Beddington Farm Lands
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Page 1 Agenda Item 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Date: 15 May 2013 Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation Ref: D2012/66220/FUL WARD: D17 / Time Taken: BEDDINGTON NTH 42 weeks Site: Beddington Farmlands Waste Management Facility, Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TD Proposal: Phased demolition of existing buildings and development of an energy recovery facility (ERF) and buildings ancillary to the ERF, construction of two combined heat and power (CHP) pipelines, revisions to the approved restoration plan for the Beddington landfill site, amendments to the existing in-vessel composting operations, removal of existing access and provision of new access road and reconfiguration of access to Thames Water site to north. Applicant: Viridor Waste Manangement Ltd Agent: Mr Steve Molnar, Terence O’Rourke Ltd Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to 1) the prior written conclusion of a legal agreement in the terms set out in appendix C of this report within a period of 6 months from the date of this resolution, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Planning & Transportation, 2) confirmation by the applicant of the delivery of additional areas from within the Hundred Acres and SAM sites to provide additional habitat and access as included in appendix C of the reprot of 24th April and 3) no adverse direction by the Mayor of London to whom the application must be referred. Reason for report to Committee: To consider further information about the air quality and traffic impacts of the development following the deferral of the application by Committee on 24 April 2013. The development represents major development recommended for approval that is not fully compliant with development plan policy Summary of why application proposals are considered acceptable: x Although the proposals would perpetuate waste management on this site in the long term, contrary to community expectations, they are not contrary to policies in the South London Waste Plan wherein the site is expressly safeguarded for continued waste management use. x The development would be contrary to London Plan Policy 7.17 and Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP9 that broadly seek to protect the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider MOL, but there are considered to be other material planning considerations that outweigh the conflict and that these constitute the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development on MOL. These include the urgent need to divert waste from landfill in line with European directives and UK government targets, the existing use of the land for waste management in line with development plan policy and the identification of local markets for heat. x Whilst the delivery of heat to local homes cannot be guaranteed, there is Agenda Item 2 Page 2 a very strong business case for Viridor to enter into a combined heat and power (CHP) agreement with an energy supply company (ESCo), so there is reason to give significant weight to the measures being implemented. x The proposals are considered sufficiently justified in terms of need. x There are no grounds for refusal on air quality or traffic grounds subject to appropriate mitigation to be secured by legal agreement and planning conditions. x Where potentially adverse environmental impacts have been identified, mitigation is proposed to reduce any residual impacts to an acceptable level. It is considered that the very special circumstances necessary to clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriate development within MOL have been demonstrated. The proposal would divert waste from landfill and the South London Waste Plan adopted March 2012 supports the use of the site for waste management purposes. It is considered the proposal would have an adverse impact on the openness of the MOL but, subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the implementation of mitigation which will be enforced through appropriate conditions, there will be an acceptable impact on amenity and nature conservation interests. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 This application was first considered at the meeting of the committee on 24 April 2013. The application was described in full in the report to that committee (copy attached). At that meeting the committee resolved to defer consideration pending further information and assurances concerning air quality and traffic issues, and to consider reinforced conditions relating to those issues and related provisions in the draft Section 106 agreement. 1.2 This report considers air quality and traffic issues in Section 3 below. A revised draft decision letter incorporating one additional condition to address the scheme’s carbon balance, and an amendment to condition 11 to require the establishment of a community liaison forum for complaints and monitoring, is appended to this report. The revised decision letter also includes the updates/corrections set out in the addenda report tabled at the meeting 2 PUBLICITY 3.1 No further consultation has been undertaken. 3.2 Since the matter was last considered on 24 April, three further letters of objection have been received, from addresses in Birchwood Avenue in Wallington, Chisholm Road in Croydon and Carshalton Road in Mitcham. These raise the same concerns about public health listed in the report of 24 April. Additionally, the final letter refers to inadequate compensation for local residents, the need for independent scrutiny of the air quality report and, should the scheme go ahead, the need for independent review of emissions and traffic movements and of the work of the proposed wildlife warden. 3 PLANNING CONSIDERATION Air Quality and health Page 3 Agenda Item 2 3.1 There was understandable concern by those speaking at the committee meeting on 24th April and committee members about air quality and health issues, and this gave rise to one of the grounds for deferring the decision on the application. Appendix A contains information from the Environmental Assessment for the application on air quality, explaining what has been taken into account, how it has been assessed, and the assessment of the Council’s air quality advisers. Appendix A also provides information on a number of the issues which arose at the committee meeting. 3.2 There are two key issues for the committee to take into account in considering the air quality and health impact of the proposal from a planning point of view. Firstly, government advice (which is a material consideration) is that control of processes such as the proposed waste management facility is a matter for the Environment Agency through the permit process. Specifically, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 provides guidance on planning for sustainable waste management. PPS10 states: “26. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the development plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. 27. The planning and pollution control regimes are separate but complementary. Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.” 3.3 PPS10 states that, in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity (paragraph 29). Annex E to PPS10 sets out a number of “locational criteria” for consideration by waste planning authorities in this context, including the following: “g. air emissions, including dust Considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors and the extent to which adverse emissions can be controlled through the use of appropriate and well-maintained and managed equipment and vehicles.” 3.4 This makes clear that the planning system should focus on ensuring that a proposed waste development is an acceptable use of the land, and should consider the impact of emissions to air from the proposed development on sensitive locations. PPS 10 emphasises that primary responsibility for controlling emissions and meeting air quality standards lies with the pollution control regime. 3.5 Secondly, the council’s planning officers and expert advisers on air quality have comprehensively and independently considered the air quality and health impact of the proposals. The proposals have also been independently scrutinised by the Environment Agency, and further work was carried out to address the Agency’s requirements. The objective advice is that the proposals do not pose any material health risk. This conclusion is supported by the recent Defra publication “Energy from Waste: a guide to the debate” (February 2013) which re-emphasises that “while it is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health, such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable”. Agenda Item