph 124 advises that planning decisions should ensure that any new development in air quality management areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan. The site does not sit in an AQMA.
173. The proposal will not give rise to any new effects on surrounding residents. The proposal will be subject to the same mitigation measures agreed for the dairy scheme (in terms of noise and lighting requirements - as set out in the ES supporting the dairy scheme and measures controlled via condition pursuant to approval 11/00962) and as such it is considered that the proposals will have no adverse effect on the amenities of occupiers of surrounding residential properties.
174. Policy GP24 relates to car parking. Its overall aim to “seek a reduction in the amount of non-residential parking available… to discourage non-residential car use, and encourage where possible the development and use of public transport, cycling and walking as alternatives” in order to “promote more sustainable transport options” and establish appropriate levels of parking for the proposed development. The application is supported by a Transport Statement prepared by Optima Highways (who dealt with wider Arla development) based on that prepared as part of the adjacent dairy scheme. The highway improvements set out previously in relation to the dairy and VMU have now been implemented (works to College Road North and A41 junctions). The traffic generation associated with the proposal has been considered in light of assumptions for the whole site (dairy and associated outline consents for employment uses) and it is considered there will be no adverse effect on highway safety nor will there be any capacity issues arising. The implementation of
47 the Travel Plan will help to promote more sustainable transport options in accordance with the objectives of GP24. In terms of onsite car parking provision, this is in accordance with the operational requirements of the VMU and consistent with levels previously approved. As such, it is considered to be in line with the objectives of GP24.
175. Policy GP35 states that the development should respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings, the context of the area, the natural qualities and features of the area and effect on public views and skylines. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF sets out the government’s approach to design which advises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to make places better for people. Paragraph 57 expands upon this and advises that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. The building range comprises a steel framed unit of varying heights with the MRF being the tallest element at 14.825m to parapet. The office unit to the front of the site is circa 8m to the roof line with the DePackaging Building rising to 13m before rising again to the MRF. The Bale Storage Area adjacent the MRF is the same height as the Depackaging Building at 13m. These heights are less than the maximum heights consented for the adjacent industrial development (Arla North – buildings up to 18m) and lower (for both buildings and silos) than the adjacent dairy development. Similarly whilst consent is sought for a 25m exhaust flue from the energy centre, this too is lower than the consented 29.3m for the dairy silos. It is hoped that the exhaust flue will be closer to 20m. The footprint of the building is also modest compared with the dairy development and likely industrial buildings to be developed on the adjacent site to the west. The layout of the site also ensures effects on visual amenity is minimised with main building set to western boundary away from Buckland Lane. Silos and plant to eastern end of the site will enable views through the site from the east. Whilst the design of the main building and associated plant is informed by its role, consideration has been given to colours on the approved dairy. It is considered the chosen colours set out from dark green cladding at the base of the building grading through to light green to cream at upper levels reflect those on the approved Arla building and existing landscaping bunds to north and east are an appropriate solution for the building given its site and surrounds. This will ensure a coherent approach across the site and minimise prominence of the development in the wider landscape. Furthermore, the planted bund to the north and east will assist in minimising effect of the proposed development.
176. The proposed Anaerobic Digestion plant and materials recycling facility is not located in any designated landscape although it is approximately 2.5 km from the Chilterns AONB. The proposed development is protected from view due to the Arla Dairy already on site larger than the proposed development. The amended and approved vehicle maintenance facility that has permission (ref: 12/02205/APP) would consist of a building measuring 22.5m wide, 68m length and 7.38m to eaves and 8.63 to ridge and was to be sited 32m from the northern boundary enclosed behind a low level gabion wall sited at the base of the bund at a right angle to the canal. The proposed development would not be out of keeping from its surrounding area as it is proposed to be in fitting with the surrounding environment and a condition would be imposed to confirm the chosen colour. Therefore the site has and would have more buildings of similar size in the future. I therefore consider that the proposed development is compliance with the above policies.
48 177. The use of planting and soft landscaping for new development is outlined in Policy GP38. The policy states that it is “essential that planting schemes are prepared as an integral part of development”, going on to say that any proposed planting and soft landscaping should “help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings, and conserve existing natural and other features of value as far as possible”. Hard landscaping should incorporate materials appropriate to the character of the locality and new planting be predominantly of native species. The wider dairy development incorporates extensive soft and hard landscaping, including bunds, as an integral part of the development that will help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings. The detail of this planting is subject to requirement to submit as part of package of condition discharge. The bunds are now in place and have been planted out. Further planting is proposed along Samian Way and within the car park / entrance area. The siting of the AD Plant / MRF Plant has been carefully considered not to encroach on approved bunds along the northern boundary and as such the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of GP38.
178. GP39 outlines that in considering applications for development affecting trees or hedges, the council will require a survey of the site and the trees and hedges concerned and serve tree preservation orders to protect trees with public amenity value. With regard to trees and hedgerows and other vegetation on site, the proposal will result in removal of an existing gappy hedge. The existing hedge is not of ecological value although is thought to reflect a former parish boundary. The proposals are accompanied by an Ecological Survey and on the basis of the conclusions of those reports and the design approach to tree and hedgerow retention, it is considered the proposals fully satisfy the objectives of GP39.
179. Policy GP45 states that the design and layout of all planning applications should incorporate measures to assist crime prevention and help reduce risks to personal safety. No comments has been received from the Crime Prevention Officer and therefore I consider that the proposed development is compliance with this policy too.
180. Policy GP95 and Policy CS22 of the MWCS states that in all planning proposals the Council will have regard to the protection of the amenities of existing occupiers. Development that exacerbates any adverse effects of existing uses will not be permitted. Although the nearest property is less than 200 metres away, due to the nature of the development, the Environmental Health Officer has no objection to the development provided conditions are provided and complied with to reduce any detrimental impact that could be cause from noise and odour. The Environment Agency has also no objection and with regard to the 200m rule for Anaerobic Digestion plant as outlined in their Environmental Permitting Standard Rule 2012 no12, the Environment Agency has confirmed that the proposed development is exempt from this rule due to its size and the nature of the development.
181. Policy CS22 of the MWCS states that waste developments should only be permitted providing there are no detrimental effects on the quality or quantity of groundwater or water surface drainage and the flow or level of groundwater on or in the vicinity of the site. Nor should the proposed development have any effect on habitats and features of nature conservation importance which could be affected by hydrological disturbance seeks to safeguard water resources.
182. The proposed development for the Anaerobic Digestion plant and Materials recycling facility all take place within the building and within a site that is surrounded by a bund and landscaping that would minimise the emission of odour, noise. Although the processes on the site is proposed to be continuous 24/7. Waste
49 deliveries would be accepted 365 days per year, 24 hours a day. Digestate deliveries would be accepted between the hours of 07.00 – 18.00 Monday to Friday, 07.30 – 13.00 on a Saturday. There would be no collections of digestate on Sundays. Therefore it is proposed that any adverse effects on the local amenity would be minimal. I note that odour can be an issue for local residents due to the prevailing wind conditions. However, odour should not be an issue with the operation being wholly enclosed in a controlled environment and with bunding and vegetation surrounding the site. The Environment Agency has recommended a couple of standing advice advising that the development should not increase surface run off and that a SUDS should be used. Also allowance for climate change i.e. increased rainfall should be incorporated. Subject to conditions requesting these, I therefore consider the proposed development to be in accordance with these policies.
183. Policy GP38 of the AVDLP and CS22 of the MWCS and the NWPF state that applications for new development schemes should include landscaping proposals designed to help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings and conserve existing natural and other features of value as far as possible. The policy also states that new planting should be with predominantly native species and that conditions will be attached to submit landscaping schemes and implementation of the approved arrangements.
184. Policy GP39 requires that during consideration of development affecting trees or hedges the Council will require a survey of the site and the trees and hedges concerned; and also impose conditions on planning permissions to ensure the retention or replacement of trees and hedgerows of amenity, landscape or wildlife importance and their protection during construction.
185. Notwithstanding the comments of the landscape and ecology advisors, I consider that the proposals allow for the retention of the natural open character of the surrounding area as well as the protection of wildlife. Also it would not have an adverse effect on the character of the area subject to conditions for landscaping, colour of building to be confirmed and approved.
186. Then I would consider the proposal to be in compliance with these policies and conditions would be added to ensure this.
General - Policies RA29 – (New employment uses in the countryside), RA36 – (Traffic adversely affecting rural roads) and RA37 – (New accesses to inter-urban A class or Trunk Roads) of the AVDLP.
187. Policy RA29 states that the Council will resist proposals for development outside identified employment areas except redevelopment that is not out of keeping with the characteristics of the locality and does not lead to excessive traffic generation will be resisted.
188. Policy RA36 states that in considering proposals for development in Rural Areas, the council will have regard to the desirability of protecting the characteristics of the countryside from excessive traffic increases and routing unsuited to rural roads.
189. Policy RA37 states that new accesses to inter-urban A class roads or trunk roads will not be permitted unless they are part of any other proposal in this plan or for specific agricultural operations.
50 190. Although there is a proposal for 196 vehicle movements a day (126 of these would be HGVs whilst the rest are staff related), the movements and the catchment of these are proposed would be controlled by an Unilateral agreement. Planning permission has been granted on the land for a Vehicle Maintenance Unit with a 136 vehicle movements per day (68 in and 68 out) so the traffic movements are additional of those from Arla and the VMU. The Unilateral Undertaking would assist to avoid the HGVs (articulated vehicles) from going through the centre of Aylesbury and from going through villages, rather than via the Strategic Highway Network (the A41 instead). There would be no new access as an access is already in place as part of the Arla site permission. Therefore I consider the proposed development to be compliance with the above policies.
Conclusion
191. It is considered that this application would meet an identifiable need for an Anaerobic Digestion and Materials Recycling facility in the County and would greatly assist in achieving the county’s waste policy objectives. It is accessible and relatively close to Aylesbury yet fairly remote. The chosen technology and processes should limit the environmental impact of the development. However such developments need a safe and suitable access to the highway network which it has. Therefore, subject to conditions and an acceptable planning obligation under S. 106 to control the routeing of vehicles and importation of waste, it is recommended that this application be approved.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Planning application CM/78/14 Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Framework Waste Consultation replies dated December, January, February, April and May 2015 Representations dated December, January, and May 2015
51
Agenda Item 5 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee
TITLE: WOOD RECYCLING FACILITY INCLUDING THE ERECTION OF A PROCESSING BUILDING, LORRY PARKING, STORAGE AREAS, WEIGHBRIDGE AND OFFICE, STORES AND WELFARE ACCOMMODATION AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT AT LAND AT THORNEY BUSINESS PARK ( PART OF FORMER BISONS SITE), THORNEY BUSINESS PARK, IVER, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE APPLICATION NUMBER CM/02/15 APPLICANT:STOBART BIOMASS PRODUCTS LTD BUCKS STREET ATLAS:P207, E2
Date: 09 June 2015
Contact Officer: Tom O’Connor
Electoral divisions affected: Iver
Local Members: Ruth Vigor-Hedderly
Recommendation: The Development Control Committee is invited to APPROVE application no. CM/02/15 for a wood recycling facility including the erection of a processing building, lorry parking, storage areas, weighbridge and office, stores and welfare accommodation and ancillary development at Land at Thorney Business Park (Part of Former Bisons Site), Thorney Business Park, Iver, Buckinghamshire SUBJECT to the applicant entering into a suitable S106 planning obligation securing the routing Heavy Goods Vehicles concerned with the Development (HGVs) via the Business Park access road, shall be undertaken solely from Thorney Lane South and the prohibition of HGVs passing through the settlements of Iver and Ritchings Park. AND subject to conditions including:
1. The development shall commence no later than three years from the date of this consent. No later than seven
53 days before the date of commencement, written notification of the date of commencement shall be provided to the County Planning Authority.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following plans, drawings and written submissions:
Supporting Statement – dated January 2015 Transport Statement – dated 19th December 2014 Vehicle Routing Statement – sent 17th February 2015 Flood Risk Assessment – dated 15th January 2015 Phase 1 Environmental Review – dated January 2015 Phase II Site Investigation entitled ‘Land at Thorney Business Park, Iver Buckinghamshire SL0 9HF’ by Environ dated February 2015 Plan Drawing H8265/208/RevA – Proposed Drainage Strategy Plan Drawing 14898-200-03SITE – Proposed Layout Plan Drawing 14898-2500-01 – Site Location Plan Drawing 14898-200-02 – Building Plan and Elevations Weighbridge Details – Avery Weigh-Tronix
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the external cladding material to be used in the construction of the shed buildings, including the colour finish, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4. The development hereby permitted shall not be used other than between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm Mondays to Saturdays, 8:00am and 4:00pm Sundays and not at all on Public Holidays.
5. The combined maximum total number of heavy goods vehicle movements (vehicles over 3.5 tonnes unladen weight) from this planning permission shall not exceed 75 (37 return journeys plus 1) per day.
6. The scheme for parking and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and
54 that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
7. No part of the development shall be occupied until an area has been laid out within the site for heavy goods vehicles to turn in accordance with the approved drawings and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
8. A record of the number of daily vehicle movements and the tonnage of waste being imported to the site shall be maintained for the duration of the development hereby permitted and shall be made available to the County Planning Authority no later than one week after any request to view them has been made.
9. No loaded heavy goods vehicles shall exit the site without being securely sheeted.
10. No materials other than wood waste required for processing on site shall be imported to and deposited at the site.
11. The combined maximum annual waste throughput from this planning permission shall not exceed 75,000 tonnes per annum.
12. The processes associated with the waste wood recycling process shall not take place anywhere on the site except within the building specifically approved for this purpose.
13. The open stockpiles shall be located within the concrete apron and consist solely of unprocessed wood waste materials for recycling within the site building. The height of these stockpiles shall not exceed 6 metres in height.
14. No burning of waste materials shall take place at any time within the perimeter of the site.
15. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of external pole mounted perimeter lighting to be used within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting scheme shall be in place and in operation prior to the first use of the shed buildings.
16. Noise from the operations shall not exceed 55 dB LAeq, 1h (free field) as measured at the facades of the nearest residential properties.
55 17. The applicant shall submit a detailed Dust Management Plan to the County Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The document shall demonstrate how site generated dust from all activities associated with this facility is to be managed daily. This document shall be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority and the approved dust management regime shall be in place prior to the first use of the site and, complied with thereafter.
18. All plant and machinery used externally at the site shall be properly silenced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.
19. Surface and foul water drainage provision on the site shall be undertaken solely in accordance with the scheme detailed in the approved drainage strategy drawing H8265/208, Revision A.
B.That the reasons for the approval of the application are that the application is in compliance with saved policies EP3, EP4, TR5, TR10 of the South Bucks Local Plan adopted March 1999, policy 16 of the South Bucks LDF Core Strategy, Policy 14,28, 30 and 36 of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Policies CS9, CS10, CS14; CS16, CS19, CS20 CS22 CS23 of the Bucks Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Paragraphs 109 and 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy for Waste.
C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and pro-actively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
56 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. The application site consists part of the wider former Bison site of some 4Ha in area previously utilized, some without the benefit of planning permission, for a variety industrial, commercial and storage uses including a concrete depot and waste recycling operations. An Enforcement Notice was served on 26th September 2011 seeking the cessation of these unauthorised uses.
2. Subsequently, a relaxation of this Enforcement Notice was issued by this Authority on 28th March 2012 amending clause 5 of the Enforcement notice to allow the use of the wider site as a Waste Transfer Station subject to: No more than 150 Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements a day being generated to and from the land (75 in, 75 out); No activity associated with the processing of waste to take place on the land other than between 07.00 and 19.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays; No activity associate with the processing of any waste to take place on the land on Sundays and Public Holidays.
3. The area of the site proposed for the operation of the waste recycling facility which is the subject of this application would, at 1.6Ha area, occupy just under half of the wider site area subject to the Relaxation Notice, which would also continue to inform this application particularly in respect of pro-rata maximum number of vehicular movements to and from the site of no more than 75 trips in total (37in and 37 out) . 4. Hours of operation would be increased 0600 to 2200 hours Monday to Friday; 06.00 to 22.00 on Saturdays and 0800 to 16.00 on Sundays and not at all on Bank Holidays.
5. An enclosed space would be provided on the site for the processing operations and the storage of products by the erection of a 4080sqm steel profiled sheet building to process some 75,000 tonnes of mixed wood materials, from a variety of local sources producing biomass fuel and panel board for furniture manufacture.
6. As well as the processing building, the wider layout would include lorry parking; defined outside storage areas, an office and stores buildings; staff welfare accommodation and a weighbridge.
Site Description
7. The site is located within the Parish of Iver and the administrative boundary of South Buckinghamshire District Council. With a total area of some 12ha overall, the long established industrial estate at Thorney Business Park contains a mixture of B1, B2 and B8 commercial uses operated by a number of commercial enterprises. Iver Village is some 1km to the south and the M25 motorway is positioned some 1km to the west of the business park. . 8. The business park is bounded by the Slough Arm of the Grand Union Canal to the north and the mainline London to Bristol rail link to the south.
57 9. The large industrial buildings (Bison) formerly occupying the wider 4ha site where demolished some years ago and the site cleared. The 1.6ha application site itself consists of open bare ground, under concrete and recently utilised for open waste recycling and storage.
10. The site is outside outwith the boundary of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is not located within a floodplain or an Air Quality Management Area. There are no particular conservation or heritage designations but the site lies within the boundaries of the Colne Valley Country Park.
11. Existing boundary treatment facing onto adjoining industrial land consists of a mixture of palisade fencing and concrete push-walls on the north eastern and reinforced on the western boundary by a belt of trees.
12. Vehicular access to the site is provided to the south from the existing internal business park road which provides a good link onto the public highway network at Thorney Lane.
13. The closest residential properties to the site are located at a residential caravan park some 300m to the west and the Ritchings Park Estate located some 400m to the south across the railway line.
Site History
14. This site did not have the benefit of recent planning permission in respect of the mixed use of commercial and waste processing and recycling uses that emerged after the cessation of occupation of the wider (4ha) site by Bison.
15. An Enforcement Notice was issued on 26th September 2011 in respect of the change of use of the wider former Bison site from commercial and industrial to a mixed use of commercial, industrial and waste operations. Though this notice was originally subject to an appeal, this was not heard and a Relaxation Notice was issued on 28th March 2012 allowing limited operations on the site, the details of which have already been given in this report.
58
Proposal
16. The application seeks to utilize the site for waste recycling operations allowed under the Relaxation Notice to develop a recycling facility to process up to 75,000 tonnes of wood waste, an organic material, into biofuel and wood based precursor material for further manufacturing use off site.
17. The development would consist of: The erection of a processing building with an internal floor area of 4050sqm aligned close to the northern boundary of the site with an east-west orientation. Dimensions of the building would be 45 x 90m long with a height of 12m to the apex of the shallow double pitched gabled roof (10m to the eaves). Construction of the building would consist of external walls of profiled steel sheeting; coloured dark grey. The building would have a series of 7 metal roller shutter doors located on the southern elevation of the building facing onto open area to facilitate access. Finished goods would be stored internally within the building in individual bays Provision of other structures located in the south eastern part of the site which would include prefabricated porta-cabin type buildings occupying a footprint of some 60sqm. Functional in their purpose, these buildings would accommodate a weighbridge office and staff changing, recreational and toilet facilities; The construction of an impermeable concrete apron with 225mm incline to provide surface water drainage to a storm water storage attenuation tank located to the front of the site. It is intended that both surface and foul water drainage would be linked to the existing business park drainage system. Importation of raw materials onto the site to be kept in open stockpiles upon the concrete apron prior to processing and separated into different grades of wood. The height of the stockpiles would be no more than 6 metres. A quarantine area for non-permitted wastes which are encountered would be provided prior to their removal from site. Rainwater harvesting tanks would be utilised to capture rainwater run-off from the building’s roof to be used for dust suppression and fire water provision. The building itself would provide for a dry-space internally and would therefore not require drainage. Provision of 20 HGV vehicle parking spaces on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the access. A further 9 visitor spaces would be provided on the eastern boundary close to the staff porta-cabin External lighting would be provided in the form of 6 x 10m high lighting arrays focused onto the yard area Boundary treatment would consist of retaining the existing 2.1m high concrete panelling and the repair or replacement of existing 2.4m high palisade fencing already in place on the western, eastern and northern boundaries. The southern boundary would be defined by a new 2.4m high palisade fence and a 2.8m wide double gated access.
View of the District Council
59
18. South Bucks District Council raise no objection provided the use is strictly conditioned and controlled to ensure that there is no increase in lorry movements to and from the site when compared with the current lawful use of the site. Strict control is essential because the application is predicated on the fact that there will be no increase in lorry movements. If there is an increase in lorry movements it would be contrary to the strategy of seeking a reduction of lorry movements in this area which is already subject of extremely high levels of lorry traffic. These comments are also subject to any further comments that may be raised directly with the County by South Bucks Environmental Health Manager and/or Transport for Bucks.
19. District Environmental Health Manager (Response 5th February 2015) Please find our revised comments as follows: CONDITIONS DUST The applicant shall submit a detailed SITE DUST MANAGEMENT PLAN for approval by the local planning authority. The document shall demonstrate how site generated dust from all activities associated with this facility is to be managed daily. This document shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, within three months from the date consent is granted, and shall be complied with thereafter.
Reason: This is to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and not to cause a statutory nuisance (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks Local Plan - adopted March 1999) refers)
SMOKE Throughout the life of this facility, all activities associated with this facility shall not result in a manner likely to be detrimental to the amenities of the locality by reason of emission of smoke, fumes, dust and grit. No bonfires shall be allowed at any time.
Reason: This is to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and not to cause a statutory nuisance (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks Local Plan - adopted March 1999) refers)
NOISE Noise levels from all works/activities associated with this facility shall not exceed 55dB (LAeq (15mins) daytime, when measured at the façade of the nearest residential dwellings, at any time.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and to prevent noise nuisance to nearby residential occupiers.
DELIVERIES Deliveries and HGV vehicular access to and from the site shall be restricted to the following hours: 0730hrs to 19.00hrs Mon - Fri, 08.00hrs - 13.00hrs on Saturdays and NOT at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public Holidays.
60 Reason: This is to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and not to cause a statutory nuisance (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks Local Plan - adopted March 1999) refers)
Consultations
20. The Environment Agency
Most recent response dated 22nd March 2015. The Environment Agency advised that drawing H8265/208, Rev A satisfactorily indicates yard drainage details in terms of; where the waste will be stored and; drainage into the foul sewer. The Agency therefore states that it has no objections to the plan and advises that their previous requirement, to retain conditions in respect of details of the surface and foul water drainage ( EA letters 6th February 2015 & 18th March 2015) be withdrawn.
The Environment Agency response dated 18th March 2015 addressed the issue of potential ground contamination in its review of the submitted Phase II site investigation entitled 'Land at Thorney Business Park, Iver, Buckinghamshire SL0 9HF’ produced by Environ dated February 2015. The Agency state that they do not have further requirements with respect to groundwater quality nor did they require the imposition of the contamination condition previously requested in their response dated 06 February 2015,. The conclusions of the Phase II site investigation report are accepted with the Agency indicating its satisfaction that the levels of contamination and the absence of any significant aquifer beneath the site do not pose a significant risk to controlled waters receptors (section 9.1 of the Report). It is also observed by the Agency that the above report will also provide useful information for the site condition report required for the Environmental Permit application.
21. The Highway Authority
Response dated 9th March 2015 The application seeks planning permission to operate a wood recycling facility within Thorney Business Park. It is understood that Thorney Business Park currently has a mixed use of waste, commercial and industrial uses, and is currently limited by means of an Enforcement Notice to 150 two-way HGV movements (75 in, 75 out) per day.
It is noted that the applicant has submitted a Transport Statement (TS) to support the application. Paragraph 5.3 of the TS states that the application site is entitled to a proportion of Thorney Business Park’s vehicle movement limit, which equates to 75 HGV daily vehicle movements (two-way). Paragraph 5.7 of the TS goes on to state that the proposed development would not exceed this threshold. As the site would not generate vehicle movements above that of the existing use of the site, the Highway Authority can therefore be satisfied that there would not be any detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network. However, it is requested that this is secured by condition on any planning permission granted as the impact of any additional HGV movements above this threshold has not been assessed.
61 The Highway Authority would have concerns if HGV movements generated by the site were to travel through the village of Iver. As such, the Highway Authority would also request that a routeing agreement is secured through a S.106 Agreement which directs traffic south from the site, avoiding Iver village centre.
The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development in highway terms, subject to a S.106 routeing agreement being secured, and the following conditions:
Condition 1: The total number of heavy goods vehicle movements from the site shall not exceed 75 per day.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.
Condition 2: The scheme for parking and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park, load/unload and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.
Condition 3: No part of the development shall be occupied until an area has been laid out within the site for heavy goods vehicles to turn in accordance with the approved and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
23. Natural England
No objection to the original proposal. Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
Local Sites (biodiversity and geodiversity; Local landscape character Local or National biodiversity priority habitats and species.
24. County Flood Management Team
Based on the information provided in the Phase 2 Environmental Site Investigation the Strategic Flood Management Team does not have any objections to the proposed Wood Recycling Facility at Thorney Business Park. The site is subject to surface water flooding for a 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year event, we would expect to see this taken in to consideration in the surface water scheme. Any SuDS should consider the contaminated land, and factor this in to design.
We would like to attach the following condition;
62 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro- geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented with the approved details before the development is complete. The scheme shall also include:
Discharge rates Discharge volumes Maintenance and management of SuDS features Sizing of features – attenuation volume Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers SuDS features Network drainage calculations or MicroDrainage Network File
Representations
24. Iver Parish Council: Object to the proposal.
25.124 letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal. In synopsis, the reasons for objection can be summarised as follows: Adverse effects upon air quality Adverse effects upon health Unacceptable increase in noise levels An increase in HGV movements in the locality with adverse effects upon local traffic levels and the amenities of local residents; An increase in the levels of odours to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Adverse impacts upon local wildlife Adverse visual impacts upon the locality. Adverse impacts upon the residential amenities and quality of life od residents of Ritchings Park; Increase dangers to school children and other pedestrians on the highways of Iver and its surroundings and the potential to cause road fatalities; Loss of boundary verges; Increase in traffic pollution within the locality; Additional HGV movements would result in a deterioration in the condition of the local highway network; The local road network is unable to carry additional HGV movements; HGV are unsuitable type of vehicle for navigating on narrow village and country roads; Increased operating times would set an unwelcome precedent for other HGV vehicle operators in the area; An objection to the continued use of the site for commercial waste processing.
26. Three letters of support have been received from local residents in respect of this application.
27. County Councillors: Cllr Ruth Vigor Hedderly: Strongly objects to this application.
63 Discussion
Principle of Development
28.The site occupies part of the western section of Thorney Business Park which is on land designated for industrial use within the South Bucks District Local Plan (March 1999) and, as employment land in the South Bucks LDF Core Strategy Document adopted February 2011. Location of the Business Park is within the urban/rural fringe between Ritchings Park to the south east across the railway line which forms the southern boundary of the Business Park and the boundary of Slough some half a kilometre to the West. The Slough arm of the Grand Union Canal forms the northern boundary of the business park and, the southern boundary of the village of Iver located some 1km further to the north. Whilst located outside of any settlement, the site and its surroundings are nonetheless well established in terms of its business use and therefore does not contain any of the attributes usually considered commensurate with open countryside. Also, the site is outside of the Metropolitan Greenbelt boundary that otherwise informs the character and status of the surrounding area.
29. The site and its near environs including the Ridgeway Trading Estate located to the north, across the canal, therefore do not represent a typical rural environment being characterised by commercial and industrial development. The wider site was formerly utilised for a B2 industrial use as a cement batching works when occupied by Bison and, whilst no formal planning permission has since been granted for the current use as inert waste transfer facility, the use is nonetheless consistent with Policy CS14 in being identified as a safeguarded site for waste transfer operations.
30.The Lawful use of the wider Bison site for waste transfer emerged from the relaxation of the Enforcement Notice that allowed its use for the processing of waste subject to limitations on hours and the number of vehicular movements to 75 return trips (150 each way) per day. The applicant maintains in their Transport Statement submitted with this application that the proposed daily movements of HGVs from the site would be equivalent, pro-rata, to those generated by Bison when they occupied the site based on traffic survey data undertaken in 2006 which showed 454 HGV movement 11 hour period (extrapolated to 503 movements over a 12 hour period).
31.Core Policy 16 of the South Bucks LDF Core Strategy adopted in February 2011 identifies a number of sites for support in respect of employment generating development south of Iver, including the Thorney Business Park. This policy specifies particular support for any proposal that would result in a significant reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicle movements through the villages of Iver and Ritchings Park.
32. The saved policies of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (BMWLP) and the policies of the Core Strategy (BMWCS) are all broadly supportive of the expansion and utilisation of established waste transfer and recycling operations, particularly where these can contribute to an increase and improvement in the County’s overall waste management capacity and contribute towards net self-sufficiency. Proposals that support objectives for local waste processing and recycling in accordance with the waste hierarchy are also broadly supported (BMWCS Policy CS10) which plans which seeks to considerably increase recycling and composting capacity within the County by 2026 by some 386.000 tonnes. Also, arguably, this application does not need to legitimise the principle of waste recycling use on this site which is, in effect, already permitted subject to the compliance with the terms of the relaxation of the Enforcement Notice.
64
33. In terms of National Policy, the proposal would comply with the principles of sustainable development contained in paragraph 1 of the Governments National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) which seeks to improve and drive-up resource efficiency of management of waste up the waste hierarchy by the employment of effective environmental solutions by the re-use, wherever possible, of materials and the avoidance of less desirable forms of disposal such as landfill. The higher up the waste hierarchy the more sustainable the development. In this respect, the proposal would reflect the requirements of the Waste Hierarchy contained in the Core Strategy (BMWCS) in encouraging waste prevention and allowing for a reduction of waste to landfill.
34. Though already in use for inorganic waste, suitability of the site would nonetheless need to be assessed against the criteria of Policy CS10, which is intended to assist in the identification of suitable sites to provide additional waste recycling capacity. Though the additional tonnage provision of this policy includes a requirement for composting capacity, there is no indication in either the saved policies of the Waste Local Plan or the Core Strategy for provision of recycling of other forms of organic waste such as wood waste. The proposal would serve to maintain, utilize and broaden the scope of the existing waste recycling capacity, and, therefore comply with policy CS10 of the MWCS in seeking to establish self-sufficiency in waste management.
35. The Thorney Business Park location, together with the nearby Ridgeway Trading Estate, is identified in Policy CS14 as safeguarded for waste management purposes where any developments that would compromise the existing or potential uses for sites in these locations would be resisted (paragraph b). In this respect, the continuation of the use of the site for the management and transfer of waste would be in compliance of Policy CS14.
36.CS16 has, as one of its aims, the reduction in the number of HGV movements from the industrial Areas by the utilizing the potential for the provision of alternative forms of transport by providing for rail transfer facilities and possibly the re-use of the canal for freight purposes. In this respect, Policy CS14 carries forward saved Policy 15 of the BMWLP by recognizing in in criterion c the potential for some of the sites in the locality, particularly at the former rail aggregates depot at Thorney Mill and Richings Park, to achieve a reduction in HGV movements by utilizing other alternative forms of transport such as rail or canal.
37. However, the application site is not located within one of the areas of land identified as having the potential in either the saved policies of the BMWLP or the Core Strategy to provide rail transfer facilities to serve the strategic waste complex located at Calvert, The application site is located to the east of and outside of the boundaries of land identified as suitable for a potential rail head. The application site already benefits from a direct connection to the highway network via the existing estate road. Criterion c of Policy CS14 would therefore not apply to the proposal which would continue to comply with the requirements of this policy by utilizing the existing access through the estate to the road network.
38. Though primarily focused on the importation of landfill waste, policy CS16 also requires that the importation of waste from outside of the locality for disposal by other means also be resisted. Located on the south eastern corner of the County, the site is adjacent to and geographically much closer to West London and Slough, than many of Buckinghamshire’s urban centres such as Aylesbury and Buckingham which would usually be classed as ‘local’, i.e.; within the context of the Core Strategy.
65
39. The applicant has indicated that the wood waste would be sourced from the local area but part of the sourcing would, by reasons of proximity and practicality, include parts of nearby West London and neighbouring districts that are also able to provide for a sustainable nearby source of waste wood for recycling. In every practical sense, these sources would be local to the site though some of the waste would cross administrative boundaries. Arguably, sourcing and transporting waste from the north of the County such as Buckingham would be far less sustainable in terms of resources needed to get it to the site than, say Slough.
40. The proposed development, would introduce a substantial new building and ancillary buildings onto the site and this is justified in the application by the need to carry out the majority of the wood processing under cover to control dust & noise emissions as well as odour in order to minimise impacts upon the local environment.
41. Located within the business park with extensive boundary screening and there are no general external inward views of the site from the surrounding area beyond the business park. The local landscape is already formed by a large workshop located on land to east within the estate, stacked porta-cabins to the north and a bank of trees to the west behind a raised boundary and palisade fence. As such, the proposal, located as it is within a business park would address the requirements of Policies CS20 &CS22 in having a neutral impact upon the openness of the surrounding Green Belt and the character of the Colne Valley Regional Park.
Impact upon Character, Appearance and Amenity of the Area
42. As indicated above, the site occupies a location within an established and substantial business park with surrounding uses such as concrete batching, manufacturing and other heavy B2 uses setting the character of the locality.
43. The proposal would position a substantial shed of profiled metal sheet construction on the rear (northern) boundary of the site to undertake the lawful use of recycling of waste wood materials. With an overall height of 12m to the ridge and a length of 90m, the building would introduce a significant additional visual presence within the local built landscape. However, this landscape is already dominated by a nearby large shed building of similar size to the east and double stacked porta-cabins and container storage to the north. Therefore the presence of the main processing building would be broadly commensurate with, in terms of its scale and mitigated by other structures located nearby within the business park.
Ecology, Water Pollution and Flood Risk
44. Prior to the submission of this application, an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion was sought and, in the opinion of this Authority, the proposed development, in itself, would not have any adverse impact upon environmentally protected areas, protected species, groundwaters or; result in other significant additional material impacts upon the local environment. As such, an Environmental Statement was not required.
45. This development proposes an organic waste operation on a site where the processing of inorganic waste is established and lawful. As already indicated, the site was previously utilized as heavy industrial and is in a wider environment of similar B2 uses characterised by similar uses.
66
46. The applicant commissioned both Phase I Environmental Review and Phase II Site Investigation studies, both submitted to the Environment Agency, to assess issues of groundwater and soil contamination. The studies identified some potential for contamination arising from its historic uses as a concrete batching plant, gravel pit, open waste transfer facility and possibly, some infilling. Overall, the site is considered to have a less than moderate risk in terms of groundwater contamination. However, the reports maintain that the potential for groundwater contamination on this site would nonetheless be manageable through appropriate assessment and risk mitigation and a proposed drainage strategy drawing H8265/208/RevA has been submitted to address these issues. The above reports and drainage strategy have been submitted to the Environment Agency for their consideration and the Agency now supports the removal of their previous requirement for conditions to address surface water discharge, contamination and groundwater quality.
47. Location of this site is outside of the floodplain and is considered to be at low risk of flooding (Flood Zone 1). However, the size of the site exceeds 1ha and, as such, there is an automatic requirement for a Flood Risk assessment to be undertaken to further examine the potential for any flood risk.
48The site is effectively sealed on three sides by its existing concrete boundary, only open on the southern elevation facing onto the estate road. No surface water sources are within the site and the concrete ground apron would also effectively prevent any linkages to groundwater. Any fuel sources kept on site would be maintained within double skinned metal tanks and bunded.
49. The building would be designed to utilize roof rainwater by storing run-off into storage tanks & buts to provide a reservoir of water. This would be used for dust suppression and also the needs of this building which, operating under a dry-working regime would be limited.
50. The site would link into the Business Park’s established surface and foul water drainage systems via appropriate receptors to be provided on the site. As already indicated above, The Environment Agency has accepted that the drainage management scheme contained within the submitted drainage strategy drawing H8265/208, Revision A. The drainage strategy is also Suds compliant thereby satisfying the requirements of the Council’s Flood Management Team in respect of surface water management and disposal.
51. Wood processing has the potential to generate dust & noise and in this respect, the sources of these would therefore be located entirely within the purpose-built building. It is also proposed to use water cannon and misters outside to dampen down materials particularly during the loading and unloading of vehicles in order to further minimise the potential for any residual dust generation that may occur outside of the building. Other dust management elements would be introduced onto the site and include the regular sweeping and dampening of the site; the treatment and containment of any spillages; the washing of vehicles and; wheel cleaning of vehicles leaving the site.
52. Being in excess of 1ha in area, control of dust and odours, not covered by emission limits would be subject to an Environmental Permit to be issued by the Environment Agency with the District Environmental Health Department also exercising an element of enforcement control. In this respect, South Bucks Environmental Health Officers has requested that conditions be imposed on any
67 planning permission that may be granted in respect of the control of dust, smoke and noise emissions from the site.
Waste Processing and Storage
53. It is envisaged that the operation would process some 75,000 tonnes per annum of mixed wood materials from a variety of sources ranging from virgin wood such as cleared woodland brash, off cuts from furniture manufacture to non-hazardous waste wood sourced from transfer stations. Acceptance criteria at the site would be compliant with current Environmental Protection legislation to ensure that the description, nature and source of all waste imported is correct.
54. Raw materials would be stored outside of the building on the hardstanding, according to type and source to a height of no more than 6m above ground level. As already indicated, the main processing operations and production of bio-fuels & precursor recycled products would take place in the main building. The applicant envisages that some 99% of waste would be recycled with a small element of non- wood materials such as nails being recovered from the process. It is considered that approximately 1 wagon per week of non-wood waste would be re-exported from the site for recycling elsewhere.
Site Layout
55. The most recent lawful use of the site for the processing and recycling of inert waste was undertaken wholly in the open. Though the stockpiling would remain outside, it would be located upon a concrete apron covering the whole of the site, constructed for this function with stockpiles not exceeding the 6m height limitation already imposed by the relaxation of the Enforcement Notice.
56. The building would occupy the northern part of the site and be of a design and scale commensurate for its purpose and location within an industrial estate.
57. Vehicular parking for HGVs would be positioned on the southern boundary of the site with a concentration of staff parking, weighbridge and staff facility buildings located in the south eastern corner close to the entrance to the site from the estate road.
Use of inward facing perimeter security lighting on 4m high pole mounts is not an unusual security feature of this type of site and is of sufficient distance from any residential receptors or the public highway network to avoid respectively, loss of residential amenity or impacts upon highway safety.
58. The re-use of the concrete wall boundary enclosures, all in a serviceable condition would, in itself, be a sustainable use of resources and the re- use or installation of a 2.4m high metal palisade fence would be ubiquitous in this type of location.
Highways and Access to the Site
59. In the Transport Statement submitted in support of this application, the applicant proposes the use of a routing strategy, as indicated in their email consultation of 27th February 2015 to the County Highway Authority and now forming part of this planning application. This shows that all HGVs movements to and from the site would travel along the estate access road serving the Thorney Business Park via
68 the priority ‘T’ junction with Thorney Lane South,. Vehicles would access or leave the estate road turning left (south) at the T junction avoiding entry into Ritchings Park. This route would provide for onward access onto the wider road network with accessibility to the M25 and M4 via the road junctions located nearby to the south.
60. Enforcing such a routing located on land outside of the control of the applicant would require the use of a legal obligation either in the form of a Section106 or Unilateral Undertaking from the applicant. A requirement of this would also be the prohibition of any of the HGV movements to or from the site from utilizing roads within the already congested residential areas of Ivor and Ritchings Park.
61. The applicant is amenable to the use of a legal obligation in respect of the routing being imposed and maintains that they have the administrative mechanisms available within the company to enforce this on their own drivers. This would be achieved via the use of their own well established IT systems that are able to both communicate with and monitor in real-time the location of each of the trucks. Any breach of condition by their employees would be subject to the applicant’s own strict disciplinary code. Any other breaches of the agreed routing by other firms delivering or leaving the site would be dealt with by the applicant’s two-strike code where the contractor would be warned after the first breach and their vehicles not being allowed back onto the site by the applicant after a second breach.
62. The 75 daily vehicle movements per day proposed is an odd number, so the actual numbers of two-way vehicle movements from the site are likely to be a maximum of 37 each way to reflect pro-rata the lawfully permitted vehicle movements. This would not result in any net increase of vehicle movements from the site onto the local highway network. At present, the permitted number of vehicle movements from the wider former Bison site allows for 150 journeys (75 each way) and these are not subject to any routing management with no mechanisms in place to prevent vehicles passing through local communities particularly Ivor.
63. Whilst not being able to prevent HGV traffic generated elsewhere on the estate from passing through Iver, the proposed development would remain subject to a legal obligation that restricts the number of vehicle movements emanating from the application site as well as routing vehicles away from the settlements of Iver and Ritchings Park. The proposal would therefore not add to traffic levels in the villages and arguably reduce the level by re-routing some of the traffic generated daily by Thorney Business Park
64. The majority of the neighbour representations received from local residents pertain to the perceived increase in adverse impact that additional HGV traffic would be likely to have upon the residential amenity and highway safety within Iver Village and Ritchings Park. Comments were also made that measures should be taken to reduce the already high levels of HGVs passing through the village and this is reflected by Policy 16 South Bucks LDF Core Strategy in respect of the safeguarding of employment generating land at Thorney Business Park. By routing up to 37 return journeys away from Iver, the proposal would have the potential to materially reduce the number of HGVs that can presently pass through the village with the commensurate reduction in pollution and an increase in highway safety which, on balance, would be of net benefit to the villagers.
65. Similarly, the proposal would not contribute to any additional heavy goods traffic being generated from Thorney Business Park and, the routing along the estate road; to the north of the railway line onto Thorney Lane South, in accordance with
69 the Routing Plan, would preclude any routing of vehicles through the Ritchings Park Estate. Traffic would be limited to the established main road at Thorney Lane South located to the east of Ritchings Park. As such, the proposal would not result in any material increase in traffic through residential areas to the overall benefit to the residents of this estate.
Hours of Operation
66. Linked to the routing of this proposal are the proposed relaxation of the hours of operation currently permitted by the variation of the enforcement notice which are limited to 0700 to 1900 hours Mondays to Fridays; and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays. There was no relaxation in the Enforcement Notice to allow for Sunday or Bank Holiday working. Though reduced hours Sunday working is now sought, the prohibition of Bank Holiday working would remain. Hours of operation would be:
0600 to 2200 hrs Monday to Saturdays and; 0800 to 1600 hrs on Sundays not at all on Bank Holidays
The applicant states that the increase in hours is required to better reflect the working hours and delivery patterns of other businesses on the estate and the operational needs of the proposed business. The applicant also maintains that the increase in hours would arguably allow for a net decrease in the number of vehicle movements per hour given that the overall number of daily return vehicle movements to the site would remain restricted to 37 per day.
67. The site, located within an industrial park is some distance from residential receptors, the closest being some 400 metres distant to the south east in Richings Park. Within this context, the proposed increase of the operational hours of the wood processing would not be likely to result in any adverse impacts upon the residential amenities of the nearest dwellings.
Conclusions
68. The recent National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014) advises that waste management facilities shall be well designed in themselves and contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located. The existing use of the site as an inorganic waste transfer site emerged as the sole lawful use allowed by the relaxation notice from a number of otherwise unacceptable unlawful uses previously carried out on the land without planning permission and, the operation of this sole lawful use is strictly controlled by the limitation of vehicle numbers.
69. The proposed use of the site for processing of wood waste would introduce a significant element of management, not previously apparent on the site, that comes with a professionally run business use that has been conditioned accordingly to allow for its operation without generating any material detriment to highway safety, or adverse impacts upon other business park users and the residential amenity of local residents. On balance, the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policy 16 of the South Bucks Core Strategy in reflecting the built form and physical characteristics of this urban/rural fringe location close to the village of Iver. ..
70. The County Council, as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, is supportive of proposals that enhance the County’s self-sufficiency in terms of waste processing in
70 accordance with the waste hierarchy particularly in respect of organic waste where there is an under provision of processing facilities in the County. However it is a requirement that such proposals shall avoid deleterious effects upon the amenity, biodiversity or highway safety.
71. Recycling levels would be at 75,000 tonnes limit per annum and subject to an EA licence.
72. HGV movements to and from the site would be capped pro-rata with the level set by the Relaxation of the Enforcement Notice authorised on 28th March 2012 allowing in practical terms up to 37 return journeys per day.
73. A legal obligation (Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 agreement) would be put in place requiring all HGV traffic visiting or leaving the site to follow an approved Routing Plan from the site entrance, turning southward onto Thorney Lane South thereby directing the vehicles away from roads that pass through the settlements of Iver village and Ritchings Park.
74. The applicant, an international haulage and distribution company, has in place sophisticated IT management systems that allow direct communications with the drivers and the tracking of the routes of each of their vehicles in real time. The applicant undertakes to manage the routing of their vehicles using this system and subject any driver that deviates from the agreed routing to disciplinary action.
75. Outside contractors would also be subject to the Routing Plan and be advised of this and given prior information in respect of the approved routing to be taken. The applicant would operate a two strike system in respect of outsider contractor breaches to the routing agreement. A single breach would generate a warning with a second breach resulting in the contractor not being accepted back onto the site.
76. The location of the recycling process within the building would be able to substantially mitigate the levels of noise, dust emissions and other pollution generated and provide for an effective visual screen between the operation of the site and the wider community thereby addressing the majority of the concerns expressed by local residents in terms of amenity.
77. The site has been screened by this Authority in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment and the applicant is able to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have any significant adverse impacts upon protected species or wider biodiversity within the locality and no significant impacts upon groundwaters. The submission of an Environmental Statement was therefore not required to support this development.
78. On balance, the proposal would accord with the principals and guidance contained in the recently published National Policy for Waste (October 2014) which advises in Appendix B that considerations in respect of the proximity of sensitive receptors be considered together with the extent to which adverse emissions can be controlled. The proposal would also comply with the requirements of saved Policy 28 of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan in reducing significant levels of disturbance from the Waste Transfer Station and Core Policy 16 of the South Bucks LDF Core Strategy in respect of bringing back into use and improving employment land without generation of additional HGV movements.
71 Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
79. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking resolutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with committees, respondents and applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Supporting documentation to application CM/02/15 Consultation responses South Bucks LDF Core Strategy adopted February 2011 Saved policies of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy National Planning Policy Framework
72 Agenda Item 6 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee
Title: PROPOSAL ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING LINKED TO EXISTING PRIMARY SCHOOL BY AN INTERNAL RAMPED CORRIDOR TO FACILITATE AN ADDITIONAL ONE FORM ENTRY AT SCHOOL WHICH WILL CONTAIN 8 CLASSROOMS, ADMIN FACILITIES, WC'S, NEW SCHOOL HALL, SERVER AND STORES. PROPOSED ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE SCHOOL BUILDING TO ACCOMODATE THE NURSERY INCLUDING DESIGNATED PLAYGROUND. NEW HARD AND SOFT OUTDOOR PE WITH SOFT INFORMAL PLAY. CAR PARK PROVISION, CHANGE OF USE FOR ADJACENT PLAYING FIELD TO EDUCATIONAL USE (D1) AT ST LOUIS CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARRIS COURT, AYLESBURY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, HP20 2XZ
APPLICATION NO: CC/14/15 APPLICANT: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BUCKS STREET ATLAS: P101, F2
Date: 19th May 2015
Contact officer: Sabina Kupczyk
Electoral divisions affected: Aylesbury North
Local Members: Cllr Raj Khan, Cllr Phil Gomm
Recommendation: A. The Development Control Committee is invited to APPROVE application no. CC/14/15 for Proposed erection of a single storey building linked to existing primary school by an internal ramped corridor to facilitate an additional one form entry at school which will contain 8 classrooms, admin facilities, WC's, new school hall, server and stores. Proposed erection of single storey extension to the school building to accommodate the nursery including designated playground. New hard and
73 2 soft outdoor PE with soft informal play. Car park provision, change of use for adjacent playing field to educational use (D1) at St Louis Catholic Primary School Harris Court Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 2XZ subject to conditions including: i) The development shall commence no later than three years from the date of any planning consent; ii) The development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following drawings:
1740 PL01 Rev B- Existing Site Plan and Site Location Plan 1740 PL02 Rev B- Existing Plan 1740 PL03 Rev C- Proposed Site Plan and Site Location Plan 1740 PL04 Rev C- Proposed Plan 1740 PL05 Rev A- Proposed KS2 Block 1740 PL06 Rev A- Proposed Nursery Block and internal alterations 1740 PL07 Rev B- Existing and Proposed Elevations 1740 PL08 Rev B- Proposed Elevations M1644_00_01 Rev 0- Surface Water Drainage Strategy
iii) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be other than as set out in the planning application documents. iv) The scheme for parking and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose. v) No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Plan shall include details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries; • Routing of construction traffic; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and
74 3
visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway.
The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. vi) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained. vii) No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawings and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council’s guide note “Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits” 2013. For the avoidance of doubt the applicants will be required to enter into a S184 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition. viii) Prior to the planned occupation of the development hereby permitted, the travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Transport Strategy Team. Following occupation of the development hereby permitted, the travel plan shall be reviewed and submitted for approval, on an annual basis, at the end of each academic year. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing modal split for staff and pupils at the school and detailed proposals for future transport provision, with the aim of securing no increase in the number of car movements generated on the school journey. In the event of an increase in the number of car movements, the school shall undertake measures, which will have previously been identified in the travel plan, as are necessary to promote a reduction in the number of car borne trips
75 4
ix) Development shall not begin until further information is added to the surface water drainage scheme which should be submitted to the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: Sizing of features – attenuation volume
x) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include, but not limited to:
a. A plan outlining the measures to be incorporated into the ‘Habitat Area’ including a detailed pond design. A shallow lined pond planted with native species is recommended which will support a variety of plant, vertebrate and invertebrate species b. A landscaping plan that details the locations, size and species of all trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be planted, removed and retained. It shall show preference for the planting of native species of local provenance in keeping with the surrounding landscape, however, ash should be avoided due to the threat of ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea).
xi) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.
B. That the reasons for the approval of the application are that the application is in compliance with saved policies GP.8, GP.24, GP.35, GP.38, GP.39, GP.40 GP.45, AY.1 and AY.2 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP); and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
76 5
C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and pro-actively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The application is submitted by Jonathan Holland Architects on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council Commissioning and Business Improvement Services. It was received on 20th February 2015 and sent out for consultation on 24th February 2015. The application was advertised by neighbour notification and site notice. The target date for determination expires on 11th June 2015.
2. Additional information to support the application, was submitted on 5th March 2015: Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment March 2015 for St Louis Catholic Primary School
Site Description
3. St Louis Catholic Primary School is located off of the south-east side of Harris Court facing south-east. It is in a primarily residential area with the recreation grounds lying to the north-east and north-west. The School has its vehicular access from Harris Court. Pedestrian access is also available off Cousins Drive (see Drawing 1740 PL01 Rev B). To the north-east of the site, are residential properties on Cousins Drive and to the south-east are residential properties on Standing Place and to the south-west residential properties on Hastoe Park.
4. There are no designations attached to the application site.
Site History
5. Due to the increase in local population, housing growth and migration in Aylesbury area there is a shortage of school places. An additional four forms of entry are required in Aylesbury Town for September 2015. St Louis Catholic Primary School is one of the schools considered for expansion. Applications determined in the past by the District Council:
12/01219/APP- Demolition of existing modular classroom building and replacement with a new modular classroom building. 11/02653/APP- Erection of canopy cover to side of classroom 09/01602/APP- Erection of clear glazed canopy to classrooms 02/02368/APP- Erection of additional 2.4m high security fence and extension to car parking area
77 6
00/01473/APP- Temporary classroom unit - renewal of 96/0102 98/01805/APP- Erection of 2.4m. High security fence 98/00237/APP- Erection of a storage shed Several renewals for permissions for temporary classroom units and continued use of classroom 265 77/00565/AV- Construction of 2 no additional classrooms the enlargement of 2 no existing classrooms and the construction
Proposal
6. Application CC/14/15 seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey building linked to existing primary school by an internal ramped corridor to facilitate an additional one form entry at school which will contain 8 classrooms, admin facilities, WC's, new school hall, server and stores; erection of single storey extension to the school building to accommodate the nursery including designated playground; new hard and soft outdoor PE with soft informal play; car park provision, change of use for adjacent playing field to educational use (D1).
The proposed extensions will provide: 1417 m2 additional floor space within the school to facilitate one form entry 75 m2 additional floor space at the nursery
General
7. The school is a one-form entry primary school for 211 pupils aged 4-11. The nursery provides for 13 children in 2 sessions. The expansion will increase the school to 420 pupils and nursery for 26 children (per session).
8. The proposal is to provide for an additional one-form entry at the school by providing 8 new classrooms, new hall, reception, head’s office and other ancillary rooms. Also new hard and soft outdoor PE areas are proposed and are for soft informal play. The extension to the nursery will improve its facilities and provide designated playground.
9. In addition an access to site will be improved by incorporating a roundabout and drop off spaces and providing additional car park spaces.
School building
10. The existing school is single storey building, constructed from brick with shallow pitched roofs; there are also some flat roof elements.
11. The proposed extension to the primary school is to be located to the north-west of the existing school building. It will be linked to the existing school by an internal ramped corridor.
12. The proposed extension for nursery will be located to the south-west of the existing school building. The nursery will have its own entrance, but physically still connected to the primary school building.
78 7
External Works
13. The School has its vehicular access from Harris Court. Pedestrian access is also available off Cousins Drive (see Drawing 1740 PL01 Rev B). The proposal reconfigures the existing car park and access arrangements. 16 new car park spaces will be provided and a new drop-off area within the school grounds accessed from Harris Court, with a turning area for vehicles to leave the site. A new pedestrian route will be provided which will be adjacent to the vehicle route.
14. Construction vehicles will use the existing vehicular access to the site and the deliveries will be restricted to the specific times. A site compound will be sited to the side of the proposed hard play area. An area of parking and manoeuvring of vehicles will be provided.
15. Additional outdoor space (formal and informal) will be provided and new landscaped areas. Some young trees and shrubs may require removal and two individual trees have been recommended for removal in the Aboricultural Method Statement due to their poor condition.
Planning Policy
16. Relevant polices include saved policies GP.8 (Amenity), GP.24 (Parking), GP.35 (Design), GP.38 (Landscaping), GP.39 (Trees), GP.40 (Retention of Trees), GP.45 , AY.1 and AY.2 (Safe and Secure Developments), of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also relevant.
View of the District Council
17. Aylesbury Vale District Council raised no objection to the proposal subject to Buckinghamshire County Council having regard to the requirement for ALUTS under adopted policies AY.1 and AY.2 of AVDLP.
Consultations
18. Local members Cllr Raj Khan and Cllr Phil Gomm did not comment on the application.
19. Bierton and Broughton Parish Council objected to the application on traffic and highways grounds. The access to the site is believed to be restricted and the roads leading to the site congested. The roads surrounding the school including the feeder roads get congested and believed to be inadequate to accommodate any increase in traffic. The parish Council also stated that the proposed drop-off/pick up zone will cause congestion outside the school gates. The concerns were also raised over the overall increase in traffic in Bierton itself and it was noted that the proposed development is in relation to faith school which means more people will bring the pupils by car.
20. Aylesbury Town Council raised no objection to the proposed development.
21. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of conditions and an informative. It was noted that the proposed development would result in 34.8 FTE members of staff, an increase of 12.8 FTE staff. 35 car park spaces have been proposed which is adequate to the Aylesbury Vale District Parking Standard. (max
79 8
of 1 parking space per FTE staff member required). The provision of a new pick-up/drop off area off Harris Court which has a capacity for approx. 26 vehicles will improve the traffic on Harris Court. The following conditions were proposed:
1) The scheme for parking and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.
2) No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Plan shall include details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries; • Routing of construction traffic; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway.
The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.
3) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained.
Reason: In order to influence modal choice and to reduce single occupancy private car journeys and comply with national and local transport policy.
4) No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawings and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council’s guide note “Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits” 2013. For the avoidance of doubt the applicants will be required to enter into a S184 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.
22. The Sustainability Team commented on the current School Travel Plan’s (STP). It was mentioned that school has produced and maintained successful school travel plan. It was requested for the plans to be reviewed on annual basis following the occupation of
80 9
the development herby permitted, prior to the commencement of each academic year. Guidance on what the plan should include was provided.
23. The Council’s Landscape Advisor did not comment on the application.
24. The Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development. Because the drainage strategy is missing some information on sizing of features a condition was recommended:
Development shall not begin until further information is added to the surface water drainage scheme which should be submitted to the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: . Sizing of features – attenuation volume
25. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objections in principle. A condition was proposed which will allow securing biodiversity net-gain which is reinforced by the NPPF. A finalised landscaping scheme which includes biodiversity enhancement features should be submitted and it should include but be limited to:
A plan outlining the measures to be incorporated into the ‘Habitat Area’ including a detailed pond design. A shallow lined pond planted with native species is recommended which will support a variety of plant, vertebrate and invertebrate species A landscaping plan that details the locations, size and species of all trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be planted, removed and retained. It shall show preference for the planting of native species of local provenance in keeping with the surrounding landscape, however, ash should be avoided due to the threat of ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea).
26. Sport England raised no objections to the proposed development
27. The Council’s Archaeology advisor has in principle no objections to the proposed development. Given the presence of human remains in the vicinity it is recommend that further archaeological work for this site should be undertaken. The following condition was recommended: No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.
Representations
28. 6 comments were received from the members of the public. 3 comments were in support of the application. It was noted that the expansion will provide up to date facilities, better teaching environment. The proposed development is believed improve access to school and solve parking issues. Positive comments were also made in regards to overall design of the proposed development. One respondent provided their concerns in relation to current traffic and parking arrangements. 2 members of the public objected to the proposed development. The proposed drop-off point is believed to be inadequate and issues were identified in regards to Gurney Close being used as an
81 10
unofficial car park during events. It was also noted that Mathews Close is being used by parents as a drop-off/pick up point. It was also mentioned that St Louis is a faith school and a lot of children are brought by parents from far away.
Discussion
29. The CLG letter to the Chief Planning Officers dated 15th August 2011 set out the Government’s commitment to support the development of state funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. The policy statement states that:
“The creation and development of state funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations.” State funded schools include Academies and free schools as well as local authority maintained schools.
It further states that the following principles should apply with immediate effect: There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools; Local Authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state funded schools in their planning decisions; Local Authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state- funded schools applications; Local Authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests as set out in Circular 11/95; Local Authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible; A refusal of any application for a state-funded school or the imposition of conditions will have to be clearly justified by the Local Planning Authority.
30. In addition to the above, I consider that the key issues for discussion are design, the impact of the development on the amenity, landscaping and trees, flood risk, and the impact on traffic and parking. Consideration should also be given to biodiversity.
Design
31. Policy GP.35 of the AVDLP states that development proposals should respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and the surroundings; the natural qualities and features of the area; and consider the effect on important public views and skylines. The proposed extension to the school will be single storey and connected to the existing school by an internal corridor. It will have 3 monopitch ‘pods’ which will create a visual interest to the roofscape and will break up the mass of the proposed structure. The structure will not be higher than the highest point of the school. Lower elevations will be rendered with brickwork to the higher pods. This will be enhanced by some windows which are proposed to be coloured. The proposed nursery extension will have a shallow pitched roof and rendered walls. The development is in-keeping with the existing buildings and enhances where appropriate. I consider the proposed development to be compliant with policy GP.35 of the AVDLP.
32. Policy GP.45 of the AVDLP states that the design and layout of developments should incorporate measures to assist crime prevention and reduce risk to personal safety. It is considered that the nature of the design proposed satisfies the requirements of this policy. The windows and doors proposed are to modern specifications and would
82 11
therefore be of a high standard of security. In addition, the proposed development would be located within the confines of the application site I would anticipate that the schools would accomplish high security and safety standards for the proposed developments as per the existing educational establishment. I consider the proposal to be in compliance with policy GP.45 of the AVDLP.
Amenity
33. Policy GP.8 of the AVDLP states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of nearby residents. The proposed development is proposed to be erected on current areas of hardstanding.
34. The proposed extension to the primary school is to be located to the north-west of the existing school building. It will be linked to the existing school by an internal ramped corridor. The proposed extension for nursery will be located to the south-west of the existing school building. The nursery will have its own entrance, but will be physically still connected to the primary school building. All extensions are located well within the site boundary. The school is surrounded by residential properties, however the distance to the nearest properties is sufficient to ensure that no harmful loss of light, overbearing or overlooking would arise from proposed primary school extension. The nearest property on Cousins Close lies 29m from the proposed primary school extension. The nursery extension lies 12 m from the closest elevation of the flats on A4157,but measures only 2.1m to ridge and thus will not affect neighbouring residential amenity. The extensions would not be visible from public footpath. In addition, the Council has not received any letters of representation from local residents which were objecting to the proposal on the basis of possible impact on amenity. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be compliant with policy GP.8 of the AVDLP.
Traffic & Parking
35. The proposal includes an increase in parking provision and alterations to the existing access, new drop-off/pick up point is being proposed. The proposal reconfigures the existing car park and access arrangements. 16 new car park spaces will be provided and a new drop-off area within the school grounds accessed from Harris Court, with a turning area for vehicles to leave the site. A new pedestrian route will be provided which will be adjacent to the vehicle route. The Council has received letters of representation from local residents objecting to the proposal on highways grounds. Comments were provided in relation to proposed pick-up/drop off point, inadequate car park provision and traffic associated with the school operating times.
36. The school has STAR Bronze travel plan in place and thus comply with the paragraph 35 and 36 of the NPPF. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of conditions and an informative. It was noted that the proposed development would result in 34.8 FTE members of staff, an increase of 12.8 FTE staff. 35 car park spaces have been proposed which is adequate to the Aylesbury Vale District Parking Standard. (max of 1 parking space per FTE staff member required, policy GP.24 of the AVDLP). The provision of a new pick-up/drop off area off Harris Court which has a capacity for approx. 26 vehicles will improve the traffic on Harris Court. The following conditions were proposed:
83 12
37. As such, subject to conditions in relation to highways and STP the development is considered compliant with relevant development plan policies and paragraphs 25 and 36 of the NPPF.
38. The proposal is in compliance with policy AY.1 and AY.2. ALUTS contributions are not relevant in relation to this proposal.
Landscaping & Trees
39. Policy GP.38 of the AVDLP states that new development schemes should include landscaping proposals designed to help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings. A detailed landscaping scheme is to be provided prior the commencement and as such, I consider the proposal to be compliant with policy GP.38 of the AVDLP.
40. Taken together, policies GP.39 and GP.40 of the AVDLP advocate that developments should retain where possible, or seek to replace trees and planting of amenity, landscape or wildlife importance.
41. It is appreciated that some young trees and shrubs may require removal and two individual trees have been recommended for removal in the Aboricultural Method Statement due to their poor condition. It is however noted that the proposal benefits from creation of additional outdoor space (formal and informal) and new landscaped areas will be provided. An Aboricultural Method Statement was provided in support of the application and subject to the addition of a condition the proposal is considered to be in compliance with policies GP.39 and GP.40 of the AVDLP. . Flood Risk
42. I note that the Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development. Because the drainage strategy is missing some information on sizing of features a condition was recommended. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in relation to flood risk assessment.
Biodiversity
43. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that developments should minimise the impact on biodiversity and where possible provide net gains in biodiversity. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objection to the proposal, but highlighted the need to secure biodiversity net gain. As such, subject to the inclusion of this condition which requires submission of landscaping scheme prior to the commencement of the development, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the biodiversity aims of the NPPF.
Conclusion
44. Application CC/14/15 seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey building linked to existing primary school by an internal ramped corridor to facilitate an additional one form entry at school which will contain 8 classrooms, admin facilities, WC's, new school hall, sever and stores; erection of single storey extension to the school building to accommodate the nursery including designated playground; new hard
84 13
and soft outdoor PE with soft informal play; car park provision, change of use for adjacent playing field to educational use (D1) at St Louis Catholic Primary School, Harris Court, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 2XZ.
45. I am satisfied that the proposed development would, on balance, be beneficial to the local community by providing additional community space outside of school hours, and to accommodate the one form of entry which will increase the school to 420 places and expand the nursery to 26 children (per session). The development is in-keeping with the existing building and enhances the character of the school. The proposed development is a sustainable one and would provide for educational requirements and possible use for the local community outside of school hours.
46. Subject to conditions as set above application CC/14/15 should be approved.
Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 47. In considering the recommendation for this planning application, the County Planning Authority has engaged positively and proactively with the applicant/agent by engaging in pre-application discussions. On submission of the planning application and conduction of the consultation process, the County Planning Authority sought to expediently validate the planning application, forward all consultation responses and discuss what actions/additional information would be necessary to determine the planning application. Therefore, it is considered that the County Planning Authority have complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
BACKGROUND PAPERS Application no. CC/14/15; Saved policies of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan; National Planning Policy Framework; and Consultation responses dated March, April and May 2015
85
Agenda Item 7 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee
Title: PROPOSED ERECTION OF TWO STOREY BLOCK TO THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING CONTAINING 6 CLASSROOMS, AN ART CLASSROOM, EXHIBITION SPACE AND SMALL GROUP ROOMS TO ACCOMMODATE 1 FORM ENTRY EXPANSION, LANDSCAPING, CAR PARK PROVISION AND NEW CANOPIES TO EXTERNAL DOORS TO CREATE COVERED PLAY AREAS. PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING NURSERY AT OAK GREEN SCHOOL OAK GREEN AYLESBURY BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HP21 8LJ APPLICATION NO: CC/16/15 APPLICANT: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BUCKS STREET ATLAS: P 115 C6, C7
Date: 21st May 2015
Contact officer: Sabina Kupczyk
Electoral divisions affected: Aylesbury South West
Local Members: Cllr Brian Adams
Recommendation: A. The Development Control Committee is invited to INDICATE SUPPORT for application no. CC/16/15 for Proposed erection of two storey block to the existing school building containing 6 classrooms, an art classroom, exhibition space and small group rooms to accommodate 1 form entry expansion, landscaping, car park provision and new canopies to external doors to create covered play areas. Proposed erection of a single storey extension to the existing nursery at Oak Green School, Oak Green, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP21 8LJ,
B. RESOLVE that the application be forwarded to
87 2
the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (England) Direction 2009;
C. That in the event of the Secretary of State not intervening, the Head of Planning be authorised to APPROVE application number CC/16/15 for the erection of two storey block to the existing school building containing 6 classrooms, an art classroom, exhibition space and small group rooms to accommodate 1 form entry expansion, landscaping, car park provision and new canopies to external doors to create covered play areas. Proposed erection of a single storey extension to the existing nursery at Oak Green School Oak Green Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP21 8LJ; subject to the following conditions: i) The development shall commence no later than three years from the date of any planning consent; ii) The development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following drawings:
1739 PL01 Revision A- Existing Site and Location Plan 1739 PL02 Revision B- Existing Ground Floor Plan 1739 PL03 Revision D- Proposed Site and Location Plan 1739 PL04 Revision D- Proposed Ground Floor Plan 1739 PL05 Revision C- Proposed new Year 5 and Year 6 block 1739 PL06 Revision B- Existing and Proposed Nursery Plan 1739 PL07 Revision A- Existing and Proposed Overall Elevations 1739 PL08 Revision A- Proposed Elevations M1643_00_01 Revision 0- Surface Water Drainage Strategy 1739 PL04 Revision F- Revised Proposed Ground Floor Plan PL01 Revision B- Revised Existing Site Location Plan 1739 PL02 Revision C- Revised Existing Ground Floor Plan 1739 PL03 Revision F- Revised Proposed Site and Location Plan
88 3
iii) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be other than as set out in the planning application documents. iv) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for parking and manoeuvring in accordance with the approved plans. This area shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and maintained for this purpose only. v) No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan including details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries; • Routing of construction traffic; • A condition survey of the surrounding highway network; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway. Has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan. vi) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained. vii) No part of the development shall commence until a review of the signage and lining on Oak Green and Paterson Road has been undertaken and a scheme has been
89 4
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning to improve safety on Oak Green and Paterson Road during drop off and pick up times. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development. viii) No part of the development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide a DDA compliant pedestrian crossing point with dropped kerbs and tactile paving on Oak Green. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development. ix) Prior to the planned occupation of the development hereby permitted, the travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Transport Strategy Team. Following occupation of the development hereby permitted, the travel plan shall be reviewed and submitted for approval, on an annual basis, at the end of each academic year. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing modal split for staff and pupils at the school and detailed proposals for future transport provision, with the aim of securing no increase in the number of car movements generated on the school journey. In the event of an increase in the number of car movements, the school shall undertake measures, which will have previously been identified in the travel plan, as are necessary to promote a reduction in the number of car borne trips. x) Development shall not begin until a second surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is complete. The scheme should include but not be limited to: Discharge rates Discharge volumes Maintenance and management of
90 5
SuDS features Sizing of features – attenuation volume Detailed information on SuDS features
xi) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include, but not limited to:
a. A provision of at least two artificial bird habitat features with a specific details regarding locations and quantities to be provided, b. A landscaping plan that details the locations, size and species of all trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be planted, removed and retained. It shall show preference for the planting of native species of local provenance in keeping with the surrounding landscape, however, ash should be avoided due to the threat of ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea).
B. That the reasons for the approval of the application are that the application is in compliance with saved policies GP.8, GP.24, GP.35, GP.38, GP.39, GP.40 GP.45, AY.1 and AY.2 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP); and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and pro-actively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
91 6
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. The application is submitted by Jonathan Holland Architects on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council Commissioning and Business Improvement Services. It was received on 20th February 2015 and sent out for consultation on 24th February 2015. The application was advertised by neighbour notification and site notice. The target date for determination expires on 23rd July 2015.
2. Additional information, as listed below, was submitted in response to Sport England comments on the 10th April 2015:
Drawing 1739 PL04 Revision F- Revised Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing 1739 PL01 Revision B- Revised Existing Site Location Plan Drawing 1739 PL02 Revision C- Revised Existing Ground Floor Plan Drawing 1739 PL03 Revision F- Revised Proposed Site and Location Plan
Site Description
3. Oak Green school is situated in Oak Green, Aylesbury and surrounded by residential development with dwellings on Paterson Road, Eaton Road and Oak Green. There are three vehicular accesses from Oak Green (including the primary access). See drawing 1739 PL01 Revision A for details.
4. The existing school is mainly single storey with a taller hall. The nursery is physically adjoined to Oak Green School. See drawing 1739 PL02 Revision B.
5. There are no designations attached to the application site.
Site History
5. Oak Green School is a two form entry, nursery and primary community school. The age range for children is 2 to 11 years. Planning history for the site:
CC/73/00- Single storey extension to allow amalgamation of the school with existing nursery/first schools in the Southcourt area.
Proposal
6. Application CC/16/15 seeks planning permission for: A two-storey primary school extension will provide o 6 classrooms (each measuring 55m2 ) o an art classroom measuring 62m2 o exhibition space and 2 small group rooms o new canopies to external doors to create covered play areas A single storey extension to the nursery measuring approx. 122m2 and a small infill between two store rooms Landscaping and car park provision
92 7
General
7. The school is a primary school for 420 pupils aged 4-11. The nursery at the site is for 3- 4 year olds. The expansion will increase the school to 630 pupils and nursery for 2 year olds.
8. The proposal is to provide for an additional one-form entry at the school resulting in the school being three-form entry school. The extension to the nursery will provide additional reception classrooms to allow 2 year old nursery provision (additional 24 pupils).
9. In addition extension to the car park is being proposed. It will provide for an additional 18 car park spaces on site for staff and visitors.
School building
10. The existing school building is mainly single storey with a flat roof and a two storey flat roofed hall. It is predominately constructed from red brick and white render.
11. The proposed extension to the primary school is to be located to the south-east of the existing school building. It will be linked to the existing school by an internal corridor.
12. The proposed extension for nursery will be located to the south-south-east of the existing nursery building.
External Works
13. The School is served by 3 vehicular accesses and has three separate car parks off Oak Green (see Drawing 1739 PL03 Rev F). The proposal reconfigures the existing north-easterly and westerly car parks, by providing total of 18 additional spaces.
14. Construction vehicles will use the existing vehicular access to the site and the deliveries will be restricted to the specific times. A site compound will be sited adjacent to the new car park area with its own access. An area of parking and manoeuvring of vehicles will be provided.
15. The new two-storey classroom block is to be constructed on an existing grassed area. Some shrubbery in the location where 8 new car park spaces are proposed will need to be removed. The proposed nursery extension is to be located on a current area of hardstanding. One tree is proposed to be removed near the extension to the nursery. An informal hard and soft areas measuring 810m2 is proposed.
Planning Policy
16. Relevant polices include saved policies GP.8 (Amenity), GP.24 (Parking), GP.35 (Design), GP.38 (Landscaping), GP.39 (Trees), GP.40 (Retention of Trees), GP.45 , AY.1 and AY.2 (Safe and Secure Developments), of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also relevant.
93 8
View of the District Council
17. No comments were received from Aylesbury Vale District Council.
Consultations
18. A local member Cllr Brian Adams supports the application.
19. Aylesbury Town Council did not comment on the proposed development.
20. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal subject to inclusion of conditions. It was noted that sufficient car park spaces are being provided. Currently parents drop-off their children on Paterson Road and Oak Green and it is anticipated that this situation will continue to occur and the impact on those roads is localised and for a short period of time. It was noted that it is essential for the School to maintain an active Travel Plan. The highway officer also made further comments in regards to the highway improvement needed. The following conditions were recommended:
Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for parking and manoeuvring in accordance with the approved plans. This area shall thereafter be kept free from obstruction and maintained for this purpose only.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan including details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries; • Routing of construction traffic; • A condition survey of the surrounding highway network; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway. Has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained.
Reason: In order to influence modal choice and to reduce single occupancy private car journeys and comply with national and local transport policy
94 9
No part of the development shall commence until a review of the signage and lining on Oak Green and Paterson Road has been undertaken and a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning to improve safety on Oak Green and Paterson Road during drop off and pick up times. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
No part of the development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide a DDA compliant pedestrian crossing point with dropped kerbs and tactile paving on Oak Green. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
21. The Sustainability Team commented on the status of the School’s Travel Plan (STP). It was mentioned that the School is registered for STARS scheme (Sustainable Travel Accreditation and Recognition Scheme, however does not have a School Travel Plan in place. It was noted that based on the results from Conduct Pupil and staff hands-up survey from October 2014, 54% walked, 10% cycled, 25% used car, 3% car shared, 1% parked and walked. It was requested to condition that School develops and maintains an active School Travel Plan.
22. The Council’s Landscape Advisor did not comment on the application.
23. The Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development. It was noted that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and a surface flooding can occur during 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year events. The Officer was pleased to see that infiltration was considered as the first option for surface water disposal, however due to the ground conditions this is no longer a valid option. The Officer was disappointed with the lack of sustainable solutions and detail provided in the drainage strategy hence a condition was recommended to submit a second surface water drainage scheme for the site.
24. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objections in principle. A condition was proposed which will allow securing biodiversity net-gain which is reinforced by the NPPF. A finalised landscaping scheme which includes biodiversity enhancement features should be submitted and it should include but be limited to:
A provision of at least two artificial bird habitat features with a specific details regarding locations and quantities to be provided, A landscaping plan that details the locations, size and species of all trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be planted, removed and retained. It shall show preference for the planting of native species of local provenance in keeping with the surrounding landscape, however, ash should be avoided due to the threat of ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea).
25. Sport England raised objections to the proposed development. It was noted that the proposed single storey nursery extension would be constructed on an existing hard surfaced area and therefore the works would affect land that is incapable of forming part
95 10
of a playing pitch and would not result in the loss of any other sporting facility. The proposed two storey extension to primary school would encroach on the school playing field. The proposed development was noted to be prejudice the use of a significant part of the playing field. The Sport England therefore objects to the proposal because it does not accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy. It was also mentioned that it does not comply with the paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Additional information was submitted in response to Sport England comments on the 10th April 2015 which included the revised drawings. Sport England in their second response maintained their objection stating that proposed development will lead to the loss of significant parts of playing field, resulting in a cramped layout with no scope for pitch movement to allow recovery of the playing surface with a net reduction of the size of the playing field. Because no replacement is being proposed for the area of land being lost the use of the remaining playing fields will be therefore intensified and likely to lead a reduction in the quality of the playing surface.
26. The Council’s Archaeology advisor has no objection to the proposed development. The nature of the proposed works is not likely to significantly harm the archaeological significance of any assets.
Representations
27. No representations were received from the members of the public.
Discussion
28. The CLG letter to the Chief Planning Officers dated 15th August 2011 set out the Government’s commitment to support the development of state funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. The policy statement states that:
“The creation and development of state funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations.” State funded schools include Academies and free schools as well as local authority maintained schools.
It further states that the following principles should apply with immediate effect: There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools; Local Authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state funded schools in their planning decisions; Local Authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state- funded schools applications; Local Authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests as set out in Circular 11/95; Local Authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible; A refusal of any application for a state-funded school or the imposition of conditions will have to be clearly justified by the Local Planning Authority.
29. In addition to the above, I consider that the key issues for discussion are design, the impact of the development on the amenity, landscaping, flood risk, the impact on traffic and parking and playing field. Consideration should also be given to biodiversity.
96 11
Design
30. Policy GP.35 of the AVDLP states that development proposals should respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and the surroundings; the natural qualities and features of the area; and consider the effect on important public views and skylines. The proposed extension to the school will be two-storey building with a shallow pitched roof, marginally higher than the existing school hall. The material used would be brick and render with window arrangement less regiment then the one on the existing school building. The extension is to be located fairly centrally on the school site, will be a focal point when viewed from the school playing fields and in proximity to the two- storey hall. The development is in-keeping with the existing buildings and enhances where appropriate. The extension to the nursery is single storey with part flat and part pitched roof with windows size and position matching the existing. Materials used in the construction of the extension will be matching brick and render. The extensions will enhance the existing building. I therefore consider the proposed development to be compliant with policy GP.35 of the AVDLP.
31. Policy GP.45 of the AVDLP states that the design and layout of developments should incorporate measures to assist crime prevention and reduce risk to personal safety. It is considered that the nature of the design proposed satisfies the requirements of this policy. The windows and doors proposed are to modern specifications and would therefore be of a high standard of security. In addition, the proposed development would be located within the confines of the application site I would anticipate that the schools would accomplish high security and safety standards for the proposed developments as per the existing educational establishment. I consider the proposal to be in compliance with policy GP.45 of the AVDLP.
Amenity
32. Policy GP.8 of the AVDLP states that planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of nearby residents. The proposed nursery extension is proposed to be erected on current areas of hardstanding. The proposed school extension is to be constructed on an existing grassed area.
33. The proposed extension to the primary school is to be located to the south-east of the existing school building. It will be linked to the existing school by an internal corridor. The proposed extension for nursery will be located to the south-south-east of the existing nursery building. All extensions are located well within the site boundary. The school is surrounded by residential properties, however the distance to the nearest properties is sufficient to ensure that no harmful loss of light, overbearing or overlooking would arise from proposed primary school extension. The nearest property’s rear garden boundary on Eaton Road is 60m away from the new two storey classroom block and nearest dwelling front boundary on Oak Green is approx. 50m away. The nursery extension would be no closer to the dwellings on Paterson Road from the proposed extension to the nearest that back onto the site then the existing building with the development being not higher than the existing. The nearest properties back garden boundary lays 15m from the nurseries extension. In addition, the Council has not received any letters of representation from local residents which were objecting to the proposal. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be compliant with policy GP.8 of the AVDLP.
97 12
Traffic & Parking
34. The proposal reconfigures the existing car park and creates additional car park spaces to accommodate the new staff.
35. There are currently 45 parking spaces for staff and visitors at the school. The proposed development will result in 66 FTE, an increase of 16 FTE staff. Aylesbury Vale District Council parking standards require a maximum of one car parking space per FTE staff member however where a site is well severed by public transport maximum provision will not be required. The existing Travel Plan shows that 34% of staff either walk or cycle to Oak Green School. 63 car parking spaces have been proposed, which is deemed acceptable.
36. The School is registered for STARS scheme (Sustainable Travel Accreditation and Recognition Scheme, however does not have a School Travel Plan in place.
37. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal, as such, subject to conditions in relation to highways and STP the development is considered compliant with relevant development plan policies and paragraphs 25 and 36 of the NPPF.
38. The proposal is in compliance with policy AY.1 and AY.2. ALUTS contributions are not relevant in relation to this proposal.
Landscaping & Trees
39. Policy GP.38 of the AVDLP states that new development schemes should include landscaping proposals designed to help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings. A detailed landscaping scheme is to be provided prior the commencement and as such, I consider the proposal to be compliant with policy GP.38 of the AVDLP.
40. Taken together, policies GP.39 and GP.40 of the AVDLP advocate that developments should retain where possible, or seek to replace trees and planting of amenity, landscape or wildlife importance.
41. It is appreciated that a tree requires removal and some shrubbery, however it is noted that the proposal benefits from creation of additional hard and soft play areas and new landscaped areas will be provided which would serve outdoor educational activities. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with policies GP.39 and GP.40 of the AVDLP. . Flood Risk
42. I note that the Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development. Due to the lack of sustainable solutions and detail provided in the drainage strategy it was recommended that a second surface water drainage scheme for the site is to be submitted before the development begins.
98 13
Biodiversity
43. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that developments should minimise the impact on biodiversity and where possible provide net gains in biodiversity. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objection to the proposal, but highlighted the need to secure biodiversity net gain. As such, subject to the inclusion of this condition which requires submission of landscaping scheme prior to the commencement of the development, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the biodiversity aims of the NPPF.
School Sport Field Provision
44. Sport England raised objections to the proposed development. It was noted that the proposed two storey extension to primary school would encroach on the school playing field and this will prejudice the use of a significant part of the playing field. The Sport England therefore objects to the proposal because it does not accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy. Additional information was submitted in response to Sport England comments on the 10th April 2015 which included the revised drawings. Sport England in their second response maintained their objection stating that proposed development will lead to the loss of significant parts of playing field, resulting in a cramped layout with no scope for pitch movement to allow recovery of the playing surface with a net reduction of the size of the playing field. Because no replacement is being proposed for the area of land being lost the use of the remaining playing fields will be therefore intensified and likely to lead a reduction in the quality of the playing surface.
45. Sport England in their response mentioned that it does not comply with the paragraph 74 of the NPPF. The paragraph 74 states: ‘Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.’
The applicant in the additional information provided and drawings confirmed that the school is keen to maintain the existing facilities by re-arranging them with no further facilities added. The drawings 1739 PL04 Revision F, 1739 PL04 Revision F, 1739 PL01 Revision B and 1739 PL02 Revision C clearly illustrate how the existing facilities may be corrected to be with the FA requirements and how they can be accommodated. The playing field will remain to be suitable and sited according to the needs of the school, and age range of children attending the school. On balance there will be no material loss of the range of sport facilities provided by the school and available to the pupils. The new layout will include the sport pitch as per FA recommended size, the 80m straight running track, 8 no. of training squares 10mx10m. It is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with the paragraph 74 of the NPPF since the assessment of the proposal demonstrates that the playing field will be sufficient.
99 14
Conclusion
46. Application CC/16/15 seeks planning permission for proposed erection of two storey block to the existing school building containing 6 classrooms, an art classroom, exhibition space and small group rooms to accommodate 1 form entry expansion, landscaping, car park provision and new canopies to external doors to create covered play areas; proposed erection of a single storey extension to the existing nursery
47. I am satisfied that the proposed development would, on balance, be beneficial to the school community by providing additional one form of entry which will increase the school to 630 places and expand the nursery to allow addition of 2 year olds. The development is in-keeping with the existing building and enhances the character of the school. The proposed development is a sustainable one and would provide for educational requirements.
48. Despite the objection from Sport England, I believe that on balance there will be no material loss of the range of sport facilities provided by the school and available to the pupils. I therefore recommend for these reasons that the application should be approved. Given the objection from Sport England, however, if members are minded to approve the application, it must be referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.
Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 49. In considering the recommendation for this planning application, the County Planning Authority has engaged positively and proactively with the applicant/agent by engaging in pre-application discussions. On submission of the planning application and conduction of the consultation process, the County Planning Authority sought to expediently validate the planning application, forward all consultation responses and discuss what actions/additional information would be necessary to determine the planning application. Therefore, it is considered that the County Planning Authority have complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
BACKGROUND PAPERS Application no. CC/16/15; Saved policies of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan; National Planning Policy Framework; and Consultation responses dated March, April and May 2015
100 Agenda Item 8 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee
Title: PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SPORTS HALL, CHANGING ROOMS AND TWO STOREY CLASSROOM BLOCK; NEW PARKING, FOOTPATH ACCESS, EXTENSION OF HARD PLAY AREA; TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF EXISTING MOBILE UNIT AND TEMPORARY SINGLE MOBILE UNIT AND REMOVAL OF MOBILE UNITS UPON COMPLETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT ST MICHAEL'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL, DAWS HILL LANE, HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HP11 1PW APPLICATION NO: CC/20/15 APPLICANT: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BUCKS STREET ATLAS: P173, A2
Date: 29th May 2015
Contact officer: Sabina Kupczyk
Electoral divisions affected: Abbey
Local Members: Cllr Lesley Clarke
Recommendation: A. The Development Control Committee is invited to APPROVE application no. CC/20/15 for erection of a sports hall, changing rooms and two storey classroom block; new parking, footpath access, extension of hard play area; temporary relocation of existing mobile unit and temporary single mobile unit and removal of mobile units upon completion of the development at St Michael's Catholic School, Daws Hill Lane, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 1PW subject to conditions including:
i) The development shall commence no later than three years from the date of any planning consent;
ii) The development shall not be carried out
101 2
other than in complete accordance with the following drawings: A101 Rev B- Proposed red line boundary A105- Existing Layout Plan A110 Rev B- Proposed Ground Floor Plan Sports Hall/ Classroom Block A111 Rev C- Proposed First Floor Plan Sports Hall / Classroom Block A130- Proposed elevations Sports Hall/ Classroom Block A131- Proposed elevations Sports Hall/ Classroom Block A140 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works hard landscaping (submitted 7th May 2015) A141 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works area adjacent to the new building (submitted 7th May 2015) iii) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be other than as set out in the planning application documents. iv) No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan including details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries to avoid school drop off/pick up times; • Routing of construction traffic; • A condition survey of the surrounding highway network; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway. Has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan. v) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
102 3
following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained vi) No part of the development shall commence until a ‘Parking Management Plan’ is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to occupation and thereafter maintained. vii) No part of the development shall commence until the detailed design for the footway, parking and turning area on Daws Hill Lane access road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development viii) No part of the development shall commence until the detailed design for the footway link from the site to The Spinney has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The footway shall be constructed in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development ix) Prior to the planned occupation of the development hereby permitted, the School should maintain an active School Travel Plan. Following occupation of the development hereby permitted, the travel plan shall be reviewed and submitted for approval, on an annual basis, at the end of each academic year. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing modal split for staff and pupils at the school and detailed proposals for future transport provision, with the aim of securing no increase in the number of car movements generated on the school journey. In the event of an increase in the number of car movements, the school shall undertake measures, which will have previously been identified in the travel plan, as are necessary to promote a reduction in the number of car borne trips.
103 4
x) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is complete. The scheme should include but not be limited to: • Discharge rates • Discharge volumes • Maintenance and management of SuDS features • Attenuation features (volume ) • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Detailed drainage layout including SuDS features
xi) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed landscaping scheme including planting and replanting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include, but not limited to:
a. A landscaping plan showing preference for native species of local provenance that reflect the local species mix, species density and age of planting; b. The location, species and number of replacement trees; The replacement of trees lost should be at least a 2:1 c. All replanting should be maintained for a minimum period of 2 years and any failed trees replaced within this defect period d. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the completion of the development and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this condition and approved details
B. That the reasons for the approval of the application are that the application is in compliance with saved policies CS16, CS19 and CS20 of the Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS); saved policies G3, G8, G10, G11, HE6 &T2 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSA) is also relevant.
104 5
C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and pro-actively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The application is submitted by NPS South East Ltd on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council Commissioning and Business Improvement Services. It was received on 10th March 2015 and sent out for consultation on 12th March 2015. The application was advertised by neighbour notification and site notice. The target date for determination expires on 11th June 2015.
2. Additional information, as listed below, was submitted and sent out for re-consultation to the appropriate consultees: A140 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works hard landscaping (submitted 24th April 2015) A141 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works area adjacent to the new building (submitted 24th April 2015) A140 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works hard landscaping (submitted 7th May 2015) A141 Rev B- Revised Proposed external works area adjacent to the new building (submitted 7th May 2015) Revised Aboricultural Impact Assessment (submitted 11th May 2015) Revised Aboricultural Method Statement (submitted 11th May 2015)
Site Description
3. St Michael’s Catholic School (which is amalgam of the former St Augustine’s Primary and St Bernard’s Secondary schools) is a voluntary aided facility which accommodates pupils from nursery age up to the age of 18.
4. The school is located off Daws Hill Lane. The school’s campus is divided into a Primary and Secondary school units. The proposed development mainly relates to the Secondary School which comprises of a number of separate buildings which is located at the end of Daws Hill Lane, accessed through the main entrance gates on the north-east corner of the site through the existing staff/visitor car park.
5. The boundary of the site faces the rear gardens of surrounding properties to the east and west behind mature trees. A large tarmac games court is located to the north of the main building. There is also a large wooded area to the south. The Primary school area is located to the north (see drawing A140- Rev B submitted 7th May 2015 for information on all proposed external works and hard standing).
105 6
6. The proposed development lies within designated Green Space (DSA).
Site History
7. Several planning applications for the school have been determined by District and County Council, the most recent associated with the application site area are: a) Determined by Wycombe District Council: 15/05791/FUL- Change of use of existing caretaker’s house (residential- Use Class C3) to teaching space (Use Class D1) 12/05055/CLE- Certificate of existing lawfulness for the continued siting of a single storey double mobile classroom unit (originally located in 2001) 09/05967/FUL- Erection of canopy to provide external dining facility with associated hardstanding 02/07318/FUL- Removal of 2 no. double mobile units and erection of single storey 5 classroom block and 2 storey building 03/05065/FUL- Construction of single storey extension to gymnasium b) Determined by Buckinghamshire County Council: CC/17/13- Formation of nine vehicle parking spaces CC/23/12- Proposed construction of a new nursery school building for 30 children; associated external works a play area; and creation of 4 new vehicle parking spaces (plus 1 disabled space) with new pedestrian access
Proposal
8. Application CC/20/15 seeks planning permission for erection of a sports hall, changing rooms and two storey classroom block; new parking, footpath access, extension of hard play area; temporary relocation of existing mobile unit and temporary single mobile unit and removal of mobile units upon completion of the development.
9. The proposal will allow additional one form of entry. Currently, overall there is a capacity for 670 students at secondary school and this proposal is for an increase to 835 students.
General
10. St Michael’s Catholic School is a voluntary aided facility for children from nursery age up to 18.
11. The application is to facilitate the expansion of the existing 4FE Secondary School into a 5FE Secondary School. It will include construction of additional classrooms, a sports hall, ancillary spaces and also improve the access and parking arrangements.
12. The current modular buildings are proposed to be removed upon the completion of the development.
106 7
School building
13. The existing buildings on the site are a combination of a single and double storey buildings. The proposed new classroom building is 2 storey and the hall is single storey. The buildings will form L shape, comprising of two buildings that wrap around the existing maths block.
14. The existing mobile classroom units would be temporarily re-sited and additional temporary single unit will be provided. Both mobile units will be removed on completion of the new building.
External Works
15. The existing school access will be altered, a roundabout turning area will be added just prior the secondary school. Also additional car park spaces will be provided including:
8 new spaces in the primary school site (for use by staff of both schools 7 new spaces outside the new sports hall 4 new spaces to the side of the secondary school
16. The existing games court will be extended with a new tarmac area. A footpath leading to the Spinney and Fair Ridge is being proposed.
17. The proposed extension would result in removal of 2 Hawthorn trees, sections of three tree groups. The Lawson Cypress hedge around the existing sports courts is also to be removed to facilitate the extension of sports court and also between the two schools in order to break down barriers between the schools to promote more cohesive vision as a combined school. The proposal also includes new landscaping. It is proposed to provide planting beds around the new classroom block in the courtyard
Planning Policy
18. Relevant polices include saved policies CS16, CS19 and CS20 of the Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS); saved policies G3, G8, G10, G11 &T2 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan, policy DM12 (DSA) is also relevant.
View of the District Council
19. Wycombe District Council raised no objection in principle to this development. It was noted that a part of the proposed building falls within Green Space. The potential impact on transport was noted and the fact that the proposal should make a positive contribution to the delivery of the Local Transport Plan and Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy. In particular it was noted that there is an opportunity to deliver an interim Handy Cross Hub school drop off facility in partnership with the District Council and to utilise the foot route which is being proposed in this application (via Fair Ridge).
107 8
Consultations
20. Local member, Cllr Lesley Clarke supports the application.
21. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal. It was noted that the proposed development will include widening of the existing access road and a drop off area will be provided. The number of car park spaces will be increased which will result in the provision of 84 car parking spaces within the site and 40 spaces on Daws Hill Lane access road. In addition there is a capacity for 6 coaches to park. The number of staff will increase by 8 resulting in 104 FTE. Wycombe District’s parking standards require 1 space per staff member and 2 visitor spaces for schools with up to 20 staff, thereafter 1 visitor space per 10 staff members. The level of car parking is therefore considered to be adequate. It was also noted that the proposal will result in an increase of pupils number from 670 to 835, an increase of 165 students, therefore 33 cycle parking spaces should be provided. It will be also essential for the school to maintain an active School Travel Plan. The RAF Daws Hill mitigation package, will address some of the existing local concerns in relation to traffic conditions on Daws Hill Lane. The Highway Authority also commented on the proposed footway link from the south western part of the site to Fair Ridge Estate via The Spinney. There is a planning consent in place for the redevelopment of the Handy Cross, including a coach way, park and ride and drop off point, which is currently under construction. This will enable some of the school buses and parents to park and walk to school via the new footway reducing the number of vehicles. The proposal is acceptable to Highway Authority subject to the following conditions:
a) No part of the development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan including details of: • Construction access; • Management and timing of deliveries to avoid school drop off/pick up times; • Routing of construction traffic; • A condition survey of the surrounding highway network; • Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; • Loading/off-loading and turning areas; • Site compound; • Storage of materials; • Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway. Has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The development herby permitted shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
b) Prior to occupation of the development space shall be laid out within the site for cycle/scooter parking, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently maintained.
Reason: In order to influence modal choice and to reduce single occupancy private car journeys and comply with national and local transport policy.
c) No part of the development shall commence until a ‘Parking Management Plan’ is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to occupation and
108 9
thereafter maintained.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.
d) No part of the development shall commence until the detailed design for the footway, parking and turning area on Daws Hill Lane access road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.
e) No part of the development shall commence until the detailed design for the footway link from the site to The Spinney has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The footway shall be constructed in general accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: In order to influence modal choice and to reduce single occupancy private car journeys and comply with national and local transport policy.
22. The Sustainability Team noted that the school currently has a School Travel Plan in place (STARS Bronze Level status approved July 2014). It was requested that a condition should be added to ensure the school maintains an active School Travel Plan, which is approved by Buckinghamshire County Council’s Transport, Economy and Environment business unit, in order to encourage active, safe and sustainable travel, reduce car use for the school journey and improve congestion in the local area.
23. The Aboriculturalist provided their comments in relation to the Aboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and suggested that a revised, more detailed AIA should be submitted which should include the assessment of trees adjacent to the proposed new footpath and car park spaces. The proposal also omits some trees and hedgerows in the report. It was also suggested that a protective fencing and other measures should be provided before site preparation or construction works commence. No further comments have been received on the updated Aboricultural Revised Aboricultural Impact Assessment (submitted 11th May 2015) and the Revised Aboricultural Method Statement (submitted 11th May 2015). If any further response is received a verbal update will be provided.
24. The Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development. Because the design and access statement only addresses flood risk from Rivers and surface water flood risk is not mentioned the following condition has been recommended:
Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is complete. The scheme should include but not be limited to: o Discharge rates o Discharge volumes o Maintenance and management of SuDS features
109 10
o Attenuation features (volume ) o Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 o Detailed drainage layout including SuDS features . 25. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objections in principle. A condition was recommended which will allow securing biodiversity net-gain which is reinforced by the NPPF. A finalised landscaping scheme which includes biodiversity enhancement features should be submitted which should include but not limited to: • Detailing the location, species, the density and age of planting; showing the preference for native species of local provenance that reflect the local species mix;
An informative in relation to breeding birds was also recommended.
26. The Council’s Archaeology advisor has no objections to the proposed development.
27. Sport England raised no objection to the proposed development.
Representations
28. Three comments were received from members of the public. Concerns were raised in regards to possible and current levels of HGV movements on Daws Hill Lane and an increase of traffic on already busy Marlow Hill and Daws Hill Lane. One of the residents objected to the proposed footpath with the gate into the Spiney and Fair Ridge. The reason for objection is the possibility of the area becoming a drop off point and an increase in traffic in addition to the one from the new Handy Cross development. It was mentioned that the development will increase the noise levels and providing easier access in the back of the properties on Fair Ridge where the footpath will go, will affect the residents and reduce the level of security and increase possibility of people trespassing. Concerns were raised over the possibility of branches falling down on to the footpath causing health and safety risk. The representations were taken into consideration and addressed in the discussion part of the report.
29. Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum (DHNF) have also commented on the planning application and raised their objection to the proposed development. The DHNF does not object to the school expansion itself. Their objection relates to the to the traffic impact in relation to the proposed expansion of the school alongside other developments such as Pinetrees development, the Handy Cross site redevelopment, Cressex Island development, the prospect of the reserve sites of Abbey Barn South and North being developed alongside no improvements or increase in capacity made on Daws Hill Lane/Heath End Road, Marlow Hill Road and any associated roads. The DHNF is concerned about the increase of traffic on a Daws Hill Lane and possibility of additional traffic being created due to an increase in pupil’s numbers. The parking at the school is considered by DHNF to be inadequate. The proposed access from Fair Ridge site is not considered to be a solution since the area already experience parking problems associated with the John Hamden and Wycombe High schools.
110 11
Discussion
30. The CLG letter to the Chief Planning Officers dated 15th August 2011 set out the Government’s commitment to support the development of state funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. The policy statement states that:
“The creation and development of state funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations.” State funded schools include Academies and free schools as well as local authority maintained schools.
It further states that the following principles should apply with immediate effect: There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools; Local Authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state funded schools in their planning decisions; Local Authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state- funded schools applications; Local Authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests as set out in Circular 11/95; Local Authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible; A refusal of any application for a state-funded school or the imposition of conditions will have to be clearly justified by the Local Planning Authority.
31. In addition to the above, I consider that the key issues for discussion are design, the impact of the development on the amenity, landscaping and trees, flood risk, and the impact on traffic and parking.
Design and Amenity
32. Policy G8 seeks to safeguard the amenity of local residents and refers to design and its impact on daylight and sunlight, privacy, visual intrusion and overshadowing. Policy CS19 of the WDCS and Policy G3 of the WDLP advocate the quality of design, regard to the amenity of neighbouring uses and existing site characteristics. Policy G3 seeks to ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design and layout that respects and reflects the local urban and rural context and maintains and reinforces its distinctiveness and character.
33. The proposed extension at St Michael’s school is simple in form and of contemporary design. The scale of proposed extension is in keeping with the existing site. The brickwork of the new building will match both the red/brown main face brickwork and the darker brown plinth and feature brick. The roof will be a similar dull metal standing seam finish. The windows and doors proposed are to modern specifications and would therefore be of a high standard of security. The end gables of the sports hall and external stair enclosure will have a light grey/brown timber effect cladding board. In addition, the proposed development would be located within the confines of the application site which wil accomplish high security and safety standards for the proposed developments as per the existing educational establishment.
34. The nearest residential properties to the proposed extension are those in Daws Hill Lane, with the closest residential boundary being over 25m away from the proposed school
111 12
extension. The distance is sufficient to prevent overshadowing, any loss of light or aspect. The main two storey classroom wing is located facing the main school campus so that it is accessible from the main school, linking to the main circulation paths. The sports hall faces the entrance roadway and forms the return wing around the existing maths hall which will allow easy evening access to the hall without the need to go into the school itself.
35. The proposed new path will lead to the west boundary of the playing field and then to the north to the new pedestrian gate with timer access controls and power opening leading onto the Spinney and to the south to the new gate leading to the Fair Ridge. The footpaths will be backing onto the residential gardens. The impact of noise arising from the footpath would not be consistent or significantly adverse when considered in the context of the existing educational establishments at the school and the current use of the playing field. In terms of overlooking and privacy, the west site of the playing field is well screened with numerous and mature trees.
36. The extension to the court grounds and the proposed footpath are to be constructed on the area of Green Space. According to policy DM12 of the DSA, the development can only be permitted on Green Space in exceptional circumstances. The proposed development will not result in a fragmentation of the Green Space and a substantial amount of the Green Space is to be retained. Also, the proposed development will allow meeting a statutory duty in providing a much needed school places for pupils to allow additional form of entry. The extension of the court is necessary to allow the allocation of the sport activities which are currently undertaken at the existing court area. The proposed footpath will provide much needed link and provide additional amenity, a pedestrian link from a nearby housing estate to the school.
37. In the light of the above the proposal is considered to be in compliance with saved policy G8 and G3 of the Wycombe District Local Plan and Policy CS19 of the WDCS and policy DM12 of the DSA.
Traffic & Parking
38. Policies CS16 and CS20 of the WDCS require that the proposals should be assessed in relation to the possible impact on the transport network and ensure that all vehicular traffic generated by development does not materially increase traffic problems. The NPPF supports sustainable development and sustainable transport modes should be used where possible. The Policy CS20 of the WDCS and T2 of the WDLP expect development proposals to provide appropriate and effective parking provisions.
39. The proposal includes an increase in parking provision and a roundabout turning area will be provided. The Council has received 3 letters of representation from local residents and DHNF objecting or being concerned to the proposal based on the traffic and parking issues. The Highway Authority was satisfied that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety or convenience and that the proposed car park provision is sufficient in line with the proposal, subject to the inclusion of following conditions and an informative was recommended.
40. It was noted that the proposed development will include widening of the existing access road and a drop off area will be provided. The number of car park spaces will be increased which will result in the provision of 84 car parking spaces within the site and 40 spaces on Daws Hill Lane access road. In addition there is a capacity for 6 coaches to park. The
112 13
number of staff will increase by 8 resulting in 104 FTE. Wycombe District’s parking standards require 1 space per staff member and 2 visitor spaces for schools with up to 20 staff, thereafter 1 visitor space per 10 staff members.
41. The RAF Daws Hill mitigation package, will address some of the existing local concerns in relation to traffic conditions on Daws Hill Lane. The Highway Authority also commented on the proposed footway link from the south western part of the site to Fair Ridge Estate via The Spinney which is considered to be acceptable. There is a planning consent in place for the redevelopment of the Handy Cross, including a coach way, park and ride and drop off point, which is currently under construction. This will enable some of the school buses and parents to park and walk to school via the new footway reducing the number of vehicles. It was also noted that new 33 cycle spaces will need to be provided at the school.
42. The Strategic Transport Model for the area was used to assess the impact of the proposed school expansion. The model is used to determine the traffic distribution of large developments in the Wycombe area, including RAF Daws Hill site and Handy Cross Hub developments. It was noted by the Highway Authority that the improvements to be undertaken as part of the permissions for RAF Daws Hill and Handy Cross Hub should significantly improve the operation of Daws Hill Lane.
43. The school has an active School Travel Plan (STP) and therefore comply with the paragraph 35 and 36 of the NPPF and to mitigate the effect of the development on the surrounding highway network. Subject to the conditions the proposal is considered to be compliant with relevant development plan policies and paragraphs 35 and 36 of the NPPF.
Landscaping & Trees
44. Policy G10 of the WDLP requires that the landscaping forms a part of the development projects. The application proposal includes landscaping proposals which are adequate in principle; however a detailed landscaping scheme will be required as per comments received from the County’s Ecologist, Aboriculturalist.
45. Policy G11 of the WDLP states that the development proposals will be required to retain existing trees and hedgerows of good quality and/or visual significance, or trees and hedgerows of good quality and/or visual significance, or trees and hedgerows which are likely to become visually significant when site is developed.
46. The Aboriculturalist provided their comments in relation to the school’s AIA. It was noted that an updated AIA and AMS should be provided. The general principles for working in or adjacent to the RPAs are acceptable. The updated AIA addresses the issue identified by the Aboriculturalist.
47. The proposed extension would result in removal of 2 Hawthorn trees, sections of three tree groups. The Lawson Cypress hedge around the existing sports courts is also to be removed to facilitate the extension of sports court and also between the two schools in order to break down barriers between the schools to promote more cohesive vision as a combined school. To compensate for the loss of vegetation, the proposal also includes new landscaping. It is proposed to provide planting beds around the new classroom block in the courtyard. In addition to the proposed landscaping, the lost trees will need to be replaced and this is being secured via a carefully worded condition.
113 14
48. It is appreciated that the development would result in the loss of trees at School site; however new landscaping is being proposed Also it is considered that a provision of the drop off area which is proposed to be introduced at the front of the Secondary school to within the school grounds, provides a safety improvement and overrides the benefit of retaining trees in that area.
49. Therefore, subject to carefully worded condition the proposal is believed to be in compliance with Policy G10 and G11 of the WDLP.
. Flood Risk
50. It is noted that the Council’s Flood Management Officer raised no objection to the proposed development; however the design and access statement only addresses flood risk from Rivers and surface water flood risk. Therefore a carefully worded condition is proposed which requires for the surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Biodiversity
51. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that developments should minimise the impact on biodiversity and where possible provide net gains in biodiversity. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objection to the proposal, but recommended a condition which will allow securing biodiversity net-gain which is reinforced by the NPPF. This can be dealt with by way of condition. An informative in relation to bats and breeding birds was also recommended. As such, subject to the inclusion of this condition and an informative, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the biodiversity aims of the NPPF.
Conclusion
52. Application CC/20/15 seeks planning permission for erection of a sports hall, changing rooms and two storey classroom block; new parking, footpath access, extension of hard play area; temporary relocation of existing mobile unit and temporary single mobile unit and removal of mobile units upon completion of the development at St Michael’s School.
53. The proposed development would, on balance, be beneficial to the local community by providing additional teaching accommodation, install a new drop-off area and improve car parking. The development will provide a new sports hall which can be used not only by the school but also the local community. A new footpath with two access points is to be provided which will provide additional amenity. The temporary classroom units will be removed and replaced with a permanent solution.
114 15
Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
54. In considering the recommendation for this planning application, the County Planning Authority has engaged positively and proactively with the applicant/agent by engaging in pre-application discussions. On submission of the planning application and conduction of the consultation process, the County Planning Authority sought to expediently validate the planning application, forward all consultation responses and discuss what actions/additional information would be necessary to determine the planning application. Therefore, it is considered that the County Planning Authority have complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
BACKGROUND PAPERS Application no. CC/20/15 Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS) Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSA) National Planning Policy Framework; and Consultation responses dated March, April and May 2015
115
Agenda Item 9 Buckinghamshire County Council Visit www.buckscc.gov.uk/democracy for councillor information and email alerts for local meetings
Development Control Committee
Title: PROPOSED ERECTION OF A DOUBLE MODULAR BUILDING; REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BUILDING AND GARAGE, NEW PLAY CANOPY APPLICATION NO: CC/24/15 APPLICANT: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BUCKS STREET ATLAS: P184, B3
Date: 18th May 2015
Contact officer: Sabina Kupczyk
Electoral divisions affected: Flackwell Heath, Marlow
Local Members: Cllr David Watson
Recommendation: A. The Development Control Committee is invited to APPROVE application no. CC/24/15 for Proposed erection of a double modular building; removal of existing modular building and garage, new play canopy at Little Marlow Church Of England School School Lane Little Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7 3SA subject to conditions including:
i) The development shall commence no later than three years from the date of any planning consent;
ii) The development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following drawings:
Drawing No. A-100 Site Location Plan Drawing No. A-112 Proposed Site Layout Drawing No. A-101 Proposed Plans & Elevations Rev A Drawing No. A-201 Existing and Proposed UG Services
117 2
iii) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be other than as set out in the planning application documents. A traditional timber weatherboarding is to be used in the external finish of the building and artificial materials should be avoided (laminated vertical effect sheeting)
iv) Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, a plan detailing the management of construction traffic (including deliveries and parking of site operatives vehicles) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with such approved management plan. v) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include, but not limited to:
a. A landscaping plan should include preference for native species of local provenance that reflect the local species mix, species density and age of planting; b. Detail on how the areas will be restored that are noted to be reinstated to grass including the seed mix c. At least two integrate biodiversity features within the fabric of the build a d. Replacement of the hedgerow at a 2:1 ratio i.e. twice the length. The species mix should comprise of native species of local provenance that represent the local species mix. Some appropriate species to this end would be: o Hawthorn (Crataegus spp) o Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) o Field Maple (Acer canpestre) o Hazel (Corylus avellana) o Spindle (Eunoymus europaeus) o Guelder Rose (Viburnum opulus) o Dog Rose (Rosa canina) o Field Rose (Rosa arvensis) e. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season
118 3
following the completion of the development and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this condition and approved details
i) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include but not be limited to: • Discharge Rates • Discharge Volumes • Maintenance and management of SUDS features • Sizing of features – attenuation volume • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365
B. That the reasons for the approval of the application are that the application is in compliance with saved policies CS16, CS19 and CS20 of the Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS); saved policies G3, G8, G10, G11, GB7, HE6 &T2 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSA) is also relevant.
C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the proposed development by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and pro-actively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015
SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. The application is submitted by NPS South East Ltd on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council Commissioning and Business Improvement Services. It was received on 11th March 2015 and sent out for consultation on 16th March 2015. The application was advertised by neighbour notification and site notice. The target date for determination expires on 11th June 2015.
119 4
2. Additional information, as listed below, was submitted on 13th and 16th April 2015 and sent out for re-consultation to the appropriate consultees: Additional information in response to comments made by Flood Team and Drawing No. A-201 Existing and Proposed UG Services (16.04.2015) Aboricultural Impact Assessment by PJC Consultancy (13.04.2015)
Site Description
3. Little Marlow School is a voluntary aided Church of England Infant School which accepts pupils aged 4-7. It is a small village school with three classrooms.
4. The main school building lies to the west of the site. The modular classroom is situated to the east of the main school building on the existing school grassed play area. The pedestrian access to the site is from the south of the site off the School Lane. There is also a parking area to the south of the site with 7 spaces accessed directly off the road. (See Drawing No. A-100 Site Location Plan).
5. The application site is located within the Little Marlow Conservation area and is within Green Belt.
Site History
6. Several planning applications for the school have been determined by the Wycombe District Council:
13/08042/FUL- Change of use of headteachers flat from C3 (Residential) to D1 (Provision of Education) 04/07430/FUL- Permission for erection of attached extension for disabled toilet facility 01/05077/FUL- Permission for erection of classroom extension 94/05195/FUL- Permission for removal of existing (condemned) prefabricated classroom and replace with new
Proposal
7. Application CC/24/15 seeks planning permission for the erection of a double modular building, removal of existing modular building, garage, new play canopy The new double modular building will be located to the south of the existing school building.
It will provide approx. 148m2 of an internal floor area which will provide: 1 reception classroom 1 group dining room pupil’s WC’s and accessible WC 2 store rooms, an entrance and a cloaks area (See Drawing No. A-112 Proposed Site Layout)
General
8. Little Marlow School is a voluntary aided Church of England Infant School which accepts pupils aged 4-7. It is a small village school with three classrooms of single aged pupils.
120 5
9. Two of the classrooms are located in the main school building and one classroom is located on a school’s grassfield.
10. The current modular building is in a poor condition, has no toilets and requires to be replaced with a permanent building.
Proposed modular building
11. The new modular building will be located to the south of the main school building. It will not only provide a replacement classroom but also a group room for specialist subjects such as craft, design and food technology. It will also provide toilet facilities for staff and pupils. The new building will allow the school to meet its duty in providing universal hot school meals for infants. The new modular building will be of a traditional modular construction with felt pitched roof. The new play canopy will allow for free flow internal-external play space required for Reception Class pupils.
External Works
12. Access to the site is off the School Lane. With the exception of the construction period, the proposal will not result in additional traffic movements over and above the existing.
13. The proposal would not result in removal of any trees. The modular building is manufactured off site which allows quick installation and minimal impact on the local community.
14. New hard play area will be provided to the north and east of the new modular building. An area of land will need to be levelled in order to create the east hard area of play.
Planning Policy
15. Relevant polices include saved policies CS16, CS19 and CS20 of the Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS); saved policies G3, G8, G10, G11, GB7, HE6 &T2 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSA) is also relevant.
View of the District Council
16. Wycombe District Council raised no objection in principle to this development. It was noted that the traditional timber weatherboarding should be used in the external finish of the building and artificial materials should be avoided (laminated vertical effect sheeting). It was also noted that the new building will be in close proximity to mature hedge and trees. The development should not harm these trees and hedge should be retained.
121 6
Consultations
17. Local member, Cllr David Watson is generally supportive of this application; he raised concerns over an increase in pupils’ numbers and possible increase in traffic. He proposed that the school, Parish council and Residents Association should formulate a traffic safety solution acceptable to all parties.
18. Little Marlow Parish Council raised objection to the proposal. The reasons for the objection are that there has been no consideration regarding the increased traffic which the proposal would cause; issues with car parking and additional level of vehicles. The Parish Council expressed their willingness to have a dialogue with BCC on the matter.
19. The Highway Authority raised no objections to the proposal. It was noted that the proposed works will not result in an increase in staff or pupils numbers and the proposal is not expected to result in any adverse implications upon the safety and convenience of the highway network. A condition was recommended in the interest of highway safety and prevention of congestion.
20. The Council’s Ecologist raised no objection to the proposed development. A condition was recommended which will allow the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity as expressed in NPPF. A landscaping scheme should be submitted which will: Show preference for native species of local provenance that reflect the local species mix. The species, density and age of planting should be detailed. Include at least two integrate biodiversity features within the fabric of the build. The south east and south west facing corners of the extension appear most suitable. Please see (http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/roofs/internal_boxes.aspx) and/or (http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bat_boxes.html) for guidance. Include sufficient planting to at least replace the length of hedgerow removed. Present how the areas will be restored that are noted to be reinstated to grass including the seed mix.
21. The Aboriculturalist noted that the site has mature trees in close proximity to the south east of the new proposed building. The site plan indicates ground level changes in close proximity to those trees. It was suggested that an arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) should be provided to assess a potential impact of the proposed development on the trees. The AIA was submitted on the 13th April 2015 by the applicant.
22. The Council’s Flood Management Officer in their first response suggested that not enough information was provided in the Design and Access statement in relation to flood risk and no details on surface water management. It was suggested that a detail report should be submitted. Based on the additional information which was submitted on the 16th April 2015 by the applicant response to flood comments and proposed drainage scheme, the Strategic Flood Management Team raised no objections. Due to the nature of the proposed scheme, the following condition has been requested:
Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include but not be limited to: • Discharge Rates • Discharge Volumes
122 7
• Maintenance and management of SUDS features • Sizing of features – attenuation volume • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365
23. The Council’s Archaeology advisor has no objections to the proposed development.
Representations 24. Three members of the public commented on the proposal. Objections were raised on traffic and highways grounds. Concerns were raised in relation to inadequate provision for car parking, lack of drop-off point and current traffic levels. Public believes that the proposal includes an increase in pupils numbers and therefore additional car park and drop-off area should form a part of the proposal in order to improve highway safety.
Discussion
25. The CLG letter to the Chief Planning Officers dated 15th August 2011 set out the Government’s commitment to support the development of state funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. The policy statement states that:
“The creation and development of state funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations.” State funded schools include Academies and free schools as well as local authority maintained schools.
It further states that the following principles should apply with immediate effect: There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools; Local Authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state funded schools in their planning decisions; Local Authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state- funded schools applications; Local Authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests as set out in Circular 11/95; Local Authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible; A refusal of any application for a state-funded school or the imposition of conditions will have to be clearly justified by the Local Planning Authority. 26. In addition to the above, I consider that the key issues for discussion are design, the impact of the development on the amenity, landscaping and trees, flood risk, and the impact on traffic and parking. Consideration should also be given to biodiversity and location of the proposed development within Greenbelt and Conservation area.
Design
27. Policy G8 seeks to safeguard the amenity of local residents and refers to design and its impact on daylight and sunlight, privacy, visual intrusion and overshadowing. Policy CS19 of the WDCS and Policy G3 of the WDLP advocate the quality of design, regard to the amenity of neighbouring uses and existing site characteristics. Policy G3 seeks to ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design and layout that respects and reflects the local urban and rural context and maintains and reinforces its distinctiveness and character. It is considered that the nature of the design proposed double modular building satisfies the requirements of this policy. It will replace an old modular building and
123 8
be located to the south of the main school; within the confines of the application site. I would anticipate that the schools would accomplish high security and safety standards for the proposed developments as per the existing educational establishment. I consider the proposal to be in compliance with policy G8, G3 of the WDLP and policy CS19 of the WDCS.
Amenity
28. The site is not directly adjoined to any residential property and in a fairly remote location. The proposal is therefore considered to have acceptable impact upon existing levels of neighbouring amenity and therefore complies with the Policy G8 of the WDLP and Policy CS19 of the WDCS.
Traffic & Parking
29. Policies CS16 and CS20 of the WDCS require that the proposals should be assessed in relation to the possible impact on the transport network and ensure that all vehicular traffic generated by development does not materially increase traffic problems. The Policy CS20 of the WDCS and T2 of the WDLP expect development proposals to provide appropriate and effective parking provisions. The Council has received letters of representation from local residents objecting to the proposal based on traffic and highways grounds. The proposal does not include any increase in pupil’s numbers, parking provision and it does not propose any alterations to the existing access. The Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and has considered the proposal will not result in any adverse implications upon the safety and convenience of the highway network. A condition was recommended in the interest of highway safety and prevention of congestion.
Landscaping & Trees
30. Policy G10 of the WDLP requires that the landscaping forms a part of the development projects. The application proposal includes landscaping proposals which are adequate in principle; however a detailed landscaping scheme will be required as per comments received from the County’s Ecologist, Aboriculturalist and comments received from the Wycombe District Council. This has been secured via a carefully worded condition.
31. Policy G11 of the WDLP states that the development proposals will be required to retain existing trees and hedgerows of good quality and/or visual significance, or trees and hedgerows of good quality and/or visual significance, or trees and hedgerows which are likely to become visually significant when site is developed. Wycombe District Council commented that the no trees should be harmed during development and the existing hedge should be retained. The proposal would not result in removal of any trees. It is appreciated that the development will result in the loss of a hedge however this will be replaced by a hedgerow at a 2:1 ration.
Flood Risk
32. The Council’s Flood Management has no objection to the development subject to carefully worded condition which requires for the surface water drainage scheme for the site, based
124 9
on sustainable drainage principles, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Biodiversity
33. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that developments should minimise the impact on biodiversity and where possible provide net gains in biodiversity. The Council’s Ecology Advisor raised no objection to the proposal. A condition was recommended which will allow the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity as expressed in NPPF. As such, subject to the inclusion of this condition the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the biodiversity aims of the NPPF.
Conservation area and Green Belt
34. The proposed double modular building is to be located within the grounds of the school. The design of the building and appearance will blend in with the surrounding environment. I am satisfied that the proposed building can be accommodated on site without undue detriment to the neighbours’ amenity and will not cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I consider for the development to comply with the Policy GB7 and G8 of the WDLP.
35. Given the design of the proposed building and the fact that it will replace old and derelict modular classroom it is considered that the proposed development will respect the sensitive character and appearance of the Little Marlow Conservation area and therefore is compliant with the policy HE6 of the WDLP.
Conclusion
36. Application CC/24/15 seeks planning permission for erection of a double modular building; removal of existing modular building and garage, new play canopy at Little Marlow Church Of England School School Lane Little Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7 3SA.
37. I am satisfied that the proposed development would, on balance, be beneficial to the school community by providing a dining space and additional teaching space for children. Subject to conditions as set above application CC/24/15 should be approved.
Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
38. In considering the recommendation for this planning application, the County Planning Authority has engaged positively and proactively with the applicant/agent by engaging in pre-application discussions. On submission of the planning application and conduction of the consultation process, the County Planning Authority sought to expediently validate the planning application, forward all consultation responses and discuss what actions/additional information would be necessary to determine the planning application. Therefore, it is considered that the County Planning Authority have complied with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015
BACKGROUND PAPERS Application no. CC/24/15 Wycombe Development Framework Core Strategy (WDCS)
125 10
Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP) The Wycombe District Council Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (DSA) National Planning Policy Framework; and Consultation responses dated March, April and May 2015
126 Agenda Item 12 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
127
Agenda Item 12 Appendix 1 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
133