Beddington Farm Lands

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 2 Page 4

3.6 Air quality impacts were addressed in paragraphs 6.70 to 6.76 of the report to Committee of 24 April. As noted in paragraph 6.70, the application as originally submitted met the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID) and Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), and this was confirmed by the Council’s own consultant air quality advisers. Paragraph 6.71 records that following the amendment of the application to address concerns about air quality within the Beddington Air Quality Management Area (the changes comprising additional chemical treatment internally and the raising of the height of the twin stacks) NO2 levels in Beddington Lane will rise by no more than 0.8% of the air quality standard, which is considered insignificant by the Environment Agency. The vast majority of nitrogen dioxide in the air is due to emissions from sources including road traffic, regulated waste facilities, power stations and industrial processes. The forecast increment to nitrogen dioxide levels in the borough of Croydon was no more than 1.5% of the air quality standard. This was also considered by both the Environment Agency and the Council’s own consultant air quality advisers. As set out in Paragraph 6.72 of the report to Committee, the forecast effects on air quality in Croydon were found to be insignificant.

3.7 As noted in paragraph 2.12 of the report of 24 April, the ERF, if granted planning permission, will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency to operate. The Permit will set environmental standards for the operation of the plant, which relate amongst other aspects to the control of emissions to the atmosphere. Even if planning permission is granted, the proposed facility cannot operate unless the Environment Agency is satisfied that it is safe. The Environment Agency has a continuing role to ensure that it operates safely. If emission standards or monitoring procedures are improved in the future, these will also be enforceable by the Environment Agency.

3.8 The Environment Agency advised by letter dated 22 March 2013 that it was currently preparing its draft decision on the Environmental Permit. In a further letter dated 24 April it confirmed that that the additional measures proposed go beyond those the applicants would need to apply if the plant were located elsewhere. This reflects the undertaking by the applicant to reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxide to below the level specified in the Waste Incineration Directive/Industrial Emissions Directive, using additional chemical treatment as noted in Section 3.7 above. This additional treatment reflects the constraints imposed by the location of the site in an Air Quality Management Area, and ensures that there would be no significant impacts on air quality in this area.

3.9 Government advice on the role of local planning authorities in matters of health risk associated with waste management facilities is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. This states at paragraph 30 that:

Modern, appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health. The detailed consideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, for human health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities.

3.10 Paragraphs 26 and 27 of PPS10 quoted above confirm that the permitting regime is the primary means for ensuring that ambient air and water quality meet standards which guard against impacts to the environment and human health.

3.11 The NPPF, at paragraph 122, includes the following guidance on how local planning authorities should deal with the potential health risks associated with individual development proposals: Page 5 Agenda Item 2

Local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate efficiently.

3.12 The Health Protection Agency published advice on “The impact on health of emissions to air from waste incineration facilities” in February 2010. This concluded that: “Modern, well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health, but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable.” This advice was reiterated in the recent Defra publication quoted above, “Energy from Waste: a guide to the debate” (February 2013)

3.13 The council’s consultant advisers have scrutinised the applicant’s analysis of health risks associated with the construction of an ERF in this location and conclude that the proposals would not give rise to any adverse health impacts to justify a refusal of planning permission on health grounds. The Council’s advisers have also considered up to date information on the health risks of waste to energy facilities and the questions raised at the meeting on 24 April 2013. These issues are addressed in Appendix A. The council’s air quality consultant will be present at the committee to answers any questions members might have.

Transport

3.14 Traffic generation is one of the most consistent concerns of objectors, and this was reflected in the public comments at the committee, and was also a reason for the committee deferring the application. The concern is that the roads in the area are congested, and it is understandable that the proposals are seen as a contributor to this congestion. However, the planning assessment must take into account the existing traffic generation from the site. Furthermore, the council’s highways advisers confirm that the proposals will generate less traffic than the current use, other than in the construction period, even when operating at maximum throughput.

3.15 This is largely explained by the current proposals generating a high number of deliveries to the site of inert materials associated with landfill cell creation, which would not be required for the ERF. In fact, the difference is so great that it even allows additional commercial and industrial waste to be brought into the site and still not exceed the current traffic levels.

3.16 There was concern amongst speakers at the last meeting and by committee members that in the longer term, any reduction in household waste as a result of increased recycling could lead to more commercial and industrial waste being brought into the site. However, it should be noted that the site already takes commercial and industrial waste deliveries and these are included in the baseline traffic figures, so this is not a new type of delivery traffic. In addition, our highways advisers confirm that for foreseeable levels of recycling, the traffic will be within the current limits (as above). Furthermore, the ERF has a maximum capacity, and the traffic assessment has been based on this, and shows that traffic will be less than under current operations at the site even if it operates to this maximum throughput.

3.17 It should also be born in mind that waste planning objectives apply equally to commercial and industrial waste, so it is just as valid to improve the environmental performance of commercial and industrial waste by recovering energy from it, as it is for household waste. The information with the application confirms that for foreseeable circumstances, residual commercial waste need only be sourced from reasonable proximity to the site. Agenda Item 2 Page 6

3.18 The main traffic concern, locally is Hillers Lane, which is the main southern access to the Beddington Lane industrial area, The applicants have agreed to route all commercial and industrial traffic to avoid Hillers Lane, which is an improvement on the current situation where there is no such control over commercial and industrial waste traffic to the site. The enforcement measures proposed will include number plate recognition to unequivocally monitor the vehicles on site to facilitate enforceable monitoring. CCTV will also record the direction of travel to facilitate proactive monitoring of traffic routing.

3.19 Since the last meeting, the applicants have also agreed to supplement the lorry routing enforcement measures with the establishment of a community forum comprising representatives of the applicant, LB Sutton and the local community, to provide an active forum for holding the applicant to account on lorry routing commitments. The forum’s remit will also include all other aspects of monitoring including air quality, noise, dust, odours and other environmental and amenity issues. The community forum will be established for the construction period, and will continue to operate for the operational life of the facility. This is now provided for in condition 11 of the proposed permission

3.20 The applicant’s transport assessment, which has been independently assessed, is considered robust. Prior to the submission of material by the applicant’s consultants there were discussions on the content of the Transport Assessment and the assessment itself included base level traffic counts, detailed estimates of future traffic activity and estimates of junction performance. These are considered satisfactory by the council’s traffic engineer and Transport for London. The transport assessment demonstrates that the application proposals would generate less traffic than the current landfill activities. Officer’s assessment of the traffic impacts of the development remains as set out in paragraphs 6.30 to 6.39 of the report of 24 April.

3.21 Recommended conditions 22 and 23 would address the issues of traffic management and travel planning during the construction of the facility. Conditions 24 and 25 would do the same during its operation. Condition 21 addresses the environmental impacts of construction work and related lorry movements on the local community and natural environment. Condition 26 requires CCTV monitoring of lorry movements. The proposed Section 106 legal agreement would require the applicants to agree a lorry routing strategy with the council and to enforce this through appropriate signage and CCTV surveillance. The conditions and legal provisions, as drafted, are considered to offer a comprehensive response to concerns about lorry movements.

Carbon Intensity Floor (CIF)

3.22 The Mayor of London has set a Carbon Intensity Floor (CIF) in the municipal waste strategy for London, to ensure that facilities for energy generation using residual waste should have a carbon intensity less than, or equal to, the source of energy generation it displaces (typically a combined cycle gas turbine plant). The applicant has submitted evidence to show that, when operating with CHP, the ERF will meet the required CIF level. The applicant has agreed to an additional planning condition to monitor performance of the ERF against the CIF once heat is being delivered. This will help to demonstrate progress towards meeting carbon reduction targets.

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The conclusions remain as set out in the report of 24 April. The permanent loss of part of the site to development and the impact this would have on the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider MOL remain significant policy concerns. However, the material considerations in favour of the development are also significant and it is considered that sufficient very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify inappropriate development on MOL. There are considered to be Page 7 Agenda Item 2

no grounds to refuse the application on air quality, health risk or transport grounds. The balance is considered to be clearly in favour of the scheme.

7.13 The recommendation, therefore, is that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the draft decision letter, the completion of the legal agreement to secure the mitigation measures outlined in this report and confirmation of the delivery of the additional areas to provide additional habitat and access to the restored lands.

Background Papers: D2012/66220/FUL

Drawings and other documents can be viewed on line – 1) Go to page: http://82.43.4.135/FASTWEB/welcome.asp 2) Enter Planning Application Number: D2012/66220 3) Click on Search and View Current Applications 4) Click on View Plans & Documents Agenda Item 2 Page 8

Appendix A – Air quality and health impact

Air quality impact of the proposed development

A.1 This section provides a summary of the assessment of air quality impacts provided in the Environment Statement and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement submitted by the Applicant in February 2013.

A.2 The planning application and supporting documents includes a detailed analysis of the air quality impact of the proposed development. The application includes an assessment of all the pollutants specified in the Waste Incineration Directive/Industrial Emissions Directive. Additionally, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ammonia and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were assessed. The substances considered were (Environmental Statement 6.21 and 6.22):

x Particulate matter (PM10) x Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) x Sulphur dioxide (SO2) x Carbon monoxide (CO) x Hydrogen fluoride (HF) x Hydrogen chloride (HCl) x Total organic carbon (TOC) as benzene x Dioxins and furans x Trace metals: cadmium (Cd), thallium (Tl), mercury (Hg), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and vanadium (V).

x Ammonia (NH3) x Fine particulate matter(PM2.5) x Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

A.3 The forecast levels of the released substances due to emissions from the proposed facility were assessed against standards and guidelines for air quality which were specified for the protection of public health, taking into account potential effects on the most sensitive members of the community. As well as considering the contribution from the proposed facility, the overall levels of air pollutants due to emissions from the proposed facility added to baseline levels already present in the atmosphere were considered. In every case, forecast levels of released substances made an insignificant contribution to ambient air quality, and/or the forecast overall levels of air pollutants were well within the air quality standard (see Environmental Statement 6.116 to 6.169 for further details).

A.4 Detailed attention was paid to levels of nitrogen dioxide because baseline levels of nitrogen dioxide in some locations are close to or above the air quality standard. It was therefore important to ensure that the proposed facility made an insignificant contribution to environmental levels of nitrogen dioxide in these locations. The Environment Agency has specified a widely-used benchmark, that a contribution of less than 1% to a long-term mean air quality standard can be screened out as insignificant. The revisions to the scheme set out in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant in February 2013 ensure that the forecast contribution to levels of nitrogen dioxide at locations where baseline levels are close to or above the standard will be 0.63% of the air quality standard or less (Table 6.1). On this basis, the forecast contribution can be considered insignificant.

A.5 For some substances (in particular, dioxins and furans), it is important to consider the potential for dietary exposure, as well as exposure via inhalation. This was addressed in the Environmental Statement, and it was demonstrated that the proposed facility would Page 9 Agenda Item 2

make a minimal and insignificant contribution to dietary exposure to dioxins and furans by comparison to the Government’s Tolerable Daily Intake for these substances. The risks to health associated with exposure to dioxins and furans and other substances were also shown to be insignificant by reference to established standards and guidelines (Environmental Statement Technical Annex Air Quality Appendix B Section B10).

A.6 A detailed analysis of the application and further information submitted in February 2013 was carried out by the Council’s specialist consultants. As well as stack emissions, this covered a range of other issues including construction phase impacts, cumulative impacts, consideration of sensitive habitats, ash handling, odour control, traffic emissions, and plume visibility. This detailed review found that the proposals are acceptable in overall terms from the point of view of impacts to air quality. This analysis underlies the conclusions set out in Sections 6.70 to 6.71 of the Officers’ Report to the Development Control Committee:

“The application as originally submitted met the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID), and this was confirmed by the Council’s own consultant air quality advisers. However, concern remained about the impact of even very slight increases in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in a small area of Beddington Lane, within the Beddington Air Quality Management Area, where NO2 levels are already occasionally at the limit. … Following discussions with both the Council and the Environment Agency, the applicants have amended the scheme in two respects. … The Environment Agency has confirmed that NO2 levels in the Beddington Air Quality Management Area should now rise by no more than 0.8% above current levels, which is considered negligible by the Agency. A similar conclusion was reached by the Council’s air quality advisers.”

Process safety

A.8 Committee members and members of the public expressed concern with regard to the control of emissions from the proposed facility. Concern was expressed regarding process breakdowns and breaches of licence conditions. This section provides a summary of process controls as set out in the Environment Statement.

A.9 The application’s Environmental Statement sets out details of the proposed flue gas treatment and monitoring arrangements, and ash handling techniques. These are considered by the Council’s advisers to represent appropriate means of controlling and monitoring emissions from the proposed facility. Provided this equipment is designed, installed and operated correctly, it will provide appropriate control of emissions of the substances listed in Section A.2 above. Detailed matters relating to the design and operation of emissions control and monitoring equipment is a matter for the permitting process.

A.10 The primary means of monitoring the impact of emissions to air from the proposed facility during operation is via continuous monitoring of emissions. Continuous measurement of the following parameters is proposed (Appendix B section 3.163):

x Sulphur dioxide x Nitrogen oxides x Nitrous oxide x Ammonia x Hydrogen chloride x Hydrogen fluoride x Volatile organic compounds (Total Organic Carbon) Agenda Item 2 Page 10

x Particular matter x Carbon monoxide

A.12 As with any new industrial scale facility, some issues with the process may be expected to occur, particularly during the commissioning phase. Abnormal operating conditions were specifically addressed by the applicant in the application for an Environmental Permit (Environmental Permit Application, “Air Quality and Human Health Effects Assessment Annex: Abnormal Emissions Assessment”). There is no reason to consider that any such process malfunctions would have any significant implications for public health. In any case, it is the responsibility of the operator and the Environment Agency to manage any such issues. The Environment Agency would have the power to revise or ultimately withdraw the operating permit, in the unlikely event that breaches of the permit conditions could not be addressed by the operator.

Specific points raised at Development Control Committee Meeting 24 April 2013

A 14 This section provides the Officers’ advice on specific points raised at Development Control Committee Meeting 24 April 2013

Assumption that the proposed facility will or could affect health A.15 Many concerns expressed at the meeting were predicated on the assumption that the proposed facility would affect people’s health, or that there would be a significant risk of effects on health. As set out in Sections 3.10 to 3.12 above, current advice from the Government and Health Protection Agency is that any impacts on health are “likely to be very small and not detectable.” These findings are consistent with the assessment of emissions to air and risks to health for the proposed South London ERF (see Section 3.13).

A.16 The Council’s specialist advisers have carried out their own review of published information relating to the potential effects on health of waste incineration facilities. This analysis considered some of the key issues relating to effects on health, including nanoparticles/ultrafine particles; dioxins and furans; and abnormal operating conditions. The study addressed carcinogens and cancer risk; infant mortality; adverse birth outcomes; and respiratory disease. It was concluded that emissions from Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities as currently operated in the UK would not be expected to give rise to any significant effects on health. Taking account of the uncertainty inherent in epidemiological studies of EfW facilities, EfW facilities as currently operated are most unlikely to have any significant or detectable effects on cancer incidence, the incidence of adverse birth outcomes, or the incidence of respiratory disease.

A.17 Members of the public are clearly concerned about the risks to health posed by waste incineration facilities in general, and the proposed South London ERF in particular. The scrutiny and analysis carried out by officers and specialist advisers, together with recent Government advice and guidance, indicate that these acknowledged public concerns are not based on objective evidence. Provided facilities such as the proposed South London ERF are properly designed and operated, no significant or detectable effects on health would occur.

Concerns about impacts on birth defects A.18 A number of studies have investigated the potential effects of emissions from EfW facilities on adverse birth outcomes such as congenital abnormalities. The weight of evidence is that there is generally no detectable association between exposure to emissions from EfW facilities and birth outcomes, particularly when considering facilities operating to current European standards.

Concerns about impacts on cancer risk Page 11 Agenda Item 2

A.19 In common with many other activities, EfW facilities are responsible for emissions of substances which are known or suspected carcinogens. The risks posed by waste incineration facilities in general can be understood from a review of studies of the incidence of cancer in populations potentially exposed to emissions from waste to energy facilities. Alongside this, it is also possible to evaluate the cancer risk posed specifically by the proposed facility. This calculation is set out in the planning application for the proposed facility, and has been evaluated by Council officers and specialist advisers.

A.20 Published research indicates that there may have been a detectable increase in cancer risk associated with exposure to emissions from waste incineration facilities in the past, when emissions were at much higher levels than those currently permitted or recorded. However, expert reviews are consistent in finding that there is no evidence of an increased risk of cancer associated with EfW facilities operated to current UK and European standards.

Concerns about impacts on infant mortality A.21 Studies of the rates of infant mortality in wards surrounding EfW facilities have been made available (e.g. UKHR, 2009). These maps are interpreted to suggest that the rates of infant mortality are higher downwind of EfW facilities and lower upwind of EfW facilities. It is then suggested that the EfW facilities are the cause of the apparent increase in infant mortality. In fact, these studies are flawed for a number of reasons. There is in many instances no clear pattern of higher rates in wards downwind (north- east) of the facility and lower rates upwind (south-west) of the facility. The actual pattern is more complex, and appears to be more closely aligned to aspects such as other sources of environmental pollution, or housing density. Furthermore, similar patterns of infant mortality are observed in areas with no EfW facility. It is concluded that claims of the effects of EfW facilities on infant mortality made on the basis of mapping studies of this nature should not be considered a matter of concern.

Reference to “Six cities study” A.22 The well-known Harvard “Six Cities Study” was mentioned at the Committee meeting. This study was originally published in 1993, and provided good evidence that airborne particulate matter has a significant effect on mortality. An update to the study was published in 2012 which found a similar influence of PM2.5 on all-cause mortality to the 1993 study. It is important for Committee members to be aware that the reported increase of 37% in deaths due to lung cancer mentioned at the Committee meeting on 24 April is not linked to waste incineration, but is associated with a difference of 10 3 Pg/m in levels of PM2.5.

A.23 The Six Cities study emphasises the importance of taking account of PM2.5 when considering the impact of the proposed facility on air quality and health. This was done by evaluating the impact of the proposed facility against the Government’s air quality standard for PM2.5, which was specified on the basis of the 1993 Six Cities study and other research. It was found that the proposed development would make an insignificant and non-detectable contribution to environmental levels of PM2.5. Other sources such as road traffic are much more significant sources of airborne PM2.5, and would remain so whether or not permission is granted for the proposed development.

Reference to dioxins accumulating in fatty tissues A.24 At the Committee meeting, reference was made to the accumulation of dioxins and furans in fatty tissues. It is correct to say that dioxins and furans accumulate in fatty tissues. The long residence time of dioxins and furans in the fatty tissues of the body is one reason why it is important to ensure that the potential impacts of emissions of dioxins and furans from the proposed facility are properly addressed. Agenda Item 2 Page 12

A.25 The planning application included a detailed study of the risks to health posed by direct and indirect exposure to dioxins and furans (Technical Annex Air Quality - Appendix B Human Health Risk). This study was scrutinised carefully by Council officers and specialist advisers. It was concluded that the study shows that the risks to health and incremental exposure to dioxins and furans would not be significant or detectable. Other sources, such as accidental fires, are much more significant sources of emissions to air of dioxins and furans, and would remain so whether or not permission is granted for the proposed development.

Ongoing Health Protection Agency research A.26 The Health Protection Agency is sponsoring a study to extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run Municipal Waste Incinerators affect human health. The study was launched in January 2012. At the time, the HPA said:

“The HPA’s current position that well run and regulated modern Municipal Waste Incinerators (MWIs) are not a significant risk to public health remains valid, but the study is being carried out to extend the evidence base and to provide further information to the public on this subject. …

HPA chief executive Justin McCracken said: ‘It is important to stress that our current position on the potential health effects of well run and regulated modern Municipal Waste Incinerators remains valid. This is that while it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants.

‘However, we recognise that there are public concerns about this issue and this study will provide valuable new evidence. HPA continually seeks to review and extend the evidence base on which it bases its advice. We are therefore delighted to support this new study with researchers from the MRC-HPA Centre for Environment and Health.’”

A.27 The HPA’s comments confirm that the position set out in its 2010 position statement remain valid. There is therefore no reason to delay a decision on the proposed South London ERF until the findings of the HPA study are published.

Fine/ultra-fine particles A.28 There was significant discussion at the Committee meeting of the potential impact of fine and ultrafine particles emitted from the proposed facility.

A.29 Emissions of fine particulate matter are assessed in the Environmental Statement. This information was carefully scrutinised by Council officers and specialist advisers. The forecast levels of PM2.5 due to emissions from the proposed development are set out in Table 6.25 of the Environmental Statement. This shows that levels of PM2.5 are forecast to comply with the air quality objective whether or not permission is granted for the proposed facility. The highest forecast contribution from the proposed facility is 0.11 µg/m3. This is 0.43% of the air quality standard of 25 µg/m3. This contribution would not be significant or detectable by any practicable means.

A.30 The above information refers to fine particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, PM2.5. Much smaller particles ("ultrafine" or "nano" particles – that is, particles with a diameter of 0.1 microns or less) are of particular concern with regard to their potential effects on health. Nanoparticles are emitted from any combustion source, including the proposed South London ERF, and are also used in some products such as cosmetics. Recent research indicates that EfW facilities would be expected to make a small contribution to environmental levels of ultrafine particles, as is the case in relation to fine Page 13 Agenda Item 2

particles. This suggests a minimal and non-detectable contribution of waste incineration to environmental levels of fine and ultrafine particulate matter. More significant sources include road traffic, industrial sources and secondary particulates.

Impact on levels of nitrogen dioxide in an area where levels are already too high A. 31 Detailed attention was paid to levels of nitrogen dioxide because baseline levels of nitrogen dioxide in some locations are close to or above the air quality standard. It was therefore important to ensure that the proposed facility made an insignificant contribution to environmental levels of nitrogen dioxide in these locations. The Environment Agency has specified a widely-used benchmark, that a contribution of less than 1% to a long-term mean air quality standard can be screened out as insignificant. The revisions to the scheme set out in the Addendum to the Environmental Statement ensure that the forecast contribution to levels of nitrogen dioxide at locations where baseline levels are close to or above the standard will be 0.63% of the air quality standard or less (Addendum Table 6.1). On this basis, the forecast contribution can be considered insignificant. In a planning context, this indicates that the decision on whether to grant permission for the proposed South London ERF will have no material effect on air quality in the Air Quality Management Area.

Process malfunctions A. 32 From time to time, any industrial facility is likely to experience a process malfunction, which could result in an increase in emissions. For waste incineration facilities, the WID/IED sets out specific limits on emissions during process breakdowns. Articles 14, 37, 46 and 47 of the Industrial Emissions Directive contain specific requirements regarding limits on operations under process malfunction conditions. It is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to take process malfunctions into account in its decision whether to issue a permit for the proposed facility, and in regulating the process if a permit is issued.

A.33 At the meeting, reference was made to a plant at Dumfries in Scotland which was reported to have experienced 170 permit breaches during its first year of operation. The Dumfries plant does not use the moving grate technology which is proposed for the Beddington Energy Recovery Facility (Environmental Statement 3.131 to 3.135). The Dumfries plant uses a relatively novel gasification technology. It is understood that the majority of these breaches were because the Dumfries facility did not have the correct type of boiler. Nevertheless, other factors being equal, a higher number of issues would be expected during commissioning of a plant using newer technology (such as the Dumfries facility) compared to established technology (such as the proposed Beddington facility). Because the proposed facility uses established technology for the furnace and associated plant, the Committee can have confidence that any problems or malfunctions could be readily dealt with, drawing on experience from other plants in the UK and worldwide.

Dust pollution during the construction period A.34 At the Committee meeting, a question was raised regarding the control of dust during the construction period. As would be normal for any construction project of this scale, dust control would be addressed via the Construction Environmental Management Plan. This is specified under proposed Condition 22 in the Second Schedule to the Draft Decision Letter:

“(22) Prior to the Commencement Date, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall provide details about environmental control procedures during construction and shall incorporate the following details: … (b) Proposed dust management measures … Agenda Item 2 Page 14

The CEMP shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the construction works being carried out on the site.”

Comparison of health impact of waste to energy compared to landfill A.35 At the Committee meeting, a question was raised regarding how the risks to health of the existing landfill operation at Beddington Lane would compare to the risks to health posed by the proposed facility.

A.36 There is no specific information available to allow the health risks posed by the proposed South London ERF to be compared to those of the existing landfill operations at the site. However, a number of general comments can be made.

(a) Both the existing landfill and the proposed South London ERF would be obliged to operate so as not to cause significant pollution.

(b) While the proposed South London ERF would give rise to emissions to air, the effects on health of these emissions has been assessed in detail and found to be insignificant.

(c) The proposed South London ERF would enable controlled combustion of the waste to take place, with monitoring of process parameters and emissions to air at all times. In contrast, management and monitoring of the landfill operation is much more challenging because of the difficulties of accessing the waste, and susceptibility to changing environmental conditions such as rainfall and air pressure.

(d) Landfill sites can give rise to odour impacts from time to time, due to the presence of odorous materials at the time of disposal or during decomposition in the landfill. While waste incineration facilities can also give rise to odour impacts, such events are less common because the waste is normally contained for a short period within a sealed building with active air extraction. Similarly, landfill sites can occasionally harbour flies, whereas this is not normally a significant issue for waste incineration facilities.

(e) Emissions from the proposed ERF would take place within a short space of time from delivery of waste to the facility. In contrast, emissions from the landfill site would take place over a number of years, with a tail-off in emissions taking place over a period of decades.

(f) Any emissions from the body of the landfill, leachate treatment plant or landfill gas combustion plant would be released at or close to ground level. In contrast, emissions from the proposed South London ERF would be passed through the air pollution control system, and discharged from a height of 95 metres above ground level. Page 15 Agenda Item 2

Mr S Molnar D2012/66220/FUL Terence O'Rouke Ltd Everdene House, Deansleigh Road DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Bournemouth Dorset BH7 7DU

The Council of the London Borough of Sutton as Local Planning Authority under the provisions of Part lll of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, DO HEREBY GRANT permission for the development specified in the First Schedule hereto, subject to the conditions (if any) specified in the Second Schedule.

WARNING: It is in your interests to ensure you obtain the approval of the Local Planning Authority, where the conditions require that to occur. Failure to comply with the following conditions may lead to enforcement action to secure compliance.

FIRST SCHEDULE

The development specified in the application for planning permission received as valid on 25/07/2012 namely:

Beddington Farmlands Waste Management Facility, Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TD

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.

SECOND SCHEDULE

(1) The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this decision. Not less than fourteen days prior notice in writing shall be given to the local planning authority of the intended start date for the commencement of any development under the terms of this permission, including any site preparation and

1 Agenda Item 2 Page 16

construction works for the development of the Energy Recovery Facility (hereinafter ERF). Within seven days of the commencement of the development the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the date of commencement, referred to hereinafter as the Commencement Date.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, and to establish the date that work commences on the development in the interest of the proper planning of the area.

(2) Not less than seven days prior notice shall be given in writing of the intended date for the first importation of waste to the ERF, which shall be referred to hereinafter as the Commissioning Date. The period of operation of the ERF for the purposes of these conditions shall be the period from the Commissioning Date until the decommissioning of the ERF in accordance with the provisions of Condition 45.

Reason: To establish the date that the ERF becomes operational, in the interest of the proper planning of the area.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in the conditions attached to this permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:

227701/AP/01, 227701/DP/01, 1023187-BD-009 Rev J, 1023187-BD-020 Rev H, 1023187-BD-021-1 Rev J, 1023187-BD-021-2 Rev G, 1023187-BD-022-1 Rev J, 1023187-BD-022-2 Rev J, 1023187-BD-029 Rev B, 1023187-BD-030 Rev C, 1023187- BD-031 Rev B, 1023187-BD-032 Rev D, 1023187-BD-033 Rev D, 1023817-PL-02 Rev A, 1023817-PL-04 Rev E, 1023817-PL-05 Rev E, 1023817-PL-06 Rev E, 1023187-HI- 01 Rev G, 1023187-HI-02 Rev I, 1023187-HI-03 Rev C, 1023187-HI-04 Rev G, 1023187-HI-05 Rev B, 1023187-HI-06 Rev E, 1023187-HI-08 Rev C, 1023187-HI-09 Rev D, 1023187-HI-10 Rev C, 1023187-HI-12 Rev B, 1023187-DR-03 Rev G, 1023187- DR-06 Rev B, 1190-014 Sheet 1 of 4 Rev A7, 1190-014 Sheet 2 of 4 Rev A7, 1190-014 Sheet 3 of 4 Rev A7, 1190-014 Sheet 4 of 4 Rev A7, 227701B-PL-100 Rev B, 227701B- PL-101 Rev B, 227701B-PL-102 Rev A, 227701B-PL-103 Rev C, 227701B-PL-104 Rev C, 227701B-PL-105 Rev C, 227701B-PL-106 Rev C, 227701B-PL-107 Rev C, 227701B-PL-108 Rev C, 227701B-PL-109 Rev C, 227701B-PL-110, 227701B-PL-111 Rev C, 1023187-BD-040 Rev B, 1023187-BD-041 Rev B, 1023187-BD-043 Rev B

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

(4) Prior to the installation of any facing materials to be used on the exterior of each building, samples of the materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Each building shall be erected and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure compliance with Policy BP12 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document which seek to ensure high standards of design.

(5) Notwithstanding the indicative landscaping proposals shown on drawing 227701B- PL-101Rev B, prior to the Commencement Date a scheme for the permanent landscaping of the area referred to on the drawing as the 2017 planting area shall be

2 Page 17 Agenda Item 2 submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: (a) Details of all existing trees and hedgerows within the 2017 planting area which are to be retained and measures for their protection during construction. b) Details and specifications of planting including the species, origin and density of planting. c) A timetable for implementation.

The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting and seeding season following the Commencement Date or in accordance with the approved timetable.

Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years from the Commissioing Date shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Policy BP12 of the Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM1 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document which seek to retain and replace trees and requires landscaping schemes to provide a satisfactory townscape.

(6) Prior to the Commencement Date, a habitat management scheme for the area referred to on drawing 227701B-PL-101Rev B as the 2017 planting area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall provide details of the habitat management measures to be employed to protect the wildlife and biodiversity of the area during the construction of the ERF and to enhance its potential to sustain wildlife after the development is complete. The scheme shall address in particular the need for replacement habitats for bats and tree sparrows and provision for invertebrates. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme. Any permanent measures agreed shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To protect wildlife and the biodiversity of the site during building works and into the future in accordance with Policies PMP5 & PMP9 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM17 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(7) Prior to the Commencement Date, a tree sparrow mitigation strategy to cover the entire application site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include measures to safeguard the sparrow population during the construction of the ERF and the land restoration process and shall specify the location of nesting habitat and tree sparrow boxes. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and any permanent measures agreed shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the important tree sparrow population across the whole of the application site in accordance with Policies PMP5 and PMP9 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM17 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(8) Notwithstanding the details shown in the drawings submitted with the application, prior to the Commencement Date full engineering details including road specification,

3 Agenda Item 2 Page 18

drainage and street lighting of the new access road and associated alterations to the Beddington Lane roundabout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. A road safety audit shall be carried out at the appropriate stages of development and agreed with the local highway authority, when the limits of adoption shall be also agreed. The buildings hereby permitted shall not accept any waste for processing until the highway works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the development and in the interest of public safety in accordance with Policy BP10 of the Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM21 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(9) No development shall take place until the applicant has 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. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out only by a qualified investigating body acceptable to the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure there is an opportunity to properly investigate and record information on this site which is considered to be of archaeological interest in accordance with Policy DM4(e) of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(10) Prior to the Commencement Date a construction method statement must be agreed with the local planning authority for any subsurface structure.

Reason: Drawing No. 1023187-BD-020 indicates that the proposed ERF is to have a waste bunker with a maximum depth of 12 metres below ground level. Drawing No. 1190-014 indicates that the CHP trench is to be 3.25 metre deep. Groundwater within the Hackney Gravel Formation is likely to be around 2 metres below ground level. Subsurface structures may therefore need to be engineered to prevent groundwater ingress.

(11) Prior to the Commencement Date a scheme setting out procedures for the recording and investigation of all complaints relating to noise, odour, site-related traffic, lorry routing and other amenity related matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of all building works and the period of operation of the ERF. The scheme shall include provision for a community forum including representatives of the applicants, London Borough of Sutton and the local community to consider matters of community concern relating to noise, odour, site-related traffic, lorry routing and other amenity related matters for both the construction and operation of the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the local community in accordance with Policies SO4 & SO17 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM2 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(12) Prior to the Commissioning Date, a report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority demonstrating that the ERF has been constructed and equipped in accordance with the planning application proposals to be Combined Heat and Power (CHP) ready, including a boiler and turbine to generate the steam and

4 Page 19 Agenda Item 2 electricity required; the turbine designed with suitable heat off-take points so that the heat can be extracted from the system; the construction of the CHP room for the future installation of pumps and heat exchangers.

Reason: To ensure the development is CHP ready in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.5 and 5.6.

(13) Prior to the Commissioning Date, a CHP Feasibility Review, assessing potential commercial opportunities for the use of heat from the plant, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Review shall provide for the on- going monitoring and full exploration of potential commercial opportunities to use heat from the plant and for the provision of subsequent reviews of such commercial opportunities as necessary.

Reason: To ensure opportunities for the use of waste heat are explored through the life of the development in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.5 and 5.6.

(14) Before any CHP pipework is installed, full technical specifications including the diameter of the pipework to be laid between the ERF and the site boundary shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The pipework shall be installed in accordance with the approved specifications.

Reason: To ensure the pipework is sufficient to support a viable CHP network.

(15) Once the ERF is delivering heat to the district heating network the operator shall monitor the performance of the ERF against the Carbon Intensity Floor (CIF) and provide a report to the council annually, the first report being due twelve months after the first heat supply commences and subsequent reports following at twelve month intervals thereafter. The CHP Working Group to be established through the s106 legal agreement will be responsible for monitoring the annual heat supply reporting.

Reason: To ensure compliance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Policy DM5 of the Sutton Site Development Policies Development Plan Document

(16) All parking, turning and vehicular circulation areas shall be surfaced and marked in accordance with drawing 1023187-PL-06E prior to the Commissioning Date and shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure adequate vehicular circulation around the site and car parking for staff and visitors, in the interest of public safety.

(17) The earth bunds extending along the west and north sides of the ERF and administrative buildings, as detailed on drawing 227701B-PL-101Rev B, shall be completed, seeded and planted prior to the Commissioning Date. The south-western extension of the bund shown on drawings 227701B-PL-102 Rev A shall be completed, seeded and planted within six months of the demolition of the IVC building. All bunds shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To screen operational activities associated with the ERF in views from the restored land to the south-west, west and north and to afford protection for adjacent wildlife habitats, in accordance with Policies PMP5 & PMP9 of the Sutton Core Planning Strategy and Policy DM17 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Deocument.

5 Agenda Item 2 Page 20

(18) The water storage ponds and associated pumping station located to the west of the ERF and administrative building, as detailed on drawing 1023187-DR-03G & 06B shall be completed prior to the Commissioning Date and shall be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure adequate water supply to the adjacent wet grasslands which are a key wildlife habitat.

(19) Notwithstanding the details shown in the drawings submitted with the application, details to indicate the position, design, and type of boundary treatment to be erected around the perimeter of the site including the new access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of the acoustic screen to be erected along the southern side of the new access road. The approved boundary treatment shall be completed before the Commissioning Date (except in the case of any fencing to be erected following the removal of the IVC building) and shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure appropriate boundary treatment in the interest of visual amenity and public security and to safeguard against noise disturbance associated with the arrival of lorries to the site.

(20) Prior to the Comissioning Date, details of the brown roof, to include a planting specification and arrangements for its subsequent maintenance and management, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The brown roof shall be completed in accordance with the approved details within six months of the Commissioning Date and shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure the provision of the brown roof as indicated in the application drawings, in the interest of local biodiversity.

(21) Prior to the Commissioning Date, a permanent lighting scheme associated with the operation of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: (a) The exact location, height, design, luminance and intensity of any external lighting (b) Details of the translucent mid-band of the ERF building including its transparency and any measures to minimise light spillage (c) The luminance and intensity of any other internal lighting that would be visible externally (d) The identification of the areas to be illuminated and any measures to prevent light spilling on to areas outside the site with particular reference to the restored lands to the west (e) The hours of use of any lighting that would be visible outside the site

The lighting scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To avoid excessive light pollution in the interest of public amenity and nature conservation. in accordance with Policies DM13 and DM17 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

6 Page 21 Agenda Item 2

(22) Prior to the Commencement Date, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall provide details about environmental control procedures during construction and shall incorporate the following details: (a) Identification of construction noise limits: (b) Proposed dust management measures (c) Proposals for hours of working (d) Details of the construction workers compound including car parking (e) Proposed wheel cleaning measures (f) Proposed measures for protecting water resources (g) Proposed measures for handling wastes during construction (h) Proposed measures for routing of construction traffic and deliveries (I) Details of the phasing of the construction works (j) Proposed measures for dealing with wildlife and biodiversity issues during construction.

The CEMP shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the construction works being carried out on the site.

Reason: To ensure building works do not cause detriment to the free flow of traffic and public safety on the public highway, public amenity or the natural environment contrary to Policies DM2, DM17 and DM20 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Deocument.

(23) Prior to the Commencement Date, a final Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include as a minimum: (a) Details of the routes to be taken by vehicles delivering and removing material from the site including a commitment to direct all HGVs away from Hilliers Lane. (b) Details of the hours of deliveries to the site including a prohibition of deliveries by HGV on Sundays and Public Holidays. (c) The prior arrangement of deliveries to the site to achieve the most effective use of trips including the back loading of lorries. (d) A car park management plan.

The operator shall implement the commitments set out in the approved Construction Logistics Plan throughout the construction of the development.

Reason: To minimize the impact on the local road network and disturbance to the residents of Beddington during construction in accordance with Policy DM20 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(24) Prior to the Commencement Date, a Travel Plan for the construction phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include as a minimum: (a) A comprehensive set of measures to promote alternatives forms of transport to the car. (b) A monitoring programme to be carried out on a six monthly basis to enable the Travel Plan to be reviewed and updated as appropriate in consultation with the Council’s own travel plan monitoring officer. (c) The identification of a nominated member of staff to act as Travel Plan coordinator

7 Agenda Item 2 Page 22

The operator shall implement the commitments set out in the approved Travel Plan throughout the construction of the development.

Reason: To promote sustainable transport choices, encourage access by non-car modes and reduce the need to travel especially by car in accordance with Policies DM19 and DM20 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(25) Prior to the Commissioning Date, a final Service and Delivery Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include as a minimum: (a) Details of the routes to be taken by vehicles delivering or removing any material from the site including a commitment to direct all HGVs away from Hilliers Lane. (b) Details of the hours of deliveries to the site to include measures to limit deliveries by HGV after 18.00 hours on weekdays and at any time on Sundays and Public Holidays to those essential to the operation and maintenance of the facility.

The operator shall implement the commitments set out in the approved Service and Delivery Plan throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To minimize the impact on the local road network and disturbance to the residents of Beddington during the operation of the plant in accordance with Policy DM20 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document

(26) Within three months of the Commissioning Date, a Travel Plan to cover the first five years of operation of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall use as its base a survey of staff and other personnel to ascertain the patterns of travel to and from the development and attitudes and views about the use of different forms of transport. The plan shall include as a minimum measures to: (a) Promote and enable increased use of walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the car. (b) Identify targets focused on reductions in the level of car use. (c) Identify a monitoring framework, based on an annual survey, to enable the Travel Plan to be reviewed and updated as appropriate in consultation with the Council’s own travel plan monitoring officer. (d) Identify a nominated member of staff to act as Travel Plan coordinator

The operator shall implement the commitments set out in the approved Travel Plan throughout the first five years of the operation of the ERF.

Reason: To promote sustainable transport choices, encourage access by non-car modes and reduce the need to travel especially by car in accordance with Policies DM19 and DM20 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(27) Details of the location and design of CCTV facilities capable of recording the direction from which HGVs enter the site and the number plates of those vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved CCTV facilities shall be installed and be operational before HGVs associated with construction works use the existing access and before HGVs use the new site entrance and shall be retained at these access points for as long as they are used by HGVs accessing the construction site or completed ERF.

8 Page 23 Agenda Item 2

Reason: To assist the management of the routing of HGVs accessing the site in the interest of public amenity.

(28) Full details of the proposed provision for the storage/parking of cycles and motor- cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The storage/parking arrangements shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the Commissioning Date and shall thereafter be retained throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for cyclists and motor cyclists as outlined in the application and in accordance with Policy DM19 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(29) Full details of the proposed charging points for electric vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The charging points shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the Commissioning Date and shall thereafter be retained in operational order throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for electric vehicles as outlined in the application.

(30) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted pre- BREEAM assessment report and measures installed to achieve a BREEAM score of ‘Excellent’ as predicted. In the event that detailed design work indicates that the pre- BREEAM proposals are unviable, the applicant shall submit a revised assessment report for approval. No later than three months after the Commissioning Date, a post construction review, carried out by a licensed assessor, shall be undertaken to confirm the BREEAM score has been achieved. The review shall be submitted to the local planning authority no later than six months after the Commissioning Date.

Reason: To ensure the development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction in acordance with Policy BP6 of the Sutton Core Planning Startegy and Policy DM6 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(31) A scheme detailing flood risk management measures, drainage strategy and SUDS techniques shall be prepared and submitted and approved in writing before the commencement of construction of the ERF. The scheme shall be based on the mitigation measures described in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) carried out by Mouchel (Issue 3, Final v2), dated 13 July 2012.

Reason: To: (i) manage flood risk from sewers and from groundwater during construction and over the design life of the development; (ii) ensure that the proposed surface water drainage does not adversely impact on adjacent areas by increasing the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and (iii) attenuate surface water flows and prevent flooding by ensuring satisfactory and sustainable storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.

(32) No development shall take place until a scheme for the water management of the application site and adjacent restored lands has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the following features:

9 Agenda Item 2 Page 24

(1) Detailed design and proposed water management of all wet grassland and reed bed areas, including cross-section contours for the site;

(2) Details of water management, including proposed quantities that will help form these wetland habitats;

(3) Details of how they will be managed in principle over a ten year time frame including the amount of grazing or cutting that is proposed;

(4) Overall sustainability of the management of the site;

(5) Detailed design of the stream diversion, to include bed width/depths, meandering profile;

(6) The method of construction using natural materials;

(7) Details of any proposed planting for the wetlands; these must be of local genetic provenance.

The proposals must then be implemented in accordance with this scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the new wet grassland areas, reed beds, stream diversion and water management measures across the site are designed, constructed and managed in such a way as to positively contribute to the ecological value of the water body and the objectives of the Thames River Basin Management Plan. National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 requires the planning system to aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF encourages the promotion of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments.

(33) Within 6 months of the date of this permission a detailed method statement for removing or the long-term management/control of Floating Pennywort and Himalayan balsam on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include measures that will be used to prevent the spread of Floating Pennywort and Himalayan balsam during any operations such as mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds/root/stem of any invasive plant listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: To prevent the spread of Floating Pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) which are invasive species that might cause damage to the nature conservation value of the site contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109, which requires the planning system to aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity.

(34) Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in the development as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

(i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses and potential

10 Page 25 Agenda Item 2

contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors, and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination of the site.

(ii) A site investigation scheme based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

(iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

(iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components shall require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: The site lies on the Hackney Gravel Formation. The formation is classed as a Secondary Aquifer in terms of the large amounts of water it can yield for supply and our national position for the protection of groundwater. The aquifer may be vulnerable to pollution from any contaminants present at the site. Previous uses of the site may have resulted in land at the site becoming affected by contamination. Unless managed appropriately site contamination could pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

(35) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: There is possibility that not all contamination will be identified during the investigation. If contamination is discovered during the development this will need to managed appropriately to the satisfaction of Sutton Council and the Environment Agency so that there are no remaining unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.

(36) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Unless carefully managed surface water and foul water can enter and pollute controlled waters. For example, percolating surface water drainage from a soakaway may open up pore spaces reducing the attenuation capacity to remove dissolved contaminants in the drainage percolating through the unsaturated zone. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater or discharge through land affected by contamination.

11 Agenda Item 2 Page 26

(37) Before any piling or foundation designs using penetrative methods are undertaken on site, a piling/penetrative foundation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be implemented in accordance with that approval.

Reason: Unless appropriate managed piling on land affected by contamination may introduce pathways by which contamination can penetrate and pollute underlying aquifers.

(38) No combustion of waste shall take place at the ERF plant apart from during preparation for commissioning until a grid connection has been installed that is capable of transmitting the electricity generated by the ERF plant. Thereafter, no waste shall be combusted by the ERF plant unless electricity is being generated except during periods of maintenance, repair or as required by the National Grid or Local Distribution Network Operator.

Reason: To ensure the electricity generation benefit of the development is realised in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.5 and 5.6.

(39) The ERF shall not process materials that have been separated for recycling or composting unless they cannot be practically recycled or composted. Records shall be kept and made available to the local planning authority of any instances where materials that have been separated for recycling or composting are processed.

Reason: To ensure the plant does not divert waste from being recycled, in compliance with the waste hierarchy objectives of Planning Policy Statement 10.

(40) Prior to the Commissioning Date, a Noise Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall identify the background noise values measured at the nearby potentially noise-sensitive receptors and shall also identify noise controls and limits to protect both day-time and night-time noise amenity. The Plan shall be shall be implemented as approved throughout the period of operation of the ERF.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential and commercial properties and the amenity and natural character of the adjoining open lands in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document.

(41) The roller shutter door to the ERF tipping hall shall be installed and made operational prior to the Commissioning Date and shall be closed immediately after the arrival or departure of a delivery vehicle except in the case of emergency.

Reason: To contain noise, litter and odours in the interest of public amenity in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document .

(42) Within 6 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of restoration and landscaping shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The scheme shall:

12 Page 27 Agenda Item 2

(a) provide full details of all tree, shrub, hedgerow, reed bed, grassland, aquatic and plants and habitats to be carried out on site and shall specify locations, plant species, numbers, sizes, spacing and method of planting and the timescales for implementation; (b) specify protection to be given to all new planting and habitats for example against damage by rabbits; (c ) make provision for the replacement of any planting failures for a period of five (5) years following initial planting; (d) provide full details of the reed-bed design including flows of water, pond construction including depth and bank grading and the design of drainage/irrigation channels in relation to the proposed wet grassland; (e) provide full details of the proposed soil handling method, the depth and nature of soils to be replaced within the different habitat zones and measures proposed to relieve compaction and to remove stones.

Thereafter, the development will be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site in accordance with Policy PMP5 of the Core Planning Strategy.

(43) All planting and habitat creation undertaken in connection with the approved landscape/restoration scheme which, within a period of five years from the completion of the scheme, are removed, fail or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site in accordance with Policy PMP5 of the Core Planning Strategy.

(44) A copy of this planning permission and any schemes permitted under its terms and conditions shall be retained at the application site and be available for inspection by staff at the site and officers of the local planning authority.

Reason: To enable easy reference to the requirements of the planning permission and the orderly operation of the site in compliance with those requirements.

(45) If the ERF ceases to combust waste for a period of more than 24 months for any reason other than for extended maintenance or repair, a scheme for the demolition and removal of the building and the related infrastructure (which shall include all buildings, structures, plant, equipment, areas of hardstanding and access roads) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Such a scheme shall include: (a) Details of all structures and buildings which are to be demolished (b) Details of the means of removal of materials resulting from the demolition and methods for the control of dust and noise (c ) Timing and phasing of the demolition and removal. (d) Details of and the phasing of restoration works

The demolition and removal of the building and the related infrastructure and subsequent restoration of the site shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

13 Agenda Item 2 Page 28

Within 48 months of the cessation of waste combustion by the ERF plant the development shall be demolished and removed from the site (including all buildings, structures, plant, equipment, areas of hardstanding and access roads) and the land shall be restored in accordance with the agreed restoration plan.

Reason: To ensure adequate site restoration and reuse having regard to the site’s location within the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POLICIES AND REASONS FOR GRANT OF PERMISSION

The application has been assessed against the relevant policies of the London Plan 2011, Sutton's Core Planning Strategy 2009, the South London Waste Plan 2012 and Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD 2012. Regard has been had in particular to: London Plan policies 2.18, 7.17, 7.19, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.17, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2 , 7.7 and 7.14; Core Planning Strategy policies PMP5, PMP9, BP5, BP8, BP9, BP12 and DP2; Waste Plan policies WP3, WP6, WP8 and WP9; and Site Development DPD policies DM2, DM5, DM9, DM11, DM13, DM15, DM17, DM20 and DM21.

The proposal is in conflict with London Plan Policy 7.17 and Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP9 that broadly seek to protect the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). It would also represent inappropriate development on MOL, again contrary to the Development Plan. However, 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 identification of local markets for heat and the existing use of the land for waste management in line with development plan policy. In respect of the latter, significant weight has been attached to the proposal’s compliance with Policy WP3 of the South London Waste Plan which safeguards the application site for waste management use. The balance is considered to be clearly in favour of the scheme.

It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient very special circumstances to warrant inappropriate development on MOL, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustianable Waste Management, and other national waste policies and directives. Where potentially adverse environmental impacts have been identified, these are considered capable of mitigation to be secured by legal agreement or planning conditions.

INFORMATIVES.

(1) This approval only grants permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further approval or consent may be required by other legislation, in particular the Building Regulations and you should contact Building Control on 020 8770 6263 or 6325 before proceeding with the work.

(2) Conditions 10 and 30 to 36 are imposed at the request of the Environment Agency. Further advice on these might be obtained from Judith Cooke, the planning liaison officer at the Agency, telephone 020 7091 4002.

14 Page 29 Agenda Item 2

(3) Your attention is drawn to the technical advice set out in the Environment Agency’s letter of 19 October 2012 to Sutton Council in response to the planning application as first submitted. The Agency advises that the Environmental Permit if granted will include conditions to prevent the mixing of ash produced in the furnace with that collected in the gas cleaning plant and to ensure there are no significant emissions from the site from the handling or treatment of ash. When ash is sent elsewhere either for disposal or recovery, other waste legislation will apply and the operator will be responsible for characterising their ash and using a registered waste carrier to transport the material to an appropriately licensed facility. During the lifetime of the permit the Environment Agency will routinely assess compliance with this ‘duty of care’.

(4) Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the brink of the River Wandle.

(5) With regard to condition (9), English Heritage advise that the development is likely to damage archaeological remains. The developer should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design that accords with English Heritage guidelines. Further advise on the likely archaeological sensitivity of the site and appropriate investigative measures may be obtained from Mark Stevenson, Archaeology Advisor for the London Region at English Heritage, on 020 7973 3737.

(6) Your attention is drawn to your contractors duties towards protected species including the need to cease work and seek the advice of a qualified ecologist should any protected wildlife be found during building works. With regard to bats (condition 6), an action plan should be put in place in case bats are discovered so that appropriate safety measures may be employed in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

(7) This decision notice should be read in conjunction with the agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dated X.

For Head of Planning and Transportation Date: 2 May 2013

(LBSDCNdraftGTD)

15 Agenda Item 2 Page 30

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Date: 24 April 2013

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation

Ref: D2012/66220/FUL WARD: D17 / Time Taken: BEDDINGTON NTH 39 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 and 3) no adverse direction by the Mayor of London to whom the application must be referred.

Reason for report to Committee: 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 a very strong business case for Viridor to enter into a combined heat and power (CHP) agreement with an energy supply company (ESCo), so Page 31 Agenda Item 2

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

The Site

1.1 The application site comprises 97.2 hectares of land located to the west of Beddington Lane. The majority of the land has been subject to mineral extraction and continues to be subject to landfill activity pursuant to a planning permission granted on appeal in 1995. A recycling and composting centre managed by the applicants, Viridor, occupies the north-eastern corner of the site.

1.2 The site receives domestic and non-domestic waste, contaminated soils, green and skip waste and dry recyclables from the South London Waste Partnership (the Partnership) boroughs of Sutton, Kingston, Merton and Croydon and other parts of Greater London. The majority of the waste is presently sent to landfill, with the exception of green waste, which is processed in a composting plant, dry recyclables, which are brought to the site for bulking prior to transfer to recycling facilities elsewhere, and a small amount of residual waste that is compacted and sent to an energy recovery facility at Lakeside in Colnbrook. In 2009, the landfill facility at Beddington accommodated around 330,000 tonnes of waste of which around 200,000 tonnes was the Partnership’s own household waste.

1.3 The site is accessed from Beddington Lane (the B272), from a point approximately 100 metres north of the Coomber Way roundabout. Imports are transported by HGVs which generate the majority of vehicle movements to and from the site.

1.4 The combination of site activities working towards the agreed restoration scheme has led to a varied and engineered landform. Landfill is complete in much of the southern third of the site and this area has been contoured and seeded in accordance with the previously agreed restoration plans. Two lakes and a reed bed have been formed close to the western boundary. The remainder of the site continues to be subject to landfill, composting and recycling activity, as well as ongoing restoration. Vegetation is largely restricted to the periphery of the site with major screens of trees and shrubs along the southern and western boundaries. Agenda Item 2 Page 32

Surrounding Area

1.5 The site is bounded to the south by Beddington Park and to the west by the Sutton to Victoria railway line. Thames Water sewage treatment works and neighbouring industrial plots border the site to the east. To the immediate north and south-east are two areas of sewage sludge deposition known as the Hundred Acres and SAM sites respectively. These lie outside the application site but parts are leased to the applicants by Thames Water. The SAM site includes a Scheduled Ancient Monument - the remains of a Roman villa. To the north of the Hundred Acres is Mitcham Common.

1.6 The wider area to the east is mainly commercial in character. The Thames Water sewage treatment works and adjoining industrial sites form part of the Beddington Strategic Industrial Area which extends to the boundary with the London Borough of Croydon. Beddington village lies to the south-east. Beyond the railway line to the west lie Bedzed and neighbouring residential areas in Hackbridge.

Site Specific Development Plan Designations

1.7 The site lies within an area defined in the London Plan as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), part of a Metropolitan Green Chain, a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and part of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park. These designations are all reflected in the Core Strategy to the Sutton Local Development Framework (LDF).

1.8 The site falls within an Archaeological Priority Area and the south-western corner is an area at risk of flooding. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the Beddington Park Conservation Area.

1.9 Both the landfill and recycling and composting centre are identified in the South London Waste Plan adopted March 2012 as existing waste sites safeguarded for their current use or conversion to waste management. The Plan notes that both sites are subject to temporary planning permissions or resolutions to grant temporary permission that are due to expire in 2023, after which the land will be incorporated into the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

Relevant Planning History

1.10 The site has a lengthy history of waste management use. Permission for mineral extraction and landfill operations was first granted on appeal in 1995. This was subject to a number of conditions including a requirement to complete infilling operations by 2015 and to restore the land within 17 months thereafter. Permission for a recycling centre was first granted in 2003, linked to the life of the landfill. Following Viridor’s acquisition of the land in 2004, a variation to the design and layout of the facility was granted in 2005.

1.11 The 1995 permission was accompanied by a unilateral undertaking from Thames Water, the owners of the land, the main purpose of which was to secure arrangements for the restoration of the land following landfill and the creation and future management of a variety of wildlife habitats. This included the formation of a Beddington Farmlands Trust to undertake the future management of the restored land. The restoration plans were embodied in a conservation management plan. (Other obligations from 1995 regarding Coomber Way and related highway measures have been largely implemented.)

1.12 Variations to the 1995 and 2005 permissions, to allow extended hours for the reception and land filling of local authority waste, were granted in August 2009 and September 2010. In May 2012, Committee granted permission for a further variation to permit an Page 33 Agenda Item 2

increase in the number of vehicle movements associated with the night time delivery of local authority waste to the waste reception building.

1.13 In 2005 Viridor submitted an application to build a 75,000 tonnes per annum anaerobic digestion plant adjacent to the existing recycling centre and to extend the duration of all waste management activities on the site from 2015 to 2023, reflecting its contract with the Partnership. The application also sought permission to export and stockpile clay from the site prior to landfill. The application was first reported to Committee in April 2008 when it was resolved to grant permission subject to, inter-alia, the completion of a legal agreement with Viridor to ensure the restoration and future management of the land. The application was accompanied by an amended conservation management plan that drew on the practical knowledge gained from the restoration and conservation work undertaken on site since 1995.

1.14 Resolution of the legal agreement was protracted, so the application was reported back to Committee on 18 July 2012 to review and refresh the 2008 resolution. The delay provided an opportunity to review the restoration plans for the land and the best management arrangements for achieving these. A conservation management scheme, to replace the 2008 management plan, was reported to the Committee. Committee confirmed its earlier resolution to grant permission subject to the completion of the legal agreement. The agreement is now substantially concluded, and it is anticipated that the permission will be issued shortly.

1.15 In March 2010 Viridor submitted an application to build a smaller (30,000 tonnes per annum) anaerobic digestion plant, again reflecting its contract with the Partnership. This remains outstanding. However, in February 2013 the Partnership confirmed that it does not intend to pursue the anaerobic digestion proposals and Viridor has now committed not to build the agreed, larger facility.

2. APPLICATION PROPOSALS

2.1 The proposals comprise the following elements:

x An energy recovery facility (ERF) located in the north-eastern corner of the application site and designed to treat 275,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of residual non-hazardous waste material. The inputs would comprise approximately 200,000 tpa of residual municipal waste collected from households in the South London Partnership area with the remainder arising from commercial and industrial (C&I) waste. x Buildings ancillary to the ERF including a waste transfer station, a workshop and building housing an education centre, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) equipment and administrative facilities. The waste transfer station would deal with both the reception and bulking of dry recyclable from the Partnership area, for onward transfer to recycling facilities off site (a continuation of existing activity at the site) and the reception and transfer of wastes received under the contract that cannot be treated at the site. x A new site access road to link the site directly from the Coomber Way roundabout. The existing road would be reinstated to grass. x Two pipelines to deliver heat; one to the east site boundary and one to the west boundary. These would link with the existing gas engine compound to facilitate the provision of CHP to potential nearby customers. x Revisions to the approved restoration plans for the landfill site to reflect a reduction in the amount of void to be filled and some revision to habitat areas and path network. x Amendments to the existing in-vessel composting operations to take account of the ERF proposals. Agenda Item 2 Page 34

x The formation of landscape bunds to the west of the ERF to screen the lower part of the building and the activity at ground level from the restored lands. x Formation of ponds and pumps to the west of the ERF to take surface water drainage from the site and feed the proposed wet grasslands habitats. x Realignment of an existing track to the east of the ERF to retain access for Thames Water vehicles to the sludge beds to the north (the 100 Acres site) x Infilling of a small part of a sludge lagoon to the east of the ERF.

2.2 The construction of the ERF and ancillary buildings would require the demolition of a number of existing buildings and structures on site including the Dano building which is currently used for a variety of purposes including the reception, storage and bulking of dry recyclables. The completion of the restoration plan would see the demolition by 2023 of the remaining in-vessel composting (IVC) buildings and Viridor’s existing administrative building.

2.3 Landfill disposal would cease on completion around the commissioning of the ERF. This is expected in 2017. This would be six years earlier than provided for in the 2005 planning application proposals.

Post-submission amendments to the application

2.4 The application was amended on 15 February 2013 to raise the height of the twin stacks from 85 to 95 metres and to provide additional planting along the southern boundary of the new access road. The raising of the height of the stacks, in combination with internal process modifications to reduce emission rates, is designed to reduce Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) levels in compliance with Council and Environment Agency air quality standards. The additional planting along the new access road is intended to help mitigate the loss of existing planting in this area.

2.5 The applicant’s covering letter of 15 February also listed a number of additional benefits to be secured by condition or legal agreement should permission be granted. The applicant provided clarification of the proposed additional benefits including the proposed financial contribution where relevant in a letter dated 12 March 2013. The offered contribution towards off-site planting (see 6.26 below) was altered on 11 April.

Background to the application

2.6 The application arises from a contract entered into between Viridor and the South London Waste Partnership for Viridor to take and process residual waste that would otherwise be destined for landfill. The contract runs until 2040. The Partnership comprises the boroughs of Croydon, Kingston, Merton and Sutton. The contract requires Viridor to apply for planning permission and take responsibility for all planning issues.

2.7 The Partnership’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy has an overarching strategic goal to minimise the climate change impact of managing municipal solid waste through diversion from landfill. The strategy aims to achieve over 50% recycling by 2019/20. This will leave up to 200,000 tpa of residual waste that has not been sorted or placed out for recycling or composting by residents, most of which presently goes to landfill at Beddington. A small proportion of this (approximately 10,000 tpa) is currently sent to an energy from waste plant at Lakeside near Colnbrooke.

2.8 The European Landfill Directive 1995 set a target to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill to 35% of 1995 figures by 2020. The Directive was transposed in UK legislation through the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. Landfill Tax is an Page 35 Agenda Item 2

escalator of costs for using landfills so as to make recycling and recovery more attractive financially.

2.9 The Council’s Scrutiny Overview Committee considered a report on the Partnership’s waste disposal contract with Viridor and the ERF proposal at Beddington on 8 May 2012. The material planning considerations relating to the ERF arising from the Committee’s consideration of the report (including traffic, air quality, decentralised energy and community impacts) have been taken into account in this report.

Environmental appraisal

2.10 Planning and environmental legislation requires that proposals of this kind are subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the results of which are reported in an Environmental Statement (ES). The application is accompanied by a substantial ES that looks in detail at an extensive list of possible environmental impacts including ground contamination, air quality, noise, traffic and health impact. Statutory consultees in respect of the ES include the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage (the latter in respect of the archaeological remains within the SAM (scheduled ancient monument) site.

2.11 An addendum to the ES was submitted in February 2013 to accompany the amendments to the application made at that time. This amended the ES to incorporate the 2023 baseline report (initially submitted as a stand-alone document outside of the formal ES) and to more fully address ground conditions. The addendum also reflected the post-submission changes concerning air quality summarised in 2.4 above.

2.12 The Council has retained environmental compliance consultants, SKM Enviros to assist officers’ technical assessment of the ES.

The role of the Environment Agency

2.12 The ERF, if granted planning permission, will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency to operate. The Permit will set environmental standards for the operation of the plant, mainly relating to the control of emissions to the atmosphere. An ERF may not operate without a Permit. (This applies also to landfill and a variety of other waste management activities.)

2.13 Viridor submitted an application for a Permit to the Environment Agency in September 2012, shortly after the submission of the planning application to the Council. The Environment Agency is expected to issue a draft Permit shortly. The committee will be advised verbally on this matter.

3 PUBLICITY

Neighbour Consultation

3.1 Letters of notification were hand delivered in August 2012 to approximately 4500 addresses in Beddington, Hackbridge and neighbouring parts of Croydon and Mitcham. The application was also advertised by site and press notices. Site notices were posted at four locations in Beddington and Hackbridge on the perimeter of the site.

3.2 Upon receipt of the amendments to the application in February 2013, a further letter was delivered to each of the 4500 addresses and to any additional individuals, residents’ groups or other bodies, approximately 200 in number, who had responded to the first consultation. Agenda Item 2 Page 36

3.3 Each letter and notice listed the locations in the boroughs of Sutton, Croydon, Merton and Kingston (8 on the first occasion, 10 on the second) where copies of the application and accompanying Environmental Statement, or amendments thereto, might be inspected.

3.4 The addresses of those responding to either the first or second notification letter are listed in Appendix A to this report.

First consultation

3.5 217 letters were received in response to the first consultation, comprising 213 objections, 2 letters of support and 3 letters seeking clarification. (Letters from resident associations and other interest groups, as opposed to those from individuals, are set out in 3.13 onwards.)

3.6 Objections to the application comprised:

x The proposals will result in significant additional traffic in Beddington Lane and the surrounding area, causing further congestion and detriment to the local environment. More diesel lorries on the road will cause further air pollution. x The scheme is inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land. It will result in a loss of MOL and further compromise the promised country park, the delivery of which has already been delayed. x Threat to birdlife and loss of wildlife habitat generally arising from the loss of land from the proposed restored lands. x Threat to public health, especially from emissions from incinerator stacks, in particular the release of small particles has not been properly addressed. x Threat to public health and safety arising from the storage of hazardous materials and the risk of fire. x Excessive size of building and inappropriate design given its location within MOL and the Wandle Valley. x Failure to properly consider alternative technologies which would be less harmful to the environment. x Flawed analysis of alternative sites x Excessive capacity which is likely to result in the import of waste from other areas to keep the incinerator going. x Incineration will remove the incentive to recycle waste. Extra effort should be made to instead reduce the amount of residual waste. x Impact of the proposal generally on the community of Beddington which already plays host to a number of undesirable land uses. x Doubts about the deliverability of CHP

3.7 One letter, from a resident of Wallington, expressed strong support for the proposal on the grounds that modern incinerators do not pose significant issues relating to air quality, this is a positive way of dealing with non-recyclable waste, the scheme presents opportunities rather than a threat to local wildlife and this is a logical location for an ERF. A second letter, sent on behalf of Morgan Stanley Ltd which has a data centre in Beddington, expressed broad support for the proposal subject to the employment of appropriate mitigation measures, particularly in relation to air quality and dust.

3.8 Two letters sought clarification about the impact of the proposal on particular properties. A further letter, sent on behalf of Royal Mail, raised no objection in principle but Page 37 Agenda Item 2

expressed concern about additional traffic in Beddington Lane and Coomber Way and asked that Royal Mail be consulted in respect of the proposed Construction Management Plan. It also sought additional parking restrictions along Beddington Farm Road.

Second consultation

3.9 A further 67 letters have been received in response to the amendments to the application made in February 2013. Most raise the same concerns as before. Objections specific to the amendments are:

x The need to raise the height of the chimneys confirms that this is an incinerator with unhealthy emissions. Raising their height serves only to increase concerns about air pollution and visual intrusion. x EU air quality standards are not set at a level that will protect public health. Additional pollution within an air quality management area will impact adversely on public health. x The need for the facility is still not proven. It is likely waste will need to be imported to serve it. x New technologies being developed to reuse and deal with waste are likely to render the plant unnecessary. x Viridor do not plan to sort out potential recyclables so will not be adhering to the Waste Hierarchy x Concern remains about additional traffic in Beddington Lane, including to the north of the site where there is a footpath on one side only x No more confidence that restoration plans and nature conservation measures will be honoured. x Little weight should be attached to the proposed allocation of parts of the Hundred Acre and SAM sites which are safeguarded and valuable in their current form. The fragmentation of wet grassland remains an issue. x Additional conservation measures (warden, tree sparrow strategy, inclusion of Hundred0 Acres) are welcomed but the proposed CAMC needs to be established with immediate effect to ensure their provision given Viridor’s less than impressive track record on such matters so far. x The land fronting Beddington Lane remains a preferable alternative location for the plant. x Importance of securing public access across the site and through the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

Petitions

3.10 The following petitions opposing the proposal have been received:

x A petition signed by 163 residents of Beddington, Wallington and Carshalton forwarded by Councillor John Keys on 16 September 2012, raising the same issues as listed in 3.6 above. x A further petition, gathered by the Croydon Labour Party and signed by 427 residents of Croydon, submitted to full Council on 4 March 2013. This objects to the application on the grounds of potential damage to the environment of Croydon. Agenda Item 2 Page 38

x A petition signed by 40 residents of Church Lane, Beddington and members of the Beddington Over-60s Club received on 21 March 2013. This objects to the application on the grounds that the land is MOL, the development would lower the value of property in the area, the 95m high stacks would impact on the visual landscape, emissions will fall on populated areas, increase in heavy traffic and impact on wildlife. x A petition signed by 41 residents of Oakmead Road, Homemead Road, Brookmead Road, Therapia Lane and Elberon Avenue, Beddington received on 3 April 2013. This objects to the application on the same grounds as above. x A petition signed by 52 residents, mostly of Carshalton, Wallington and Croydon, received on 3 April 2013. This objects to the application on the grounds that the incinerator would burn valuable resources, cause unnecessary pollution and increase traffic congestion for the next 25 to 30 years.

Councillor Representation

3.11 Councillor John Keys has objected on the grounds of likely adverse health impacts on local schools, additional traffic and air pollution in Beddington Lane, misuse of MOL and that a building of this size would be an eyesore. In respect of the amendments to the application, he further comments that the chimneys will be still more prominent, the proposed community fund insufficient and air pollution will exceed the levels allowed.

MEP Representation

3.12 Jane Lambert MEP for London objects on the grounds that the application underestimates the likely additional traffic, the facility would contribute further to the existing air pollution problem, no mechanism or plan is offered to sort waste intended for the incinerator so the facility is likely to divert waste away from recycling, composting and reuse, the various open space and wildlife designations make this a highly inappropriate choice for the proposed development and the scheme fails to demonstrate the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify development in the Green Belt/MOL.

External/Statutory Consultation

3.13 The following comments were received from statutory consultees, neighbouring boroughs, residents’ groups and nature conservation and other environmental interest groups.

3.14 The GLA, TfL, Environment Agency, Natural England, and neighbouring boroughs of Croydon and Merton were all statutory consultees in respect of the Environmental Statement.

First consultation

Greater London Authority

Stage 1 reply received. In summary, the Mayor considers that application does not comply with the London Plan but lists a number of possible remedies including:

a) Further technical information and appropriate conditions and planning obligations in relation to waste inputs/capacity of the facility, gas emissions, heat extraction and delivery of a site heat network. b) Further discussion of other sites and additional benefits to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances sufficient to justify inappropriate development in MOL. Page 39 Agenda Item 2

c) Further discussion and planning obligations to ensure delivery of biodiversity improvements to future Wandle Valley Regional Park. d) Further information regarding verified views of the building and choice of facing materials. e) Further discussion on how the scheme would meet best practice in relation to climate change adaptation and Green Grid policies. f) More detailed air quality analysis with relevant conditions imposed. g) Mitigation measures to ensure signalised junctions to north and south of site operate efficiently during construction and operation of the plant, and appropriate conditions in relation to construction logistics, delivery and servicing.

Transport for London

Notes that signalised junctions at each end of Beddington Lane/Hilliers Lane already operate at over 80% capacity and will experience a further reduction in capacity as a result of the development. Although the majority of projected growth 2015 and beyond will be due to background growth rather than trips generated by the development, it is important to consider what mitigation might be achieved to reduce queues and delays. Welcomes the proposed construction vehicle routings, which will need to be confirmed in a Construction Logistics Plan, to be secured by planning condition. Also welcomes the proposed submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan to identify measures to be undertaken once the plant is operational. Parking provision is generally considered appropriate but would prefer if 5 rather than 3 parking spaces were designed for mobility impaired users and if more electronic vehicle charging points were provided.

Environment Agency

Recommends a number of conditions to address flood risk, water management, the control of invasive species, ground contamination and the delivery of CHP; offers technical advice regarding air quality and recommends that the Council seek additional information to confirm relevant EU air quality standards will be met; is not satisfied that the projected emissions from a stack of the proposed height would sufficiently protect public health; advises that a legal agreement may be necessary to secure adequate air quality controls and delivery of CHP; notes that an application has been made to the Agency for an Environmental Permit to operate the plant and that the Agency’s own assessment of noise and air quality impacts is still incomplete. (See below for further comments on amendments)

Natural England

No objection. Does not consider that the application poses any likely or significant risk to any protected area or species. Supports the restoration of the site and notes that habitat creation has the potential to increase the ecology and biodiversity of the area. Notes that the application may provide an opportunity to incorporate features that are beneficial to wildlife, for example roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. Notes also that should protected species be encountered at any time further survey work/precautionary measures are likely to be required.

English Heritage Archaeology

Note that the wider area has been subject to a rolling programme of investigation as land has been prepared for extraction. In the circumstances there is no need for fieldwork to be undertaken prior to determination of application. Recommends a condition to secure a programme of archaeological work should the scheme go ahead. Agenda Item 2 Page 40

London Borough of Croydon

Additional information sought regarding air quality. See formal response following second consultation.

London Borough of Merton

Additional information sought regarding air quality. See formal response following second consultation.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Do not raise objection: considers that application complies with the South London Waste Plan and would not have a significant detrimental impact of the highway network, environment or living conditions of Kingston residents.

Design Council/CABE

Welcomes the simple, industrial plant design and elegant flues. Considers this an intelligently arranged building cluster with crisp, calm facades. Landscape design and site organisation would benefit from further clarification and a strategy for the long term management of the park to promote public access should be developed.

Beddington Residents’ Association

Objects to loss of MOL and part of WVRP; notes that current proposals make no detailed provision for pedestrian access, car parking or visitor centre; concerned about additional air pollution, traffic and air-borne odours and height of chimney. If scheme is to go ahead, would require commitments regarding eventual restoration of land, reduced electricity tariffs for local homes, planting of mature trees to screen chimneys and local involvement in identification of S106 measures to benefit the local area. Would strongly oppose moving the plant closer to Beddington Lane.

Hackbridge & Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Development Group

Object to failure to deliver the whole of the promised park, visual blight of the plant within the park, loss of MOL, negative impact on wildlife, biodiversity and public health. Four boroughs should instead be trying to recycle more and should consider alternative, preferable technologies for dealing with residual waste. Should the LPA be minded to grant permission, would seek greater community benefits, further enhancement of the Wandle Valley Regional Park including access from the west, extension of the wet grassland to include Hundred Acres, construction of wildlife habitat in field north of BedZed, relocation of the ERF closer to Beddington Lane, an independent technical appraisal of the scheme and a binding commitment to provide low cost heat.

BioRegional Development Group

Support the move away from landfill and are aware of the process with the SLWP that has led to the application but have the following concerns which should be addressed before permission is granted: plant is too large having regard for projected recycling rates; commercial arrangements must be put in place for the heat network otherwise Mayor’s carbon targets will not be met; additional community benefits should be sought; higher standards of air quality monitoring must be secured; and plant should be relocated closer to Beddington Lane to minimise impact on MOL and wildlife site. Page 41 Agenda Item 2

Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust

Unable to support the current proposals in the absence of measures to mitigate loss of MOL, the visual impact of new building and adverse impact on biodiversity; require stronger commitment to public access network to balance current emphasis on nature conservation and clearer and more detailed proposals for site management including wider terms of reference for the proposed Conservation and Access Management Committee (CAMC).

Beddington Farm Bird Group

Object on basis that the application undervalues the biodiversity of the Beddington Farmlands, the ERF would have a negative effect on the restored lands and wider Regional Park and the applicants have previously failed to meet the set conservation and restoration targets. The loss of this part of MOL to an ERF would be permanent and the use would be incompatible with the ethos and nature of the park. Construction of the new road would result in a further loss of an important ecological habitat. Should the development nevertheless go ahead, would expect significant additional mitigation including the extension of conservation management measures to adjoining parcels of land to offset the loss of MOL, the establishment of a leading conservation body to deliver the park, a more detailed CMS, earlier delivery of the important wet grassland and the funding of a visitors centre for the Farmlands. The ERF would be better located on the land fronting Beddington Lane, at the margin of the MOL.

Wandle Forum

Objects on the grounds that the safety of the technology in terms of air quality is not proven, preferable alternative green processes such as pyrolysis have been demonstrated in the area and the value of the Wandle Valley Regional Park as public open space would be greatly undermined by locating an ERF here.

Mitcham Common Conservators

Consider that the scheme would have a significant adverse visual impact on Mitcham Common, that additional traffic generated by the ERF would adversely impact on Beddington Lane and that the application does not accord with MOL policies.

Mitcham Society

Objects to size and height of the building, which will be an eyesore, the combined effect of building this and an anaerobic digestion plant, and the lack of action on noxious smells from the site.

East Coulsdon Resident’s Association

Object on grounds of further air pollution which is likely to blow eastwards towards Croydon and to additional traffic congestion, especially if the plant is to take waste from a wider area than the four boroughs. Greater recycling combined with anaerobic digestion would be the preferable option.

London Wildlife Trust

Object to loss of MOL, impact on SINC, loss of protected wet grassland habitat and loss of potential nesting sites for tree sparrow. The value of the wet grassland will be diminished and its delivery delayed. Considers the applicant’s assessment of the important tree sparrow population to be inadequate and seeks further studies of this and the preparation of a management plan to include appropriate mitigation measures Agenda Item 2 Page 42

should the scheme go ahead. Conservation management measures should be extended to the adjoining Hundred Acre and SAM sites including the securing of access across the latter. The land fronting Beddington Lane would be a more appropriate location for the ERF.

RSPB

Object on grounds that application does not provide sufficient measures to safeguard important tree sparrow population. Concerned also that proposal for wet grassland creation and management requires further consideration to ensure functional habitat and no conflict with public access and recreation.

RSPB Central London Local Group

Objects to application as it stands because of likely impact on tree sparrow population. The ERF would represent a significant loss of MOL and associated biodiversity.

Sutton Nature Conservation Volunteers

Object to impact on previously agreed restoration plans, in particular loss of wet grassland and habitat for tree sparrows. If scheme is to go ahead compensatory land should be provided. Land closer to Beddington Lane would be more suitable location for proposed ERF.

Merton Friends of the Earth

Concerned about health and safety implications; whilst cost is an important factor it should not take preference over health considerations. Although transfer of waste to an existing facility in Kent would not be ideal, the facility in Kent is understood to be accessible by rail which would be preferable to a large number of additional lorry movements.

Stop the Incinerator Group

A lengthy, 40 page, submission has been received from the Stop the Incinerator Group (STI). Established in 2009 and based largely in Croydon, the STI object on the following grounds:

a) Impact on Wildlife and the WVRP: Inadequacy of the Environmental Statement in relation to tree sparrows, loss of wetland habitat and failure to demonstrate benefits to outweigh the loss of habitat. b) MOL/Greenfield Status: Non-compliance with national, London wide and Sutton MOL policy and failure to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ to justify inappropriate development on MOL. c) Non-compliance with Waste Plan: failure to demonstrate that this is the best viable site or technology or that another site would not have a lower visual footprint, and the absence of a proactive plan to pre-sort waste. d) Lack of Need: emerging over capacity of such facilities nationally, the potential to recycle over 90% of C&I waste and increased recycling generally is likely to remove the high calorific materials needed for incineration from the waste stream. e) Impact on the Waste Hierarchy: mass burn incineration acts as a disincentive to recycling and reuse. Page 43 Agenda Item 2

f) Traffic Impact: the existing situation in Beddington Lane is unacceptable and the construction and operation of the ERF would result in increased traffic only adding to the problems. g) Impact on Health: A report by the British Society for Ecological Medicine (2008) highlights a number of health concerns about incineration and that there are safer and cheaper ways to produce more energy. The European Respiratory Society (in 2012) criticised the EU Commission for choosing the wrong limits for air quality and highlighted the adverse effects of ozone and fine particles.

STI also queried the applicant’s WRATE modelling (a tool used by the Environment Agency to assess the life cycle impacts of waste management systems) and sought further information about this.

Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Officer

Facility should be conditioned to achieve Secured by Design accreditation. Advice offered directly to applicants on lighting system and securing parkland from non- legitimate users.

Second consultation

3.15 The following comments were received in response to the amendments to the application made in February 2013:

Environment Agency

Have no objection to the proposed increase in the height of the twin stacks. Welcome the additional benefits to be secured by legal agreement, in particular a financial contribution towards the establishment of a CHP working group. Advice with respect to flood risk management, groundwater protection, ecological enhancement and pollution prevention remains a set out before. The Agency is currently preparing its draft Environmental Permit: cannot comment further until a final decision is made. (A verbal update will be provided at the committee meeting.)

Natural England

Note that the changes are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment. No further comments offered.

English Heritage Archaeology

Repeats the advice offered in response to the first consultation.

London Borough of Croydon

Application was reported to Croydon’s Strategic Planning Committee on 21 March 2013. The Committee acknowledges the potential sustainable waste management benefits of the proposals but wish to highlight a number of issues at a strategic and local level, with particular reference to air quality, views and highway impact. Sutton is requested to give due weight to these matters when coming to a decision and to ensure that all other strategic matters comply with the relevant policies.

London Borough of Merton

No objection. The Council’s Environmental Health Section has reviewed the revisions to the application and is satisfied that the raising of the height of the chimneys will reduce Agenda Item 2 Page 44

the potential impact on the borough. Subject to suitable conditions and monitoring of the site by the Environment Agency, the proposals are considered not to harm the amenity of Merton residents. No objection also on traffic grounds. The size of the ERF presents a challenge in terms of its visual impact when viewed from Mitcham Common and any means of mitigating this would be welcomed.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Confirm that the Royal Borough does not raise objection

Beddington Farmland Bird Group

Confirm that they would prefer to see the ERF built on the frontage land where it would have less impact on wildlife habitat and the proposed Regional Park. Notwithstanding this, the tree sparrow mitigation strategy, funded wildlife warden, community fund and additional land within the Hundred Acres are all broadly welcomed subject to the following:

x Terms of reference for CAMC are considered inadequate. The negative consequences of the ERF need to be considered in the light of the unsatisfactory implementation of the CMS and restoration to date, so would wish to see the constitution and powers of the CAMC included within the conditions of the planning consent. These should include involvement of a regional conservation organisation, inclusion of the necessary skill base and powers to direct restoration and enforcement of a strict timetable. x Wish to see incorporation of the whole of the Hundred Acres, one of the most important wetland habitats on site, into the conservation area to mitigate loss of wet grassland. x Community fund should be used to secure the development of an interpretation centre within Hackbridge, access from the west and the development of green corridors through Hackbridge. The applicant’s Education Centre is not considered the best location for a visitors centre. x Seek further details of the tree sparrow mitigation given the urgent need to provide replacement habitation following the recent felling of trees by Viridor.

Beddington Resident’s Association

Continue to object. Emission data fails to give any indication of long term issues of 25/30 year exposure to particle emission. The development should be halted pending the publication in 2014 of pending Imperial College research into the matter. Public access to the restored lands should be detailed and established by early 2015 at the latest and local groups fully represented in those discussions. There is no provision for disabled access or suitable pathways at present. Traffic routing is essential and deliveries should not be accepted at night, Saturday afternoons or on Sundays. Controls sought on types of waste to be accepted. Any S106 financial gains should be invested principally in the Beddington area. A 40 signature petition opposing the application accompanied the letter (see also 3.10 above). (Note also that the Head Teacher of Sherwood Park School in Beddington has written in support of the Beddington Resident’s Association’s representations against the proposal.)

Hackbridge and Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Development Group

Continue to object to the application. Consider that neither the mitigation nor planning obligation measures proposed address the substantial points raised in the Group’s Page 45 Agenda Item 2 response to the application as first submitted including that the land is MOL and should not be built on. The additional benefits now offered in relation to nature conservation ought to have formed part of the already agreed restoration plans and should not now be considered as mitigating benefits. Other locations score higher in the alternative site assessment. The case for the demand for such a large plant has still not been made. The negative effect on local resident’s health from air pollution has not been addressed. The applicant has not responded to requests from residents to investigate other better technological options such as anaerobic digestion and mechanical biological treatment. No guarantees are provided to assure that heat generated in the process will be used and not wasted and the £50,000 offered towards a CHP working group will be quickly used up. The proposed education centre at the ERF is not a mitigating benefit: there should instead be a visitor centre within the Regional Park and close to public transport. There should be greater community involvement to identify what the community wants: whilst the Group has met with the applicants there is no evidence that any of the Group’s concerns or ideas have been taken into account.

East Coulsdon Residents’ Association

Maintain their objection. Do not feel that raising the heights of the chimney will improve the dilution of gases but rather spread them over a wider area.

Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust

Advises that the Trust has now prepared interim planning guidelines for the Regional Park that confirm its intent to deliver a multi-functional park that will maximise environmental, social and economic benefits for the widest audience. The Farmlands represent a substantial part of the total Regional Park. The Trust remains unable to support the proposals for the following reasons:

a) Height and massing of building will create a long term negative intrusion into the landscape (it is acknowledged that raising the height of the chimneys will not add to this). The proposed £15,000 budget for off-site tree planting is a paltry sum to deal with this. More extensive off-site measures are required if the scheme is to go ahead. b) Although welcome addition of part of Hundred Acres and access across SAM site, consider the proposed additional £50,000 funding to cover this inadequate. c) Remain concerned that proposals still do not adequately mitigate the loss of biodiversity and important habitats. d) Remain concerned that the CMS and therefore proposals for site management are unbalanced, with too much focus on science and not enough on people. There needs to be a stronger commitment to a public access path network to connect communities and enable the area to function in recreational terms. Would wish to see the existing north-south path designated a public right of way and similar ‘greenway’ provision made east to west along the Mile Road. Timescales for public access should be made explicit in order to manage community expectations. e) Welcome the community fund, one priority of which should be to focus on the TfL funded access strategy for the Farmlands. f) Terms of reference for the CAMC are too narrow. The legal agreement must be robust enough to ensure the bond is used effectively and the wider environmental and social needs of the area/community are protected over 60 years. Welcome, however, the proposal for a site warden. Agenda Item 2 Page 46

The Trust recommends the removal of the term ‘country park’, which serves only to confuse.

Mitcham Common Conservators

Reiterate their objections to the application as first submitted.

RSPB

Wish to maintain their objection. Note the proposed tree sparrow management plan but as this has not yet been produced, it is impossible to judge how effective it would be. There is no guarantee that access will be secured to the land beyond the application boundary. This needs to be secured and detailed plans made for its use before it can be determined that the access, recreation and nature conservation objectives of the restoration plan can be delivered.

London Wildlife Trust

Notes that progress has been made for tree sparrows and there has been some movement around compensation habitats, albeit very limited, but in all other respects the objections still stand and the assessment is still that the application does not conform to the London Plan. The proposals will have potentially damaging ecological impacts.

Sutton Nature Conservation Volunteers

The group welcome the potential addition of part of the Hundred Acres, additional funds for various parts of the scheme, funding of off-site planting, potential access across the SAM site and tree sparrow management plan but has concerns about whether the funds will be sufficient to manage, and if necessary, restore the additional lands. The group still objects to the siting of the ERF on the Farmlands and would prefer to see it built instead on the frontage land. If permission is given in the present location, would seek assurances about the adequacy of the important wet grassland and sacrificial crop habitats. It is important that the restoration for biodiversity as agreed in 1995 and 2005 is not watered down in anyway.

South London Waste Partnership

3.16 The Waste Partnership supports the application for the following reasons:

x The Partnership has carried out a comprehensive procurement exercise to appoint a contractor to manage its residual waste in a more environmentally and financially sustainable way and believes Viridor’s proposal represents the optimal solution. x The Partnership is being driven to find alternatives to landfill. If the proposal goes ahead it will turn what is currently buried into a substantial source of useful energy and reduce carbon emissions by around 60,000 tpa. x Recycling remains a high priority but it is not realistic to base the Partnership’s plans on ‘zero waste’. The plans are based on what is actually deliverable and proven. The contract with Viridor incentivises continued waste reduction and recycling and deliberately avoids ‘feeding the machine’. x The £200m saved over the costs of landfill during the life of the contract will also help maintain other important environmental services across the four councils. Page 47 Agenda Item 2

x The procurement exercise shows there are no other in boundary solutions on a site which is commercially available and which could house an ERF to handle the approx 200,000 tpa of residual waste produced by the four boroughs. The best alternative option was to transport the waste to Kent. The Beddington site is centrally located within the Partnership area and is in many respects a natural choice for the facility. x The Partnership’s own research shows that around three quarters of residents in the Partnership area think it important to send less waste to landfill and two thirds view ERFs as a sensible way to dispose of non-recyclable waste.

Internal Consultation

3.17 The following comments were received from within the Council:

First consultation

Senior Traffic Engineer

Comments on the applicant’s traffic analysis, identifies a number of issues requiring further analysis and recommends a number of improved mitigation/enforcement measures. Notes the greatest impact on road network will be during construction phase. Once operational, the ERF will generate less traffic than current landfill operations but significantly more than were all the land to be restored to parkland upon cessation of landfill. Recommends more rigorous Construction Logistics and Delivery & Servicing Plans to address concerns about lorry routing and the timing of deliveries. Staff car park appears large and there is at present no provision for coaches and motor cycles.

Environmental Health

Comments on various aspects of the Environmental Statement and seeks additional information/clarification in a number of areas including air quality, land contamination and health impact generally.

Waste Operations Manager

No objection from an operational point of view.

Tree Officer

Notes that existing tree populations are almost all located along the site boundaries. The routing of the CHP pipes will result in the loss of several Category B oak trees in the vicinity of the ERF and several mature willow and ash within the belt of trees fronting London Road. Proposed replanting will compensate adequately for the former but consideration might be given to re-routing the pipeline close to London Road. If this is not possible, replacement planting ought to be secured by condition. A full tree protection plan and method statement will be required should the scheme go ahead.

Urban Design Officer

Broadly supports the design approach subject to appropriate conditions regarding the exact choice of materials. Some concern about night luminance which might be reduced by choosing a material with a greater degree of opaqueness for the mid band of the building. The building is unavoidably large but its visual impact is likely to recede over time as the landscaping matures and the building settles into its landscape. Agenda Item 2 Page 48

Biodiversity Team

Note later wildlife surveys conducted by volunteers that ought now to be taken into account. Observes that ERF would result in an overall loss of available habitat for target species including a 20% loss of previously agreed wet grassland, which would be significant. Applicant should consider if site closer to Beddington Lane would be more appropriate location for an ERF. Recommend the provision of additional habitat areas outside of current application boundary to compensate for areas lost, a tree sparrow management plan, additional survey work and a number of other measures to mitigate impact.

Second consultation

3.18 The following comments were received in response to the amendments to the application made in February 2013:

Senior Traffic Engineer

Confirms advice in response to the application as first submitted including the need to secure a car park management plan, construction and logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan. Recommends appropriate planning conditions.

Environmental Health

Support the conclusions of the Council’s environmental compliance consultants in respect of the identified potential environmental impacts including air quality. Remaining concerns about the applicant’s ground conditions assessment may be satisfactorily addressed through the planning conditions recommended by the Environment Agency. Recommend the imposition of a condition to control noise audible at the site boundaries subject to the identification of appropriate noise limits.

Tree Officer

No additional comments offered in relation to proposed additional planting along access road. Recommends that the inclusion of Ash in the planting schedule is reviewed.

Biodiversity Team

Welcome funding for an onsite warden, the proposed access from Beddington across the SAM site, the additional land at Hundred Acres and the inclusion of nature conservation principles in the operation of the education centre. Unless the additional area at Hundred Acres is secured and managed appropriately, the concerns about the overall loss of habitat and its fragmentation will remain unaddressed. Further clarification sought regarding the final restoration and landscaping of the ERF site where additional measures (e.g. green walls and roofs) should be sought to maximise biodiversity. Concern remains about night time lighting and an isolux contour map is sought to determine if further screening is required.

4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT

4.1 Section 38(C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that when determining a planning application, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for the London Borough of Sutton comprises the following documents:

1) The London Plan July 2011 Page 49 Agenda Item 2

2) The Sutton Core Planning Strategy, adopted December 2009 3) The Sutton Site Development Policies Development Plan Document, adopted March 2012 4) The South London Waste Plan, adopted March 2012

4.2 The Core Planning Strategy sets out the Council’s long term vision, spatial strategy and core policies for shaping the future development in the Borough and managing change over the next 15 years in line with the principles of sustainable development. The Site Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) identifies sites for future development and sets out detailed development management policies to be used to help decide planning applications. The South London Waste Plan (SLWP) is intended to be used in the determination of applications relating to waste facilities in Sutton and is therefore a key policy document in relation to the ERF proposal.

4.3 The following are also material considerations in the determination of the application:

1) National planning guidance in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012, and any other national policy statements and guidance 2) Adopted Sutton Supplementary Planning Document 5: Planning Obligations 3) Adopted Sutton Supplementary Planning Document 13: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

4.4 This part of the report describes the development plan policies. European, national and regional waste planning policies are considered in Section 5.

South London Waste Plan (SLWP)

4.5 The SLWP has been prepared jointly by the partner boroughs of Croydon, Kingston, Merton and Sutton to guide the determination of planning applications relating to waste facilities across the four boroughs. It has a lifetime of 10 years, i.e. until 2021. Its objectives, in summary are to:

x Promote waste minimisation, preparing for re-use and recycling in line with reducing net carbon emissions and the waste hierarchy. Where waste cannot be recycled or composted, the maximum value will be recovered from that residual waste. x Reduce the climate change impacts of waste management by encouraging waste to be managed close to its source. x Identify enough land within the partner boroughs to enable the development of sufficient new waste management facilities to manage the waste apportioned to the partnership by the London Plan. x Minimise adverse impacts on people and the local environment, taking climate change into account, by having waste facilities in suitable locations, using the best available technologies. x Involve local communities and other stake holders in decision making. x Support the key aims and objectives of the four borough’s community strategies, LDFs and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.

4.6 SLWP Policy WP3 expressly safeguards Viridor’s current recycling and composting centre at Beddington and the whole of the adjoining Beddington Farmlands landfill as waste sites. The policy requires that these (and other identified sites across the four boroughs) be safeguarded for their current use or conversion to waste management. It also states that such sites will be encouraged to maximise their potential subject to other policies in the SLWP and the development plan. Further, if a redevelopment results in Agenda Item 2 Page 50

waste being treated further up the waste hierarchy but leads to a reduction in overall throughput, permission may also be granted.

4.7 A footnote to the policy records that the Viridor and landfill sites are both subject to temporary planning permissions or resolutions to grant temporary planning permissions that are due to expire in 2023, after which the land will be incorporated into the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

4.8 As a result of the footnote, the question arises whether, because the application is for development which would be operational beyond 2023, this would mean that the application is not consistent with the development plan. Counsel’s advice has been sought on this point. Counsel has advised that since neither the footnote nor the policy state that permission will not or should not be granted for any scheme that would be operational after 2023, it would be difficult to contend that the footnote was part of policy. In any case, Policy WP3 encourages the maximisation of the site’s use but subject to the other policies in the SLWP and crucially states that proposals must also satisfy any other relevant policies in the development plan. The genesis of the footnote, Counsel concludes, is actually the policies contained in the Council’s Core Strategy, for example Policy PMP5 which relates to the Wandle Valley Regional Park and requires the application site to be incorporated into the Park. The relevance of the footnote is that it is stating what in effect is the position having regard to the Core Strategy. The application therefore stands to be determined against policies in the Core Strategy including those for the Wandle Valley Regional Park, but specifically cannot be considered as contrary to Policy WP3.

4.9 Section 5 of the SLWP gives a description of the issues affecting the Viridor site and acknowledges the designations that affect it, objections raised previously and issues that need to be considered when proposals for waste use of this site are brought forward.

4.10 Policy WP6 seeks to ensure that waste facilities are designed and constructed in a sustainable way. It requires all proposals to achieve BREEAM ‘Excellent’ unless to do so would make the proposal unviable.

4.11 Policy WP7 requires developments for waste facilities to demonstrate that any impacts can be controlled sufficiently so as not to significantly adversely affect people or the environment. This includes impact in terms of Metropolitan Open Land, biodiversity, air emissions, and traffic generation.

4.12 Policy WP8 addresses energy recovery developments. This requires proposals for energy recovery facilities to:

x demonstrate that the waste identified for treatment cannot practically be reused or recycled; x demonstrate the proposal will achieve a positive carbon outcome; x deliver renewable heat and power for local users where feasible; and, x minimise potential adverse impacts on human health, local amenity and the environment.

4.13 Policy WP9 states that planning obligations will be used to ensure new waste developments meet on- and off-site requirements that are made necessary by the development.

London Plan and Sutton LDF Policies

4.14 The following policies are all considered relevant to the application: Page 51 Agenda Item 2

London Plan x 2.18, Green Infrastructure: The Network of Open and Green Spaces x 7.17, Metropolitan Open Land x 7.19, Biodiversity and Access to Nature x 5.2, Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions x 5.3, Sustainable Design x 5.5, Decentralised Energy Networks x 5.6, Decentralised Energy in Development Proposals x 5.7, Renewable Energy x 5.8, Innovative Energy Technologies x 5.10, Urban Greening x 5.11, Green Roofs and Development Site Environs x 5.12, Flood Risk Management x 5.13, Sustainable Drainage x 5.17, Waste Capacity x 6.1, Integrating Transport and Development – Strategic Approach x 6.3, Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity x 6.9, Cycling x 7.1, Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities x 7.2, An Inclusive Environment x 7.4, Local Character x 7.7, Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings x 7.14, Improving Air Quality

Sutton Core Planning Strategy DPD x PMP5, Wandle Valley x PMP9, The Open Spaces Network x BP5, Improving Health and Well-Being x BP6, One Planet Living x BP7, Flood Risk and Climate Change Adaptation x BP8, Waste Reduction and Management x BP9, Enabling Smarter Travel Choices: an Area-Based Approach x BP12, Good Urban Design and Heritage x DP2, Planning Obligations

Site Development Policies DPD x DM1, Character and Design x DM2, Protecting Amenity x DM5, Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Renewable Energy x DM6, Sustainable Design and Construction x DM7, Flood Risk x DM8, Climate Change Adaptation and Sustainable Urban Drainage x DM9, Air Quality x DM11, Contaminated Land x DM12, Noise and Vibration x DM13, Light Pollution x DM15, Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land x DM17, Biodiversity, Habitats and Species x DM19, Promoting Sustainable Transport x DM20, Assessing the Transport Impact of New Development x DM21, New Development and the Highway Network Agenda Item 2 Page 52

4.14 A number of the above policies are of particular relevance to the designation of the application site as MOL and (with the exception of the access road) as part of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park. London Plan Policy 7.17 states:

“The strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances.”

This confirms the protection given to MOL in national documents (see 5.32 & 5.33 below).

4.15 The Sutton Core Strategy also emphasises the importance of protecting MOL. Policy PMP9 states:

“The Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the Borough’s open space network including land within…Metropolitan Open Land.”

4.16 The creation of the Wandle Valley Regional Park is a strategic objective of the London Plan. London Plan Policy 2.18, states:

“In areas of deficiency for regional and metropolitan parks, opportunities for the creation of green infrastructure to meet this deficiency should be identified and their implementation supported, such as in the Wandle Valley Regional Park.”

4.17 In 2012, the Mayor gave further expression to this policy in the Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: the All London Green Grid SPG. Figure 21 of the SPG identifies the application site (except the access road) as part of the Wandle Valley Green Grid and Paragraph 5.99 states:

“The Wandle Valley Regional Park initiative sets out a vision for the creation and improvement of a linked network of open spaces along the river corridor. The park will connect to town centres, transport hubs, communities and business areas, extending out to connect to the open spaces in the surrounding area. This includes Mitcham Common, a large area of grassland and woodland, which added to the proposed new country park, would provide an extensive open space corridor to Beddington Park in the south. The protection and restoration of the river corridor’s natural qualities will play an important role in making a vital and vibrant piece of green infrastructure in this part of London.”

4.18 Paragraph 5.110 adds that there is a strategic green infrastructure opportunity to:

“create a 200 hectare country park at Beddington Farmlands through the restoration of land used for gravel extraction and landfill tipping, linking Beddington Park with Mitcham Common.”

4.19 The Mayor’s strategic objective for a regional park along the River Wandle with a country park within it at Beddington Farmlands has been taken forward in the Sutton Core Strategy. Policy PMP5 states:

“The Council will promote sustainable regeneration within the Wandle Valley Corridor in partnership with the neighbouring boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton and Croydon and with public agencies, external investors, local business and community groups by implementing proposals for…..creating the Wandle Valley Regional Park (as shown on the Proposals Map), including improved provision for recreation and leisure along the River Wandle and within adjoining parks and open spaces.”

4.20 In addition, Policy PMP9 states: Page 53 Agenda Item 2

“The Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the Borough’s open space network including….parks and other open spaces comprising the Wandle Valley Regional Park; and local open space.”

4.21 The application site is also designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. As it is a metropolitan rather than a local site, the London Plan is of relevance. Policy 7.19 states:

“On sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, development proposals should… give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs). These sites are jointly identified by the Mayor and the boroughs as having strategic nature importance.”

4.22 Sutton Core Strategy Policy PMP9 states:

“The Council will protect and seek to enhance the Borough’s biodiversity through supporting measures, which meet the objectives of the London and Local Biodiversity Action Plans and will seek to improve access to nature.”

The Sutton Biodiversity Action Plan 2010-16 identifies the application site within the wider Beddington Farmlands as a ‘Key Nature Conservation Site’.

4.23 Policy DM17 of the Sutton Site Development Policies DPD states:

“The Council will not grant planning permission for development within or adjacent to SINCs… where there would be a significant damaging impact on the nature conservation value or integrity of the site unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the harm; where the Council is satisfied that there are no reasonable alternative sites that would result in less harm; and where adequate mitigation and compensation measures can be put in place.”

5 EUROPEAN, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL WASTE POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 In addition to the development plan there are a number of European and national and regional policy documents and strategies which are of relevance to the application:

x Landfill Directive (99/31/EC); x Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EC); x Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC); x Renewable Energy Directive (2009/31/EC); x Waste Strategy for England (DEFRA, 2007); x UK Renewable Energy Strategy (DECC, 2009); x Government Review of Waste Policy (DEFRA, 2011); x Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (DECC, 2011); x National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (DECC, 2011); and, x Mayor of London’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (GLA, 2011).

5.2 National planning policy is set out in the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This contains little specifically relevant to waste management. Planning Policy Statement 10: Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10), published in 2005 and updated in 2011, remains the principal source of national planning policy for waste management. This was the only Planning Policy Statement not to be cancelled with the introduction of the NPPF. Agenda Item 2 Page 54

European Policy

5.3 The Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) classifies landfills, identifies waste and treatment acceptable and not acceptable in landfills and initiates a permitting scheme for the disposal of waste in landfill. It sets a target to reduce biodegradable waste (including paper, card, food and garden waste and organic textiles) going to landfill to 75% of 1995 figures by 2010 and to 35% by 2020. The Landfill Directive was transposed in UK legislation through the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 and Authorities are penalised if they exceed their targets.

5.4 The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets out how waste is to be treated in EU Member States. It includes the “Waste Hierarchy” and sets out guidelines for various treatment methods and waste streams. The Waste Hierarchy has a priority order for waste treatment with 1 being the highest priority and 5 the lowest. The Waste Hierarchy is as follows:

1. Prevention 2. Preparing for re-use 3. Recycling 4. Other recovery, e.g. energy recovery 5. Disposal, e.g. landfill

When applying the Waste Hierarchy, it is necessary to deliver the best overall environmental outcome.

5.5 The Waste Hierarchy has been transposed into the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 as well as a number of strategies and policy documents. In the context of this application, it is the transposition into PPS10 that is most relevant.

5.6 The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) sets targets for energy from renewable resources for each member state. In the case of the UK, 15% of its energy should come from renewable resources by 2020. It also sets targets for renewable energy use in transport. Member states can trade renewable energy quotas. It requires that infrastructure for energy from renewable resources should be provided for the transport sector. It also requires member states to produce national action plans. Much of the directive is transposed into UK policy through the national action plan, the Renewable Energy Strategy 2009.

National and Regional Waste Policy and Strategies

5.7 The Government Review of Waste Policy (DEFRA, 2011) states two commitments in relation to energy from waste, namely:

x Support energy from waste where appropriate and for waste which cannot be recycled; x Work to overcome the barriers to increasing the energy from waste which Anaerobic Digestion provides, as set out in the new AD strategy.

Therefore, an ERF must be in an appropriate place and use appropriate waste. The emphasis on anaerobic digestion relates mainly to food waste.

5.8 Paragraph 22 of the Review states:

“Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual waste which can deliver environmental benefits, reduce carbon impacts and provide economic opportunities. Our aim is to get the lost energy out of genuinely residual waste, not to get the most waste into energy.” Page 55 Agenda Item 2

5.9 The Government’s key objectives set out in the Waste Strategy for England (DEFRA, 2007) are to:

x Decouple waste growth (in all sectors) from economic growth and put more emphasis on waste prevention and re-use x Meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020 x Increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste x Secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management of hazardous waste x Get the most environmental benefit from that investment, through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.

5.10 The strategy requires national targets for the recycling and composting of household waste (at least 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020) and for the recovery of municipal waste (53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020). In this instance recovery refers to recovering waste by recycling and composting and energy recovery. Therefore, it could be deduced that the target for energy recovery is 25% by 2020 or, in South London waste arising terms, approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum.

5.11 The strategy seeks to incentivise efforts to reduce, re-use and recycle waste and recover energy from waste through the landfill tax escalator, household financial incentives and local government schemes. It also seeks to reform regulation to drive the reduction of waste and diversion from landfill and to stimulate investment in collection, recycling and recovery infrastructure and in markets for recovered materials that will maximise the value of materials and energy recovered. The whole strategy is based on the premise of the Waste Hierarchy.

5.12 The relationship between energy recovery and other methods of waste treatment is addressed in Chapter 5 of the strategy where it is stated:

“The Government’s vision is of a waste collection and treatment infrastructure where... other wastes have electricity and heat recovered where appropriate”. Waste infrastructure, the strategy states, should ensure “full opportunity is taken to achieve synergies between municipal and other waste treatment.

5.13 Paragraphs 17 and 28 in the same chapter state that:

“Recovering energy from waste which cannot reasonably be reused or recycled is an essential component of a well-balanced energy policy”.

“Any given technology is (where applicable) more beneficial if both heat and electricity can be recovered. Particular attention should therefore be given to the siting of plant to maximise opportunities for Combined Heat and Power.”

5.14 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (DECC, 2009) sets out a programme, significantly focused on biomass, in order to achieve the target of 15% of the UK’s energy coming from renewable resources by 2020. It is notably silent on ERFs and therefore is a very limited material consideration in this application.

5.15 Landfill Tax is a UK escalator of costs for using landfills so as to make recycling and recovery increasingly more attractive financially, brought in by the Finance Act 1996. Agenda Item 2 Page 56

5.16 National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 (DECC, 2011) set out the Government’s position with regard to large energy infrastructure projects which will be determined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). In the case of electricity generation, the threshold for triggering determination by the IPC is the generation of 50MW or more onshore. This application falls below that threshold at 26MW but, as Paragraph 14 of Annex A to the Chief Planning Officer letter of 9 November 2009 states, the National Policy Statements are still a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications.

5.17 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) confirms the 15% target for energy from renewable resources (see 5.8 above) and states:

“To hit this target, and to largely decarbonise the power sector by 2030, it is necessary to bring forward new renewable electricity generating projects as soon as possible. The need for new renewable electricity generation projects is therefore urgent” (Paragraph 3.4.5).

“Only waste that cannot be re-used or recycled with less environmental impact and would otherwise go to landfill should be used for energy recovery.” (Paragraph 3.4.1)

5.18 With regard to the choice of technology and the issue of the need for a particular development, paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 state:

“The UK needs all the types of energy infrastructure covered by this NPS in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is for industry to propose new energy infrastructure projects within the strategic framework set by Government. The Government does not consider it appropriate for planning policy to set targets for or limits on different technologies. The IPC should therefore assess all applications for development consent for the types of infrastructure covered by the energy NPSs on the basis that the Government has demonstrated that there is a need for those types of infrastructure and that the scale and urgency of that need is as described for each of them in this Part. The IPC should give substantial weight to the contribution which projects would make towards satisfying this need when considering applications for development consent under the Planning Act 2008.”

5.19 With regard to the consideration of alternative sites in the decision-making process, paragraph 4.4.1 states:

“This NPS does not contain any general requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option.”

5.20 The statement notes, however, that an alternative sites assessment may be required for an Environmental Statement or by the Habitats Regulations. Paragraph 4.4.3 adds:

“Where there is a policy or legal requirement to consider alternatives the applicant should describe the alternatives considered in compliance with these requirements.”

Paragraph 4.4.3 adds that (1) the alternative sites search should be carried out in a proportionate manner; (2) any alternative option should be realistic in delivering the same infrastructure; and, (3) the IPC should not reject an application for development on one site simply because fewer adverse impacts would result from developing similar infrastructure on another suitable site. Page 57 Agenda Item 2

5.21 As a general point of principle, paragraph 4.6.3 states that the Government is committed to promoting good quality CHP, which denotes CHP that has been certified as highly efficient under the CHP Quality Assurance programme.

5.22 Paragraphs 4.6.6 - 4.6.12 set out the requirements on a prospective developer to show that the possibility of producing CHP has been fully investigated. Paragraphs 4.6.7 and 4.6.8 state:

“In developing proposals for new thermal generating stations, developers should consider the opportunities for CHP from the very earliest point and it should be adopted as a criterion when considering locations for a project. Given how important liaison with potential customers for heat is, applicants should not only consult those potential customers they have identified themselves but also bodies such as the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Authorities and obtain their advice on opportunities for CHP.”

“Utilisation of useful heat that displaces conventional heat generation from fossil fuel sources is to be encouraged where, as will often be the case, it is more efficient than the alternative electricity/heat generation mix. To encourage proper consideration of CHP, substantial additional positive weight should therefore be given by the IPC to applications incorporating CHP”.

5.23 The possibility of providing CHP to potential rather than existing developments and the use of planning conditions in such circumstances is addressed in paragraph 4.6.12:

“The IPC may be aware of potential developments (for example from the applicant or a third party) which could utilise heat from the plant in the future, for example planned housing, and which is due to be built within a timeframe that would make the supply of heat cost-effective. If so, the IPC may wish to impose requirements to ensure that the generating station is CHP-ready unless the IPC is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the need to comply with the requirement to be Carbon Capture Ready will preclude any provision for CHP.”

5.24 Other assessment principles set out in EN-1 for the IPC are: climate change adaptation, grid connection, pollution control and other environmental regulatory regimes, safety, hazardous substances, health, common law nuisance and statutory nuisance and security considerations. These issues are covered in the Detailed Considerations section of this report and by the Environment Agency permitting regime.

5.25 Finally, EN-1 sets out a “non-exhaustive” list of generic impacts and guidelines for the consideration of each. The generic impacts of particular relevance to this application are:

x Land use including open space, green infrastructure and Green Belt x Landscape and visual x Air quality and emissions x Traffic and Transport x Bio-diversity x Dust, odour and artificial light x Socio-economic

Each of these impacts is addressed in the Detailed Considerations section of this report.

5.26 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (DECC, 2011) generally supplements the guidance set out in EN-1. It confirms in paragraph 2.5.2 that: Agenda Item 2 Page 58

“The recovery of energy from the combustion of waste, where in accordance with the waste hierarchy, will play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s energy needs..... Further, the recovery of energy from the combustion of waste forms an important element of waste management strategies in both England and Wales. ”

5.27 In respect of decision making, EN-3 notes that increase in traffic volumes, any change in air quality and any other adverse impacts must be considered and balanced against the net benefits of waste combustion. In respect of air quality, however, it notes the role of the permitting regime regulated by the Environment Agency andincludes the following specific advice:

“Compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) and the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) is enforced through the environmental permitting regime regulated by the Environment Agency (EA). Plants not meeting the requirements of the WID and/or LCPD would not be granted a permit to operate.... Where a proposed waste combustion generating station meets the requirements of WID and will not exceed the local air quality standards, the IPC should not regard the proposed waste generating station as having adverse impacts on health.”

5.28 The Mayor of London’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (GLA, 2011) sets a number of targets for municipal waste management including:

x To achieve zero municipal waste direct to landfill by 2025; x To reduce the amount of household waste produced by 20% by 2031 from 2009/10 levels; x To increase London’s capacity to reuse or repair municipal waste; x To recycle or compost at least 45 per cent of municipal waste by 2015, 50 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2031; x To cut London’s greenhouse gas emissions through the management of London’s municipal waste; and, x To generate as much energy as practicable from London’s organic and non- recycled waste in a way that is no more polluting in carbon terms than the energy source it is replacing. This is estimated to be possible for about 40 per cent of London’s municipal waste after recycling or composting targets are achieved by 2031.

National Planning Policy Framework

5.29 Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states: “In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” It defines the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” as “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.”

5.30 The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. The application will require these to be weighed and balanced within the terms of the development plan.

5.31 In addition, the NPPF identifies 13 methods of delivering sustainable development, five of which are relevant to this application.

x Building a Strong, Competitive Economy x Requiring Good Design x Protecting Green Belt Land x Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change Page 59 Agenda Item 2

x Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

5.32 Within London, land designated as Metropolitan Open Land is considered equivalent to Green Belt in terms of protection. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

The question of whether ‘very special circumstances’ have been proved will be examined later in this report.

5.33 However, specifically in relation to renewable energy projects, the NPPF states at paragraph 91:

“When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. ”

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

5.34 As noted above, PPS10 remains a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Paragraph 3 sets out the key planning principles which may be summarised as follows:

x Driving waste management up the waste hierarchy; x Communities taking more responsibility for their own waste, involving sufficient and timely provision of new waste management facilities; x Implementation of the national waste strategy and supporting targets; x The recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment and enabling waste disposal of in one of the nearest appropriate installations; x Reflecting the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste disposal authorities and other stakeholders and encouraging competitiveness; x Protecting green belts whilst recognising that the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations to be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission; x Ensuring that the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management.

5.35 When identifying potential sites for waste management facilities, PPS10 recommends that waste planning authorities should consider a broad range of locations, including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities and complimentary activities (paragraph 20) and give priority to the use of previously developed land. Where proposals are consistent with up to date development plans, local planning authorities should not expect applicants to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal (paragraph 22). The PPS does not preclude the use of sites not allocated for waste use in the development plan if these are consistent with the PPS and the Core Strategy (paragraph 24). Applicants should be able to demonstrate that the envisaged facility will not undermine the waste planning strategy through prejudicing Agenda Item 2 Page 60

movement up the waste hierarchy (paragraph 25). The statement identifies that waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns, such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources and regeneration, and the positive contribution that waste management can make to the development of sustainable communities should be recognised (paragraph 4).

5.36 Appendix E of PPS10 sets out a broad set of criteria for identifying suitable locations for waste management facilities. The list of criteria has been used by the applicant as the basis for the site search (see 6.52 below).

6 DETAILED CONSIDERATION

Land Use Policy

6.1 The application site is located within MOL that is also identified in the London Plan and the SLWP as a safeguarded waste management site. The London Plan (Policy 7.17) supports the current extent of MOL and confirms its protection from development that has an adverse impact on its openness. Inappropriate development will not be allowed within MOL except in very special circumstances.

6.2 The London Plan states that appropriate development should be limited to small-scale structures to support open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL. The ERF clearly does not fall into this definition, and the proposal is therefore in the unusual position of being in conformity with the waste policies of the development plan, including the use of the safeguarded site, whilst also being inappropriate development in MOL.

6.3 The key land use policy considerations, therefore, are, firstly, the extent to which the proposals would impact adversely on the openness of MOL and on conservation management and public access objectives as set out principally in London Plan Policies 2.18 and 7.17, Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policies PMP5 and PMP9 and Site Development DPD Policies DM15 and DM17, and, secondly, whether the application demonstrates sufficient very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development on MOL and any other harm arising from the proposal. The impact of the proposal on the open character, landscape and visual amenity of the Wandle Valley Regional Park also stands to be considered under London Plan Policy 7.17 and Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP9 in particular. Another important land use consideration is traffic impact and in this regard consideration needs to be given to the applications compliance with London Plan Policies 6.1 and 6.3, Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policy BP9 and Site Development DPD Policies DM20 and DM21.

Impact on Openness

6.4 The site of the ERF already includes buildings, hardstandings and structures associated with the permitted existing waste management uses, and is subject to a resolution to grant permission for additional development in the form of an anaerobic digestion plant. The openness of MOL in this location is therefore already affected, albeit on the basis of temporary planning permissions that require all buildings and structures to be removed by 2023 and the land to be fully restored soon after.

6.5 The applicants seek to draw a distinction between the impact of the development on the openness of MOL, meaning the presence or absence of development, and visual impact, which depends on the characteristics of the development and of the surrounding area. They argue that a redevelopment of a previously developed site in MOL, where openness has already been lost, would not cause an additional loss of openness if the new development did not exceed the previous footprint. However, if it were taller then there would be an additional visual impact. Page 61 Agenda Item 2

6.6 The proposals would be mostly contained within the boundaries of the safeguarded site and would have a marginally smaller footprint than the existing buildings and structures. However, where the existing uses are divided between a number of medium size buildings of limited height spread over a relatively wide area, the proposal is to replace these with a single very large building (the ERF) and a number of lower height but not insubstantial ancillary buildings. The latter would stand in close proximity to the ERF giving the proposals a monolithic character that the existing buildings and structures lack. It is considered that this monolithic character would impact adversely on the openness of that part of the site on which the ERF is to stand. However, this adverse impact must be balanced against the removal of all buildings and structures (with the exception of the gas plant compound) from the remaining area of the safeguarded site. It is relevant to note that the proposal would consolidate waste management on about 3 hectares of the 7.4 hectare safeguarded area, and the remainder would be restored to open land uses.

6.7 Beyond the safeguarded site, the proposals include a new landscape bund, planting and ponds but these are essentially open space uses and will be designed to form part of the adjacent restored lands and might reasonably be considered not to affect openness. The proposed education centre would project a small distance beyond the safeguarded site boundary and would represent a small diminution of openness within the restored lands. The main area where the proposals would introduce new development where there is currently none is the provision of the new access road. However, the existing access road would be broken up and restored to grass to balance this. Generally speaking, therefore, the proposals would not introduce significant new development beyond the boundaries of the safeguarded site.

6.8 Overall, having regard to the additional height and mass of the ERF building, it is considered that the development would be harmful to the openness of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider MOL contrary to London Plan Policy 7.17 and that part of Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP 9 that seeks to enhance MOL within the borough.

Conservation Management, Public Access and Landscape Impact

6.9 Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP5 states that the Council will promote the creation of the Wandle Valley Regional Park including improved provision for recreation and leisure. Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP9 confirms that the Council will seek to safeguard open space and to protect and enhance biodiversity within the area of the proposed Regional Park. Policy PMP9 also confirms the importance of protecting MOL. Site Development DPD Policy DM17 addresses development within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), stating that permission will not be granted where there is a significant damaging impact on the nature conservation value or integrity of the site unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the harm, the Council is satisfied that there are no reasonable alternative sites that would result in less harm and adequate mitigation and compensation measures can be put in place.

6.10 The applicants state that landfill activity at the application site would cease upon completion and commissioning of the ERF, expected in 2017. Operations in 2018 would include final importation of inert fill to complete the landform, importation of remaining topsoil, seeding, planting and path construction in all areas except that occupied by the IVC operations which would continue until 2022 when the IVC contract with the Partnership ends. Restoration would be completed in 2023. Agenda Item 2 Page 62

Conservation Management and Biodiversity

6.11 The restored landfill would be subject to on-going maintenance as set out in the agreed Conservation Management Scheme (CMS) (see 1.11 to 1.14 above). However, the construction of the ERF would result in the loss of about 3% of the agreed area. The area lost to the ERF is shown under the agreed CMS to become wet grassland and although the applicant proposes to provide a comparable amount of wet grassland elsewhere within the Beddington Farmlands, this would result in the fragmentation of this particular habitat.

6.12 The fragmentation of wet grassland is a key concern for all nature conservation bodies who consider this a key habitat for bird life. Wildlife groups seek the relocation of the ERF to the frontage land so that one large area of wetland might be retained and/or compensatory provision for lost grasslands within the Hundred Acres to the north. The Beddington Farmlands Bird Group is also concerned about a possible adverse impact on the tree sparrow population (the site is one of London’s most important sparrow habitats) and on reptiles (they refer to their own reptile survey which is not reflected in the applicant’s study).

6.13 In respect of nature conservation, the applicant has agreed three main measures. Firstly, they propose to provide funding of £40,000 per annum for 25 years (index linked) for a warden to oversee management of the Beddington Farmlands from both an access and nature conservation point of view. Secondly, they have agreed to secure an additional area from the Hundred Acres, broadly equivalent to the site area of the ERF, to supplement the area for habitat creation, together with a payment of £50,000 to fund this and additional access (see below). This sum will be in addition to the £1.84m already secured through the existing Section 106 legal agreement to manage the restored lands. It should be noted that the additional land to be provided does not form part of the planning application or the restoration scheme, but would be subject to the control of the Beddington Farmlands Conservation and Access Management Committee (CAMC) established under the existing legal agreement. Thirdly, they have agreed to develop and implement a tree sparrow mitigation strategy, to be secured by a planning condition.

6.14 The provision for additional habitat within the Hundred Acres (and for access across the SAM site, see 6.20 below) is dependent on the applicants reaching formal agreement with Thames Water. While informal agreement has been given, any resolution to grant consent should be subject to a specific requirement that the area be formally secured.

6.15 In respect of reptiles, the applicants comment that whilst their own surveys (limited to the site of the ERF and new access road) recorded none, they do recognise the potential for reptiles across the wider Beddington Farmlands. The Common Lizard is a protected species and would in any case need to be safeguarded during construction work. Specific measures to be adopted at the ERF construction site are to be assessed and set out in detail in a Construction Environmental Management Plan.

6.16 The frontage site also gives rise to biodiversity concerns, raised by consultees and during negotiations. The concern is that the proposal would isolate this land from the core wildlife habitat and therefore diminish its biodiversity value. The applicants argue that as the application site is currently already developed, this would not exacerbate the current situation. It can be argued that without the ERF, the site of the ERF would stand to be restored, so re-connecting the frontage land to the wider habitats. The long term isolation of this land therefore stands to be considered with all the other biodiversity concerns and mitigation measures.

6.17 Overall, it is considered that the proposals would not harm nature conservation and biodiversity interests subject to the mitigation set out in 6.13 to 6.15 above. The Page 63 Agenda Item 2

application is considered to comply with the biodiversity expectations of Core Planning Strategy PMP9 and with Site Development Policy DM17 in respect of its impact on the SINC. The provision of a warden is considered a major benefit. The counter-balancing benefits of the development proposals and the availability of alternatives sites for the development are considered later in this report.

Public Access

6.18 There is considerable community concern about public access, and particularly whether this could be increased, even if at the expense of nature conservation within the restored area. The recently completed legal agreement establishes a locally accountable body (the CAMC) to address such management issues, and it is not considered appropriate to seek to revise the proposals in this respect at this stage, but to rely on the CAMC to address and resolve them.

6.19 Viridor claim that bringing forward implementation of the CMS by up to five years is a significant material consideration in their favour. Although there will be no significantly earlier access to the main public access area identified in the CMS because landfill has already ceased in this area, earlier access to some peripheral parts of the site still to be restored is possible. The application also proposes to retain the existing north-south footpath on the western site of the site, whereas the 2005 application replaced this with a route within the site. Both routes are now proposed, representing an increase in access provision over the previous proposals.

6.20 Also, the applicants have agreed to secure additional land within the SAM site to enable an access to be created to Beddington Lane from the public access area within the restored land. As for the additional Hundred Acres, this would not be part of the application, but would be made available to the CAMC to implement the access, together with £50,000 funding for this and the project to manage habitats within the Hundred Acres. While this access was implied in the original restoration scheme there were no measures to implement it.

6.21 It should be noted that public access to the restored site will always depend on health and safety risks associated with methane gas emissions, which are likely to persist for a number of years. Full public access is unlikely to be provided for 20 to 30 years, with access until then limited to defined footpaths. This is a similar timescale to the original proposals. Nevertheless, the increased certainty of the new proposals is considered beneficial.

6.22 The applicant was specifically requested to provide funding to secure the future of the bridges over the railway line linking the restored area to Hackbridge. The applicant would ensure that the restored area provides links to these bridges, but does not propose to fund the retention of the bridges specifically.

6.23 In summary, although the majority of the restored land would continue to be reserved for nature conservation purposes, the proposals offer some additional public access to the restored lands relative to the previously agreed scheme. The area of the ERF and associated buildings that would be lost to any form of public access for the life of the development had been identified to become a wet grassland habitat in the previously agreed restoration plans and would have offered limited if any public access. Overall, the proposals are not considered contrary to Core Strategic Planning Policy PMP5 or the public access expectations of Policy PMP9.

Landscape Impact

6.24 It is clear that the ERF would be substantially taller and more visible in long views than the existing structures. It would also have a significantly greater volume. The main part Agenda Item 2 Page 64

of the building would be 42 metres high and the twin stacks 95 metres high. Photomontages submitted with the application and forming part of the accompanying Environmental Statement confirm that the building and stacks would be visible from a wide area including from other points within the Regional Park. The ERF would be particularly prominent in views from Mitcham Common to the north. It would be less visible from Beddington Park to the south because of contours in the land and existing mature vegetation within the park. Both Mitcham Common and Beddington Park also form part of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park.

6.25 The proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park will comprise a network of open spaces and the relationship between these spaces is both a visual and functional one. The London Plan and Sutton Core Planning Strategy both require the Regional Park to be considered as a whole. The ERF would introduce a large new element in the landscape that would have a significant impact on views across and therefore the open character of the Regional Park.

6.26 The applicants accept that the proposal would have a significant and adverse landscape impact, although they argue that this would be ameliorated by the urban context particularly of Croydon and the industrial background. The applicants have agreed to fund off-site landscaping in the sum of £35,000, and this should be helpful in softening the impact from some short views, but the longer views could not readily be mitigated.

6.27 For these reasons it is considered that 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.

6.28 With regard to the landscaping of the application site, a satisfactory indicative planting scheme has been prepared for the ERF/workshop compound and planning conditions are recommended to secure an acceptable final scheme and its full implementation. The routing of the CHP pipes would result in the loss of several Category B oak trees in the vicinity of the ERF but the Council’s tree officer considers that the proposed replanting would compensate adequately for this. The proposed legal agreement would secure the restoration and landscaping of the majority of the site in accordance with the previously agreed Conservation Management Scheme.

6.29 The scheme has been amended to include extensive new planting along the southern edge of the new access road where it is proposed to fell a number of existing trees. The applicants have declined to move the road northwards to allow the majority of existing trees to be retained. However, all the existing trees in this area are Category C with the exception of a Category B Oak, which would be retained.

Transport

6.30 The Transport Assessment (TA) confirms that there would be a peak in traffic during construction of the facility (late 2013 to 2017) but a reduction thereafter relative to the existing situation, i.e. continued landfill. In broad terms, the ERF and future Waste Transfer Station combined would deal with the same volume of waste that presently passes through the site and would therefore generate much the same number of lorry movements. However, there would no longer be a need to import material to form and cap the landfill chambers, which is currently the second largest delivery to the site, accounting for around 66 lorry movements a day.

6.31 In summary, whereas current activities on site generate an average of 732 lorry movements per day, the peak construction phase (in 2015) is expected to generate 770 lorry movements a day and the facility once operational 666 lorry movements a day. The Page 65 Agenda Item 2

latter (the worst case if the ERF were to operate at the daily equivalent of the maximum 302,500 tpa input) would be a 9% fall relative to the existing situation.

6.32 Of the 666 operational lorry movements per day, 518 would be attributable to the ERF (404 municipal waste and 114 C&I waste), 12 to mixed municipal waste, 102 to recyclables passing through the Waste Transfer Station, 2 to deliveries of process materials and 32 to the removal of bottom ash and other residue.

6.33 It is considered reasonable for the applicants to argue that their proposals have no adverse impact to 2023, other than for construction traffic, and the proposals for the construction phase are considered reasonable. They also argue that there is no adverse impact post-2023, as the adverse comparison with the traffic situation if waste management ceased is hypothetical, and any continuing highways concerns at that time relate more to growth in background traffic levels, and cannot reasonably be taken into account from a planning point of view. However, it is considered that there should be some mitigation post-2023, as from then landfill traffic would have ceased in the absence of the ERF proposal, but this should take the form of community funding rather than highways funding, as the issue being addressed is community well being, not highways mitigation. A contribution of £100,000 is therefore proposed to supplement the community find referred to in 6.37 below. The funds might be used to address concerns related to traffic by contributing to highways improvements, or to some other environmental or community project to offset the adverse impact on well being. The sum of £100,000 is justified to enable the community to undertake a project or projects of sufficient significance to off-set the adverse impact on well being significant.

6.34 Lorry routing has been discussed, and the applicants have agreed to produce and submit for the Council’s approval, a Lorry/HGV Access and Routing Strategy that details the route lorries delivering non-contract waste must take to and from the site. This would seek to route lorries away from Hillers Lane. The Partnership has agreed to abide by any planning conditions on lorry routing for municipal waste vehicles. Viridor will also provide signage on site and at the site exit to remind drivers of the need to follow the specified routes. They will also install CCTV cameras to assist in monitoring compliance. All construction traffic is proposed to be routed to avoid Hilliers Lane. These measures would address the concerns of local residents regarding the potential for additional HGV movements through Beddington Village.

6.35 The applicants have agreed to provide £40,500 to fund sustainable transport measures in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document to this effect. They have also agreed to measures such as encouraging/subsidising construction and operational staff to use public transport for work journeys. These would be included in staff travel plans for the construction and operational phases of the development.

6.36 The routes HGVs would take and the hours of delivery to the ERF when operational could be further addressed through a Service and Delivery Plan, to be secured by condition. This would help address the concerns of the GLA/TfL in respect of highway capacity. It is Viridor’s intention that the majority of waste would be delivered to the site and ash exported from the site between 0700 to 2000 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1800 on Saturdays with no waste delivered or ash exported on Sunday with limited activity on some public holidays. Outside of these hours the site would need to be accessed by HGV for maintenance purposes and to service the recycling/transfer building which provides a night service to the Partnership for its street cleaning vehicles.

6.37 No contribution is proposed to the Beddington Lane Improvement scheme, other than ensuring that the works to the Coomber Way roundabout are consistent with the scheme. In view of the conclusion that the facility when operational will generate less traffic than the present landfill activity, and in view of the payment to the community fund in 2024, this is considered to be a reasonable approach. Agenda Item 2 Page 66

6.38 The ERF would have a 58 space car park. 21 spaces will be for staff, 30 for visitors, 6 for disability permit holders and 1 for the warden. The number of spaces for staff is considered high given that no more than 14 staff are expected to be on site at any one time, but the overall level of provision is considered acceptable. The plans have been amended to provide 4 spaces for motor cycles.

6.39 Subject to satisfactory Travel Plans, a Construction Management Plan and Service and Delivery Plan to regulate and minimise the impact of traffic movements to and from the site, the scheme is considered acceptable in highway terms.

Need Assessment and the Type of Waste to be Treated

6.40 Notwithstanding government policy on how the issue of need should be addressed when dealing with individual planning applications (see paragraph 5.19 above), it is considered appropriate in this case to examine the need for a facility of the proposed size given the clear conflict with MOL policy and the additional environmental and nature conservation concerns arising from this.

6.41 The application for an ERF arises from the need to divert residual waste, i.e. waste that is not recycled, from landfill in line with European Directives and national policies and strategies. The size of the ERF is based on an assessment of the quantity of residual waste that will require management across the 30 year waste management contract between Viridor and the Partnership.

6.42 The ERF must be able to handle all the waste delivered to it by the Partnership under the terms of the contract, which is presently about 200,000 tpa. The contract provides for a minimum guaranteed tonnage which is set to allow the Partnership to still achieve its reduction, re-use and recycling targets. Hence the minimum guaranteed tonnage of municipal waste will decline year on year.

6.43 However, the ERF is designed for 275,000 tpa and it is therefore proposed to source additional commercial and industrial (C&I) waste to make up the difference between this figure and the residual municipal waste.

6.44 There is a parallel need to divert C&I waste from landfill and, similarly to municipal waste, this is being achieved through efforts to minimise, re-use and recycle as much as possible. However, as with municipal waste, there remains an amount of waste requiring diversion from landfill.

6.45 Viridor state that the larger throughput resulting from the proposed combination of contract and C&I waste will offer economies of scale and plant efficiencies that would not otherwise be achievable, including greater opportunities to generate heat and power. The absolute capacity of the facility (302,500 tpa), takes account of the varying calorific value of the different material that would be burnt and the likely occasional need to treat larger volumes in order to maintain the efficiency of the plant. The intended throughput in the course of a year would be 275,000 tonnes.

6.46 Information submitted by the applicants in February 2013 to supplement their Need Assessment estimates the amount of residual municipal and C&I waste that is expected to be available to the ERF in 2020, taking account of anticipated improved rates of recycling (expected to rise to 50% of municipal and 70% of C&I waste by 2020). It also lists existing and proposed plant that will be capable of competing for the available residual waste in 2020.

6.47 The applicants expect residual household waste to fall to about 169,000 tpa by 2020, requiring the ERF to source 106,000 tpa of C&I waste by this date. They estimate that Page 67 Agenda Item 2

by 2020 suitable residual C&I waste in the ERF catchment area (comprising much of South London and Surrey) will increase 495,000 tpa. Existing and proposed waste treatment capacity in the region is expected to account for around 350,000 tpa of this, leaving 145,000 tpa available to the Beddington ERF. This figure is in excess of the 106,000 tpa that the ERF will require to maintain operation. Viridor conclude, therefore, that there will be sufficient, suitable waste available within practical catchment of the ERF to justify a facility of the proposed size.

6.48 There is inherent uncertainty about the market need for such treatment in the future. Waste arisings may well increase due to economic/population growth, but waste management policies (for both household and C&I waste) may increase the proportion of waste that is recycled. The working assumption is that municipal waste continues at 2020 levels. If the Partnership strategy to reduce the tonnage of residual waste in the long term is achieved, there will be a proportionately greater reliance on C&I waste to make up the feedstock. This is effectively at the applicant’s risk, but the information provided suggests that there is sufficient C&I waste from the Partnership and adjacent area to make of the difference. If on the other hand, the Partnership fails to achieve its targets for waste management or should increased economic activity mean more waste in the Partnership area, so that waste growth largely cancels out the effects of waste prevention and increased recycling, the tonnage of residual waste will not reduce and in these circumstances the proposals would clearly be justified in terms of need.

6.49 In respect of municipal waste, it will be the responsibility of the Waste Partnership to sort the waste that it collects and to deliver only residual waste to the ERF. The Partnership has confirmed that its contract with Viridor incentivises continued waste reduction and recycling and deliberately avoids ‘feeding the machine’. In respect of C&I waste, government regulations backed up by financial penalties require commercial businesses to sort their own waste and to send only residual waste to landfill or incineration. In essence, therefore, responsibility for the mix of waste treated at the ERF will lie with the suppliers of the waste rather than the operators of the facility. Therefore, while it is unlikely that recyclables will be used a feedstock for the ERF, and while there are some safeguarding measures to discourage it, there can be no guarantee. It is considered that it would be unreasonable to impose a planning condition to this effect.

6.50 The applicants have indicated their acceptance of a condition to the effect that the ERF will not process materials that have been separated for recycling or composting unless they cannot be practicably recycled or composted. This would prohibit the incineration of waste already sorted for recycling including any delivered to the adjacent Waste Transfer Station.

6.51 In summary, the case for a facility of this size relies in large part on estimates of the future availability of appropriate feedstock and the capacity of competing facilities in the region, areas where there can be no absolute certainty. However, a sufficiently strong case is considered to have been made. In addition, government advice is clear that local authorities should not generally challenge the need for a particular facility unless in response to particular environmental concerns associated with the selected site. In this case, it is improbable that a plant of smaller capacity would have materially different environmental impacts than the current proposals.

Alternative Sites

6.52 Given that the ERF proposal constitutes inappropriate development in MOL, and notwithstanding that the ERF site is also largely safeguarded for waste use, the applicant has provided information to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites that could deliver the ERF within the relevant timeframe. The applicant has undertaken a study of alternative sites based on the criteria in Appendix E to PPS10. Agenda Item 2 Page 68

6.53 National Policy Statement EN-1 notes that although there is no general requirement for an applicant to consider alternatives sites or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option, an alternative sites assessment may be required for an Environmental Statement. The note advises that where this applies, as it does in this case, the assessment should be carried out in a proportionate manner and be realistic in delivering the same infrastructure. Also, an application ought not to be rejected on one site simply because fewer adverse impacts would result from developing similar infrastructure on another suitable site (see 5.19 & 5.20 above).

6.54 The study undertaken by the applicants first identified a long list of 157 sites. Sieving was undertaken to a) remove sites that were too small to physically accommodate the size of ERF required to replicate their proposal, b) identify any overriding constraints to development, for example national or international environmental designations or incompatible land uses and c) identify sites already occupied by other compatible uses but where the site was unlikely to be available or acquired in time to meet the requirement that the plant be operational by 2017. 46 of the 157 long-listed sites were discounted on the basis of criterion c), that the site should be available in time for Viridor to meet its contractual commitments to the Waste Partnership.

6.55 The sieving process resulted in a short list of 14 sites. These were then scored against a series of operational, planning and environmental criteria to provide a final ranking of sites. The concluding section of the applicant’s study is replicated as Appendix B to this report. This identifies the 14 shortlisted sites and their ranking.

6.56 It will be seen that the application site ranked joint second behind land immediately to the east of the application site, fronting Beddington Lane (referred to in this report as the frontage land), in the ownership of Thames Water. This also lies with MOL but is outside the area of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park.

6.57 Viridor’s selection of the application site over the frontage land relies heavily on its operational deliverability by 2017. Whilst the terms of Viridor’s contract with the Waste Partnership are not, per se, considered to be a material planning consideration, the timescale for deliverability of the project is. The need for the facility to be operational within the identified timeframe reflects also the escalating cost of landfill and the need to plan now for and deliver the necessary facilities to divert waste from landfill in line with European directives and national targets. Were Viridor to be required to acquire or assemble a site this would risk delaying the delivery of the facility and perpetuating the landfill activities unacceptably.

6.58 Whilst the short-listing criterion that the site must be available in time to allow Viridor to meet its contractual obligations with the Waste Partnership inevitably favours sites already in the company’s control, the ready availability of the application site combined with the urgent need to push waste up the waste hierarchy is considered a significant factor in favour of the application.

6.59 The frontage land occupies a more peripheral location within MOL and is also outside the area of the proposed Regional Park. The construction of the ERF here might therefore be expected to have significantly less impact on MOL and the future Regional Park, and this is supported by a number of respondents. However, the resulting development would be more visible from Beddington Lane and from residential areas to the east and south-east. The Beddington Residents’ Association strongly opposes any suggestion of relocating the ERF to the frontage land for this reason. It is also the case that the frontage land, unlike the application site, is not allocated for waste management use in the SLWP.

6.60 Construction of the ERF on the application site would leave the frontage land isolated from the remainder of MOL and potentially vulnerable to development at a later date. Page 69 Agenda Item 2

The proposed deletion of this land from MOL, supported by the Council but opposed by the GLA during the preparation of the Council’s Core Planning Strategy in 2009, was not supported by the Inspector who adjudged that the site should remain MOL. It must be acknowledged that this designation might be more difficult to defend were the application proposals to go ahead although this would be a matter for the Council to formally consider through the local plan process.

6.61 Equal second was land immediately to the west of the application site, known as the former CEMEX site, which forms part of Viridor’s current landfill operations. Viridor has a substantial leasehold interest in this land which is therefore likely to be available for development and within the timeframe set by the contract with the Partnership. However, it is situated more centrally within the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and the location of the ERF here would seem certain to have a greater adverse impact on the open character of the Regional Park and wider MOL.

6.62 Whilst it might theoretically be possible to provide for the waste needs of the partnership by splitting activities between smaller sites, possibly involving more up-front processing, this did not emerge as an option from the procurement process and therefore cannot realistically be considered to be a deliverable waste management solution for the partnership.

Energy Generation

6.63 The ERF would incinerate waste and use the steam to drive a steam turbine. This would generate up to 26 MWe of electricity of which 22 MWe will be fed into the supply grid via an existing sub-station off Lathams Way in Croydon and 4MWe would be used by the facility itself.

6.64 The design of the facility includes the ability to also take heat from the turbine and provides for the necessary heat exchange and pumping equipment to deliver heat off- site. Viridor are already in negotiations with the developers of the Felnex site in Hackbridge to provide heat from the existing landfill gas engines but the supply of gas from these will diminish over time. The ERF would offer the potential to augment this and provide a more secure source of heat in the future.

6.65 A CHP action plan prepared for Viridor and submitted with the application sets out an action plan for a district heating scheme based on the ERF. This identifies a strong business case for such a scheme based on a number of potential heat users in Hackbridge to the west and Croydon to the east. The applicant has committed to working closely with the Council and GLA to develop a viable district heating system to be operated by an energy services company (ESCo).

6.66 Viridor do not propose to install all of the infrastructure required for the delivery of CHP including the laying of all the connecting pipes to the site boundaries unless and until a commercial CHP contract is signed with an ESCo. They do, however, offer to participate in a task-based implementation working group and make a one-off payment of £50,000 to support its work. The GLA are of the view that the application is broadly compliant with London Plan CHP objectives subject to appropriate conditions to ensure the plant is ‘CHP ready’ and a legal agreement requiring a commitment to participate in a working group.

6.67 Planning conditions can require the plant to be ‘CHP ready, but it is considered that the S106 agreement could not unconditionally require the applicants to implement a CHP system, as this would be unduly onerous on them from a commercial and practical point of view. The Council’s own CHP advisor considers that the business case for Viridor to enter into an agreement with an ESCO is extremely strong, so there is every reason to give significant weight to the CHP measures being implemented. Agenda Item 2 Page 70

6.68 The pipe route that has been found to be most appropriate to serve Felnex and the remainder of Hackbridge would cross the railway line via the London Road bridge, which is adopted and maintained by the Council. It is likely to be possible to place the pipe within the roadway across the bridge.

6.69 Information has been provided to confirm that the carbon balance requirements of London Plan policies are met. The London Plan identifies that implementation of CHP projects can have a significant role to play in achieving carbon reduction targets. The energy to be produced from the biodegradable element of the input to the ERF is classed as renewable and the ERF will therefore provide renewable/low carbon energy in line with national policy.

Air Quality & Health

6.70 The application as originally submitted met the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID), and this was confirmed by the Council’s own consultant air quality advisors. However, concern remained about the impact of even very slight increases in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in a small area of Beddington Lane, within the Beddington Air Quality Management Area, where NO2 levels are already occasionally at the limit. The Environment Agency shared this concern. Following discussions with both the Council and the Environment Agency, the applicants have amended the scheme in two respects. Firstly, they have reduced the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) output from the facility through additional chemical treatment. Secondly, they have raised the height of the chimney stacks from 85m to 95m. These measures will both reduce the output of NOx and disperse it more widely.

6.71 The Environment Agency has confirmed that NO2 levels in the Beddington Air Quality Management Area should now rise by no more than 0.8% above current levels, which is considered negligible by the Agency. A similar conclusion was reached by the Council’s air quality advisors.

6.72 The Environment Agency and the Council’s consultants have also confirmed that the amendments will reduce the impact of emissions overall. Whilst the wider dispersal of emissions will move the area of greatest increase in NO2 approximately 500m to the east to a point on the Mitcham Road in Croydon NO2 where it is estimated to rise by no more than 1.5%, the Agency has confirmed that absolute levels will remain within EU air quality limit values requirements. This is considered to address the concerns about air quality raised by the London Borough of Croydon.

6.73 Concern has also been expressed by objectors about the emission of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including dioxins and furans. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the abatement of POPs is dealt with through their assessment of the chosen technology and Environmental Permit process. The Council’s own air quality advisors add that the assessment of dioxins and furans has been reviewed, and confirms that there will be no significant or detectable impacts on health due to emissions of these substances.

6.74 There are considered to be no grounds to conclude that the plant could not operate in a safe manner. Responsibility for monitoring the operation of the ERF will lie with the Environment Agency through the Environmental Permit.

6.75 The additional chemical treatment requires an additional 7 lorry deliveries a year, but this is not considered to be significant in traffic generation terms. The effect of increasing the chimney stack heights on design and landscape impact is considered below. Page 71 Agenda Item 2

6.76 The applicants have agreed to fund additional air quality monitoring in the sum of £35,000, which is necessary to monitor air quality in the Beddington Lane monitoring station for a three year post-operational period. This would provide verification that the air quality measures are effective in reducing the process contribution to environmental levels of NO2 to insignificant levels in practice. This monitoring would be provided by Kings College, who provide an on-line service. On line air monitoring will also be available in the proposed education centre in the ERF itself.

Design of the ERF

6.77 The chosen design approach, a simple industrial cubic form, is broadly supported by Design Council/CABE and the Council’s own urban design officer. The increase in stack height is not considered to detract from the design. The ERF and workshop buildings would mostly be clad in vertically orientated zinc standing seam cladding in a pre- weathered blue grey finish. This colouring has been chosen to reduce light reflectance and to allow the buildings to ‘visually sit’ within their context and against both a clear and clouded sky. Lower levels of both buildings would be clad in more robust coloured trapezoidal steel. The education centre/CHP building would be mostly clad in flat composite panels but in a matching colour to the trapezoidal cladding. Mesh cladding is proposed in two areas: in the north-east corner of the ERF building and at first floor level of the education centre. Planning conditions could be used to confirm the final choice of facing materials.

6.78 The main ERF building would feature a translucent mid band intended to allow daylight into the process areas and glimpses of the technology within. At night the translucent band would gently glow from the plant’s internal lighting. Possible concerns about light pollution could be addressed by planning condition to control the luminosity of the internal lighting visible from outside and all external lighting required to illuminate the circulation areas around the base of the building. In respect of the latter, the applicants propose to use a mix of wall and column mounted light fittings with a low glare factor.

Public Sector Equality Duty

6.79 The Council is required by section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 to have due regard to the aims of the public sector equality duty when exercising its functions.

6.80 The Council has prepared a demographic profile of the communities which adjoin the Beddington Farmlands Site, principally in Beddington and in Hackbridge, as part of the development of area based renewal and regeneration programmes. The demographic profiles of the Beddington and Hackbridge neighbourhoods are typical of the borough average in most respects but with higher than average owner-occupation in both areas and a relatively high proportion of single person household in Beddington.

6.81 Under the Equalities Act, the Council should have due regard to the need to: 1) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; 2) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; 3) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

The relevant protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Agenda Item 2 Page 72

6.82 In considering the application, the Council has had regard to age and to the relatively high levels of youth unemployment in both Beddington and Hackbridge. The percentage of GCSE attainment in Beddington is lower than the Borough average. Beddington and Hackbridge are in wards with the highest numbers of 15-74 year olds with no education qualifications. Both areas are characterised by high levels of youth unemployment compared to the Borough average and the percentage of male job seekers allowance claimants in Beddington has rapidly increased over the last six years. The latest deprivation indices show that significant pockets of deprivation persist within parts of the Hackbridge neighbourhood. The proposal to provide apprenticeships/work placements in connection with the development of the ERF, which would be tied into the legal agreement, would help address the high levels of unemployment and low levels of educational attainment in Beddington and Hackbridge.

6.83 Air quality concerns might be expected to impact disproportionately on the very young or very old. In 2012 the proportion of Beddington residents aged 0 to 14 years was marginally higher than the borough average and the proportion aged over 65 marginally lower. Given the conclusion of the air quality assessment that emission levels will remain within EU air quality limit values requirements, there is no reason to believe the proposal would discriminate against or disadvantage any age group in terms of air quality health impacts. Similarly, traffic would not have a materially greater impact on one group than another, especially having regard to the assessment that the scheme would generate less traffic relative to the existing position except during the construction period.

6.84 The application has also been assessed using the policies of the Development Plan which have been subject of rigorous Equalities Impact Assessment to ensure that the application of policy will not result in developments which would adversely affect members of socially excluded or vulnerable groups to meet the Council’s statutory duties under the then Disabilities Discrimination Act (1995), the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) and other Regulations.

6.85 The Council has had due regard for equality impact considerations and the public sector equality duty though out the decision making process. It is considered that in terms of equalities impacts, the application would, on the whole, have positive impacts.

Other Environmental Impacts

6.86 Wider socio-economic and health impacts are addressed in the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement (ES). The latter identifies a number of potential effects relating to potential changes to local amenity, health, the local economy and the provision of educational resources associated with the proposed development. No mitigation was identified as necessary other than that integral to the design and management of the plant. On the advice of the Council’s environmental compliance consultants, clarification on a number of matters raised was sought (relating mainly to the ranking and assumed significance of the various impacts) and further information about this was included in the applicant’s resubmission in February 2013. The Council’s consultants have no remaining concerns regarding socio- economic matters other than the proposed delivery of materials to the site on Sunday during the construction of the ERF. As already noted, apprenticeships/work placements would be secured through the legal agreement.

6.87 The manner in which the equality, socio-economic and wider health impacts have been addressed is considered satisfactory and, subject to appropriate conditions and a legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation, compliant with London Plan Policy 3.2C and Sutton’s Core Planning Strategy Policies SO3 and SO4 which address the need to consider wellbeing and health impacts during the planning application process and promote social inclusion. Page 73 Agenda Item 2

6.88 Other environmental impacts identified in the ES could be addressed by planning conditions or in some cases through the proposed Section 106 legal agreement. This includes noise, light pollution, ground conditions and archaeology (to be addressed by condition) and natural heritage concerns (mostly addressed through the legal agreement, discussed further below). The applicant’s noise report demonstrates that the ERF is capable of operating broadly within ambient noise levels. The major issues of air quality and transport have been dealt with earlier in this report.

6.89 The Council’s consultant advisors are content that the amendments to the application made in February 2013 have been satisfactorily addressed in the addendum to the Environmental Statement and do not have any material impact on the findings in the EIA or give rise to any likely significant additional effects.

6.90 The Environment Agency has proposed a number of conditions to deal with possible ground contamination and surface water drainage. The addendum to the Environmental Statement submitted in February 2013 included a replacement Ground Conditions chapter and although this raised a number of issues requiring further study, any outstanding matters may reasonably be dealt with by planning condition.

6.91 Operational issues such as dust, odour, litter and vermin control and health and safety issues are more appropriately addressed through the Environmental Permit or public health legislation.

Section 106 Matters

6.92 The natural heritage objectives of the 2005 Section 106 legal agreement would be transferred to the new permission and legal agreement. This would confirm the establishment of a Conservation and Access Management Committee (CAMC) to overview the restoration of the landfill and the implementation of the agreed Conservation Management Scheme (CMS). As already noted, the new agreement would secure an additional £50,000, to add to the £1.84m bond previously secured, to help fund habitat creation within the Hundred Acres and access across the SAM site. It would also secure funding for a warden to oversee the restored site.

6.93 Through the legal agreement, Viridor would commit to the closure of the landfill by the end of 2017, six years earlier than presently required, unless municipal waste drops to a level that would require further time to complete the landfill. They would also commit not to implement the recently approved anaerobic digestion.

6.94 The legal agreement would also secure the establishment of a community fund. This is required to address the considerable community concern about the adverse impacts of consolidating a waste management use on this site, given the previous commitment to discontinue waste management in 2023. Consolidating waste management in the area also confirms the concerns of the community that it hosts unneighbourly and unwelcome infrastructure which stigmatises the area as undesirable, and perpetuates waste management traffic using local roads, of which Hilliers Lane is a particular concern. The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application stated:

‘The construction and operation of the development are likely to reduce people’s positive associations of living in the area as a result of perceived negative health effects and decreased environmental quality, e.g. changes to the visual environment, increased traffic movements (especially HGV) and perceived harmful emissions to air. Those people whose view of the area declines may experience negative impacts to their mental health and overall sense of wellbeing. The cumulative impact of the ERF in the wider industrial area will both contribute to the Agenda Item 2 Page 74

feeling of reduced value of green space. This contributes to the magnitude of any potential negative impact on wellbeing outlined above.’

6.95 The community fund would comprise an initial payment of £250,000, 25 annual payments of £15,000, and a further lump sum of £100,000 in 2024. In general terms, the community fund is required to address the well being of the community in the face of the adverse impacts referred to above and identified in the HIA, and in representations on this planning application and previous planning applications on this site. London Plan Policies 5.15 and 7.1 and Core Planning Strategy Policies SO15 and SO19 refer to community infrastructure to support development. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England, 2011 recognises that waste infrastructure will result in the need for difficult decisions to be taken at the local level and acknowledges the importance of community engagement and of ensuring the concerns of the community are addressed. The £100,000 payment in 2024 is specifically justified in 6.29 above.

6.96 All payments are considered to be reasonable and proportionate to the scale of the development, and lesser payments would not be considered sufficient to address the respective concerns and issues of community well being. All sums would be index linked. The terms of the fund have yet to be agreed, but would provide for locally determined environmental, community or transport measures, benefiting the communities most directly affected, including Beddington and Hackbridge.

6.97 The applicant has also offered to provide local employment opportunities/ apprenticeships as a mitigation measure, to ensure that the regeneration/employment benefits of the proposal are locally captured.

6.98 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulations issued pursuant to the 2008 Act) have put three tests on the use of planning obligations into law. For planning obligations to constitute material considerations in the determination of planning applications, they must meet the following tests:

x Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms x Directly related to the development, and x Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Should planning obligations be requested that do not meet these tests the Council would have acted unlawfully and could be subject to a High Court challenge.

6.99 The obligations sought and agreed with the applicants are listed in Appendix C where their compliance with the policy tests is also examined.

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The development would be contrary to London Plan Policy 7.17 and Sutton Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP 9 that broadly seek to protect the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider MOL. It would also constitute inappropriate development on MOL within the terms of the NPPF.

7.2 It needs to be acknowledged, however, that the application site is expressly safeguarded for continued waste management use under Policy WP3 of the South London Waste Plan. The Waste Plan, which was adopted in 2012, post-dates the Core Planning Strategy by three years and is the most up to date expression of the Council’s waste planning policy. Whilst the Waste Plan has a lifetime of 10 years and the ERF would be expected to stand for at least 25 years, the proposal cannot be considered contrary to Policy WP3. Policy WP3 encourages safeguarded sites to maximise their potential for waste use subject to other policies in the Waste Plan and Development Plan. Page 75 Agenda Item 2

7.3 As the proposal is in conflict with development plan policy, it is necessary to consider whether there are other material planning considerations that outweigh the conflict and whether they constitute the very special circumstances necessary to clearly outweigh the harm including that arising from the inappropriate nature of the development.

7.4 It is considered that significant weight should be attached to national waste policy and strategy that seeks to divert waste away from landfill. The Government Review of Waste Policy 2011 supports energy recovery from waste where appropriate and for waste which cannot be recycled. National Policy Statement EN-1 recognises that the recovery of energy from waste, where in accordance with the waste hierarchy, will play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s energy needs and form an important element of waste management strategies in England and Wales.

7.5 There is considered to be an identifiable and urgent need to divert residual waste arising from landfill and the proposals would provide for this in line with European Directives and national policies and strategies.

7.6 The choice of the application site rests in large part on the urgent need for the facility and the unavailability of a suitable alternative site that would be available within the required time frame. It is accepted that the alternative sites assessment carried out by the applicant has demonstrated that there are no alternative sites that are suitable, available and achievable to deliver this proposal in the timescale set by the Partnership. The need for the facility to be operational within the identified timeframe reflects also the escalating cost of landfill.

7.7 It is considered that significant weight should be attached to the fact that the site is in existing waste management use and is expressly safeguarded for such use in the development plan. Although the current waste use is subject to time limited permissions and is contained in smaller buildings than now proposed, waste management activity has been a feature of the site since 1995 and is currently a defining characteristic of the land. The adverse impact that the development would have on the openness of MOL derives more from the height and visibility of the ERF than its spread across the site. The adverse impact on the open character of the wider area needs to be balanced against the arguably beneficial but more localised effect of consolidating waste management activity within the safeguarded area and restoring the majority of the safeguarded area to open land uses, although noting that these areas would all be restored to open land under the terms of the existing legal agreements and planning permissions were the ERF not to go ahead. Previous permissions at the site (e.g. that for the anaerobic digestion plant) have used the existing waste uses at the site as a component of the very special circumstances to allow permission, albeit subject to time limitations.

7.8 Significant weight should also be attached to the ability to link an ERF in this location to a scheme being pursued by Viridor to provide heat from the existing landfill gas engines to development at the Felnex site in Hackbridge. This initial heat network has significant potential to be extended in the future. Locating the ERF at the site would allow it to augment the landfill gas potential, providing greater longevity and security of supply. Whilst the delivery of heat to local homes cannot at this stage be guaranteed, a strong business case for the applicant to enter into a CHP agreement with an ESCo has been demonstrated, so there is good reason to believe the measure will be implemented.

7.9 The energy to be produced from the biodegradable element of the input to the ERF is classed as renewable. The NPPF, at paragraph 91, states that where renewable energy projects are located in the Green Belt (and therefore MOL also) Very Special Circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. Agenda Item 2 Page 76

7.10 In summary, the following Very Special Circumstances to justify inappropriate development on MOL are considered to have been demonstrated:

x Whilst the current waste use is subject to time limited permissions, waste management activity at the site has taken place for many years and is safeguarded in the development plan. Further, intensification of that use is encouraged by the development plan. x There is an identifiable and urgent need to divert residual waste arising from landfill and the proposals will provide for this in line European Directives and national policies and strategies. x The alternative sites assessment report shows that there are no alternative sites that are suitable, available and achievable to deliver this proposal in the required timescale. x The ability of ERF in this location to provide heat for local homes to augment and secure local CHP initiatives. x The energy to be produced from the biodegradable element of the input to the ERF is classed as renewable, and therefore paragraph 91 of the NPPF applies.

7.11 Other material considerations to be taken into account that are considered to weigh in favour of the application are:

x The proposal would see development consolidated on a smaller area of the site when compared to existing and permitted buildings and hardstandings. x The proposed inputs of residual waste and recyclables are already delivered to the site in similar or greater volumes, meaning that new traffic impacts would be limited except than during the construction of the plant. x Where potentially adverse environmental impacts have been identified, these are capable of mitigation to be secured by legal agreement or planning conditions. Importantly, this includes securing access to additional areas of land to help mitigate the permanent loss of part of the restored lands to the ERF and funding for a warden to help manage the restored lands.

7.12 The permanent loss of part of the site to development and the impact this would have on the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider MOL remain significant policy concerns. A building of the size of the ERF would inevitably be visible in long views across a wide area and this adverse landscape impact could not readily be mitigated. However, the material considerations in favour of the development are also significant and it is considered that sufficient very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify inappropriate development on MOL. The balance is considered to be clearly in favour of the scheme.

7.13 The recommendation, therefore, is that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the draft decision letter, the completion of the legal agreement to secure the mitigation measures outlined in this report and confirmation of the delivery of the additional areas to provide additional habitat and access to the restored lands.

Background Papers: D2012/66220/FUL

Drawings and other documents can be viewed on line – 1) Go to page: http://82.43.4.135/FASTWEB/welcome.asp 2) Enter Planning Application Number: D2012/66220 3) Click on Search and View Current Applications 4) Click on View Plans & Documents Page 77 Agenda Item 2

Appendix A Addresses of those who responded to the Neighbour Notification letter

RSPB, South East Regional Office, Pavilion View, 19 New Road, Brighton, BN1 112 Sefton Park Road, Bristol, BS7 9AL 10 Arnhem Drive, New Addington, Croydon, CR0 0EA 28 Howley Road, Croydon, CR0 1AZ 28 Dering Road, Croydon, CR0 1DS 28 Dering Road, Croydon, CR0 1DS 2 Ledbury road, Croydon, CR0 1EP 4 Whitgift Street, Croydon, CR0 1EX 15 Latimer Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 1RS 15 Latimer Road, Croydon, CR0 1RS 23 Abbey Road, Croydon, CR0 1RU 13 Laud Street, Croydon, CR0 1SU 50 Bridge Place, Croydon, CR0 2BB 4 Bedford Place, Croydon, CR0 2BS 6 Amersham Road, Croydon, CR0 2QJ 20B Elmwood Road, Croydon, CR0 2SG 40 Hathaway Road, Croydon, CR0 2TP 10 Oakmead Road, Croydon, CR0 3AS 19 Cinnamon close, Croydon, CR0 3GR 102 Stanley Road, Croydon, CR0 3QB 97 Priory Road, Croydon, CR0 3QZ 13 Cornwall Road, Croydon, CR0 3RD 12 Ravenswood Road, Croydon, CR0 4BL 9 Duppas Avenue, Croydon, CR0 4BX 15 Violet Gardens, Waddon, CR0 4HT 97 Waddon Road, Croydon, CR0 4JH 7 Kemble Road, Croydon, CR0 4JQ 5 Siddons Road, Croydon, CR0 4JR 20 Benson Road, Croydon, CR0 4LQ 121 Croydon Road, Beddington, CR0 4QG 50 Collyer Avenue, Croydon, CR0 4QW 4 Wandle Road, Beddington, CR0 4SD 8 Bridges Lane, Beddington, CR0 4SG 19 Bridge Lane, Beddington, CR0 4SJ Flat 8, 19 Bridges Lane, Beddington, CR0 4SJ 7 Wandle Bank, Beddington, CR0 4SN Agenda Item 2 Page 78

13 Wandle Bank, Beddington, CR0 4SN 5 Wandle Bank, Beddington, CR0 4SN 25 Hallowell Avenue, Beddington, CR0 4ST 16 Hilliers Lane, Beddington, CR0 4SU 10 Mortlake Close, Beddington, CR0 4SW 3 Mortlake Close, Beddington, CR0 4SW 12 Laughton Court, Chiswick Close, Beddington, CR0 4SX 24 Twickenham Close, Beddington, CR0 4SZ Flat 5, Clayton Court, 8 Twickenham Close, Beddington, CR0 4SZ 2 Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TA 164 Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TE 11 Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TG 2 Elberon Avenue, Beddington, CR0 4TP 4 Elbron Avenue, Beddington, CR0 4TP 6 Elberton Avenue, CR0 4TP 20 Crispin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UD 22 Crispin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UD 42 Crespin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UE 46 Crispin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UE 39 Crispin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UG 21 Crispin Crescent, Beddington, CR0 4UG 28 Mallinson Road, Beddington, CR0 4UL 5 Hailes Close, Croydon, CR0 4UT 168 Peebles Court, Whitestone Way, CR0 4WN Flat 103, 9 Altyre Road, Croydon, CR0 5BP 7 Sudbury Gardens, Croydon, CR0 5JS 67 Park Hill Road, Croydon, CR0 5NG 3 Rutland Gardens, Croydon, CR0 5ST 84 Rymer Road, Croydon, CR0 6EE 61 Warren Road, Croydon, CR0 6PF 24 Grant Road, Croydon, CR0 6PG 14 Pavement Square, Croydon, CR0 6TL 121 Cedar Road, East Croydon, CR0 6UJ 24 Shirley Park Road, Croydon, CR0 7EU 6 Carlyle Road, Addiscombe, Croydon, CR0 7HN 43 Ash Road, Shirley, Croydon, CR0 8HW 27 Palace View, Shirley, Croydon, CR0 8QU 22 Ellenbridge Way, South Croydon, CR2 0EU 4 The Ridgeway, South Croydon, CR2 0LE 13 Florence Road, South Croydon, CR2 0PQ Page 79 Agenda Item 2

4A Bramley Close, South Croydon, CR2 6NQ 83 Croham Manor Road, South Croydon, CR2 7BH 127 St Peters Street, South Croydon, CR2 7DJ Flat 7, 36 Selsdon Park Road, South Croydon, CR2 8JU 12a Abbey Road, Croydon, CR2 8NG 31 Beech Way, South Croydon, CR2 8QR 59 Wentworth Way, South Croydon, CR2 9EY Mitcham Common Conservators, Mill House Ecology Centre, Windmill Road, Mitcham,CR4 1HT Secretary, Mitcham Society, 33 Montrose Gardens, Mitcham, CR4 2PJ 60 Mullards Close, Hackbridge, CR4 4FD 13 Carshalton Road, Carshalton, CR4 4HG 39A Carshalton Road, Mitcham, CR4 4HJ 44 Carshalton Road, Mitcham, CR4 4JH 3 Wood Street, Mitcham, CR4 4JT 6 Percy Road, Beddington Corner, CR4 4JU 20A Percy Road, Beddington Corner, CR4 4JU 35 Percy Road, Beddington, CR4 4JW 19 Cricket Green, Mitcham, CR4 4LB 8 Lyle Close, Mitcham, CR4 4NP 2 Oakdale Way, Mitcham, CR4 4NW East Coulsdon Residents Association, 50 Reddown Road, Coulsdon, CR5 1AX 17a Tudor Close, Old Coulsdon, CR5 1HQ 24 Southwood avenue, Coulsdon, CR5 2DT 43 Oakley Road, Warlingham, CR6 9BE 3 Bensham Manor Road, Thornton Heath, CR7 7AD 11 Kynaston Road, Thornton Heath, CR7 7AZ 15 Quadrant Road, Thornton Heath, CR7 7DB 42 Bridport Road, Thornton Heath, CR7 7QG 6 Braemar Avenue, Thornton Heath, CR7 7RG 20 Virginia Road, Thornton Heath, CR7 8EG 19 Woodcote Park Avenue, Purley, CR8 3ND 35 Old Lodge Lane, Purley, CR8 4DL 15 Thirlmere Road, Barnehurst, DA7 6PU 31 Senrab Street, London, E1 0QE 35 Eastdown House, Amhurst Road, Hackney, E8 2AT 5 Aldermanbury Square, London, EC2V 7BP 9 Copse Edge, Elstead, GU8 6DJ 43 Between Streets, Cobham, KT11 1AA 5 The Glade, Stoneleigh, KT17 2HW 21 Briavels Court, Downshill Road, Epsom, KT18 5HP Agenda Item 2 Page 80

5 Kingswood Road, Tadworth, KT20 5EE 105 Dukes Avenue, New Malden, KT3 4HR 38 Creston Way, Worcester Park, KT4 8PH Office of The Green MEPs, Can Mezzanine, 49 - 51 East Road, London, N1 6AH Friends of the Earth, 26-28 Underwood Street, London, N1 7JQ 28 Shelley House, Shakespeare Walk, London, N16 8TJ 18C Gloucester Drive, London, N4 2LN 14 Bryantwood Road, London, N7 7BE 108 Camden Mews, London, NW1 9AG Ground Floor, Skyline House, 200 Union Street, London, SE1 0LX 36 Staffordshire Street, London, SE15 5TJ 77 Sladedale Road, London, SE18 1PX 32C Dulwich Road, Herne Hill, London, SE24 0PA 29c Holmdene Avenue, Herne Hill, London, SE24 9LB 35 Belmont Road, London, SE25 4QG Vice Chair Wandle Forum, Flat 2 Lyndhurst Court, 297a Whitehorse Lane, South Norwood, SE25 6UG 31 South Park Crescent, Catford, London, SE6 1JJ SNCV, 45 Prince of Wales, Sutton, SM1 3PE 45 Florian Avenue, Sutton, SM1 3QH 19 Mead Crescent, Sutton, SM1 3QS 42 The Ridgway, Sutton, SM2 5JU 142 Banstead Road South, Sutton, SM2 5LJ 284 Brighton Road, Sutton, SM2 5RJ 16 Camborne Road, Sutton, SM2 6RH 156 Sandy Lane, Cheam, SM2 7ES 45 Meadow Road, Sutton, SM2 7PG 26 Pittville Gardens, South Norwood, London, SM25 4DJ 26 Tilehurst Road, Cheam, SM3 8PB 63 The Drive, Morden, SM4 6DH Tower Cottage, Culvers Avenue, Carshalton, SM5 2BS 141 Arlington Drive, Carshalton, SM5 2EU 28 Mill Lane, Carshalton, SM5 2JY 1 Station Road, Carshalton, SM5 2LA 47 The Causeway, Carshalton, SM5 2LZ 37 River Gardens, Carshalton, SM5 2NH 47 Acre Lane, Carshalton, SM5 3AA 143 Park Lane, Carshalton, SM5 3DX 11 Park Close, Carshalton, SM5 3EU 42 Anglesey Court Road, Carshalton, SM5 3HZ Page 81 Agenda Item 2

104B Carshalton Park Road, Carshalton, SM5 3SG 60 Boundary Road, Carshalton, SM5 4AD 14 Oaks Track, Little Woodcote, Carshalton, SM5 4AP 36 Metcalf Avenue, Carshalton, SM5 4AT Flat 6 Magnolia Court, 17 Parkgate Road, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 0AU 47 Caraway Place, Wallington, SM6 7AG 2 Caraway Place, Wallington, SM6 7AG 17 Saxon house, 170 London Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7AN 25 The Green, Hackbridge, SM6 7AU 27 The Green, Hackbridge, SM6 7AU 25 The Grenn, Hackbridge, SM6 7AU 31 Longfield Avenue, Wallington, SM6 7AZ 44 Longfield Avenue, Hackbridge, SM6 7BA 4 Lodge Close, Hackbridge, SM6 7BD 2 Senga Road, Wallington, SM6 7BQ 6 Senga Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BQ 17 Helios Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BZ 21 Helios Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BZ Flat 6, 3 Helios Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BZ Flat 2, 3 Helios Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BZ 11 Helios Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7BZ 14 HELIOS ROAD, Wallington, SM6 7BZ 6 Helios Road, Habckridge, SM6 7BZ 12 Helios Road, Wallington, SM6 7BZ 2 Dunster Way, Wallington, SM6 7DA 4 Dunster Way, Wallington, SM6 7DA 30 Dunster Way, Wallington, SM6 7DA 27 Dunster Way, Wallington, SM6 7DA 8 Oak Walk, Wallington, SM6 7DE Zedfactory, 21 Sandmartin Way, Wallington, SM6 7DF 26 Elmwood Close, Wallington, SM6 7EF 12 Greenacre Place, Hackbridge, Wallington, SM6 7EG 2 Greenacre Place, Wallington, SM6 7EG 4 Greenacre Place, Wallington, SM6 7EG 56 Birchwood Avenue, Wallington, SM6 7EN 68 Birchwood Avenue, Wallington, SM6 7EN 55 Elmwood Close, Wallington, SM6 7EP 51 London Road, Hackbridge, SM6 7HW 49 Victoria Avenue, Wallington, SM6 7JP Flat 6, 25 Foxglove Way, Hackbridge, SM6 7JR Agenda Item 2 Page 82

32 Guy Road, Wallington, SM6 7LY 6 Whelan Way, Beddington, SM6 7NG Sherwood Park School, Streeters Lane, Wallington, SM6 7NP Beddington Residents Association, 1 Church Lane, Beddington, SM6 7NQ 11 Church Lane, Beddington, SM6 7NQ 9 Queenswood Avenue, Wallington, SM6 8HW 58 Iberian Avenue, Wallington, SM6 8JB 59 Melbourne Road, Wallington, SM6 8SH 27 Osmond Gardens, Wallington, SM6 8SX 63 Osmond Gardens, Wallington, SM6 8SX 12 Moth close, Wallington, SM6 9GR 122 Foresters Drive, Wallington, SM6 9JZ 12 Blenheim Gardens, Wallington, SM6 9PH 15 Oaklands Way, Wallington, SM6 9RR 27 Hawthorn Road, Wallington, SM6 OSY BioRegional, 24 Helios Road, Wallington, SM7 6BZ 50 Dawlish Drive, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, SS9 1QX 18 Fontenoy Road, London, SW12 9LU 2 Pollards Hill West, London, SW16 4NS 189A Garratt Lane, London, SW18 4DR 54 Replingham Road, London, SW18 5LP 16 Abingdon Road, Norbury, SW25 5QP 15 Lockyer House, Hemans Estate, London, SW8 4SR Nine Elms Pier, Kirtling Street, London, SW8 5PZ 66 Castle Road, Isleworth, TW7 6QS 18 Bournemead Avenue, Northolt, UB5 6PU Flat 5, 3 St Charles Square, London, W10 6EF 46 Highfield Way, Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 7PR 19 Cricket Green, Mitcham, CR0 DTZ, 125 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 2BQ 2 Avian Gardens, Pagham, West Sussex, PO21 3UR 57 Shirley Avenue, Sutton, SM1 3QT 204a London Road, Wallington, SM6 7EA Hansjakobstrasse 109, 79117 Friessburg, Germany, 8 Elberon Avenue, Croydon, CR0 4TP 24 Bridle Path, Beddington, CR0 4SB Sherwood Park School, Streeters Lane, Beddington, SM6 7NP 70 Fortescue Road, Colliers Wood, London, SW19 2EB 12 Ravenswood Road, Croydon, CR0 4BL Flat 5, 12 Campden Road, Croydon, CR2 7EN Page 83 Agenda Item 2

Appendix B Alternative Sites Assessment – Final Shortlist

Rank Site Criteria Criteria Criteria met partially not met met 1 Land west of Beddington Lane adjacent to 7 1 6 industrial areas and existing waste management facilities 2= Viridor Beddington site 6 4 4 2= Former CEMEX site 6 4 4 2= Land north of Jessop’s Way, Beddington 6 4 4 5 St Helier Open Space 6 0 8 6 Selhurst Rail Depot 5 4 5 7 Selhurst Rail Depot (land to north west 5 3 6 corner) 8 Land adjacent to Jubilee Way, Tolworth 5 1 8 9 Land north of BedZed, Hackbridge 4 4 6 10 Hogsmill Public Open Space, Berrylands 3 3 8 11 Thames Water Redundant Filter Beds, 3 2 9 Surbiton 12= Land west of Hawkshirst Road, Kenley 2 3 9 12= Land adjoining Green Lane Primary 2 3 9 School Playingfields, Worcester Park 14 Hogsmill Open Space, Old Malden 1 3 10

Final shortlisting criterion:

Proximity to waste arisings Proximity to strategic and TfL road network Potential for CHP Potential for co-location with other waste uses Compatibility with planning policy Re-use of previously developed land Development of Metropolitan Open Land Proximity to designated ecologically sensitive sites Potential for landscape and visual effects (protected open space) Potential for landscape and visual effects (views) Potential for effects on residential amenity due to transport of waste Potential for effects on water resources Proximity to areas likely to flood Presence of public rights of way Agenda Item 2 Page 84 Appendix C

Section 106 Heads of Terms and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations Compliance

Obligation Description/purpose Policy basis/justification

1 Funding of warden Viridor to provide funding for the employment of a wildlife The employment of a warden has been identified as one warden to oversee the restored site. A sum of £40,000 of the most effective ways of managing the restored per annum (index linked) will be provided to the Council lands and nature conservation interest and offsets the for a 25 year period. Payment will commence upon the adverse biodiversity impact of the proposals. The site implementation of the planning permission. This sum forms part of the Wandle Valley Regional Park and is a shall only be provided during the employment of a site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation warden. Pro rata funding returns shall be provided during (SINC). London Plan Policy 7.19 confirms the importance any periods of time in excess of 1 month where a of protecting nature conservation interest in these Warden is not employed. The warden will be provided circumstances and Sutton Core Strategy Policy DM17 with accommodation at the proposed education centre highlights the need for appropriate mitigation and (see 8 below). compensation measures if development is to take place Page 85 within a SINC. The sum provided reflects the estimated cost of employing a warden of appropriate experience.

2 Establishment of a A community fund will be established to provide funding The applicant has undertaken a Health Impact community fund for local community projects. Viridor to pay an initial lump Assessment (HIA) that identifies a number of areas sum of £250,000 followed by annual payments of where the potential impacts from the development could £15,000 (index linked) for a 25 year period. The initial affect the well being of the community. The HIA found lump sum will be on implementation of the permission that the construction and operation of the development and the subsequent annual payment shall be made would be likely to affect the following underpinnings of within 14 days of the 1 January in each year. An social capital: views about the area, reciprocity and trust. additional lump sum payment of £100,000 (index linked) It states, ‘The construction and operation of the will be made in 2024 into the fund. development are likely to reduce people’s positive associations of living in the area as a result of perceived The management of the Fund will be undertaken by a negative health effects and decreased environmental

funding panel, the constitution of which shall be agreed quality’. These findings are reflected in the responses to Agenda Item 2 within 6 months of the date of this agreement, but which the application, that the area hosts unneighbourly and shall include representatives of Viridor, the Council and unwelcome infrastructure and that previous commitments the Beddington and Hackbridge communities. to discontinue waste management on the site by 2023 Agenda Item 2

Funding to be specified for the general benefit of the are not being honoured. London Plan Policies 3.2C, 5.16 local community, specifically for environmental and & 7.1G provide for the consideration of wellbeing and community related matters. health impacts during the planning application process and for working with community groups to create positive environmental and economic impacts. Core Strategy Policies SO3 & SO4 make similar provision. The NPPF refers to the need for ‘strong, vibrant and healthy communities’ and to the ‘cultural wellbeing’ of those communities. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 also acknowledges the importance of community engagement and of ensuring the concerns of the community are addressed.

The sum proposed will help fund a number of locally determined environmental, community or transport Page 86 measures, benefiting the communities most directly affected, including Beddington and Hackbridge. All payments are considered to be reasonable and proportionate to the scale of the development, and lesser payments would not be considered sufficient to address the respective concerns and issues of community well being.

The payment of £100,000 to be made in 2024 would be in recognition of the continuation of waste management traffic, as beyond this date all waste management activity was to have ceased. In 2024 there would be 666 vehicles on the local road network that would be elsewhere if the ERF did not proceed. If the application was being considered at that time this would justify funding of c£500,000 towards the Beddington Lane Improvement scheme. This provides an upper limit for this sum. Any sum less than £100,000 would be unlikely to be sufficient for the community to take measures to mitigate the adverse effects of continuing waste management and traffic in particular. 3 Air quality To provide a financial contribution of the sum of £35,000 Air quality is plainly a major concern of many monitoring to fund the operation of an air quality monitoring station respondents to the application. Beddington Lane is a in the vicinity of the site. The financial contribution shall designated Air Quality Management Area within which become payable on the implementation of the planning any material deterioration in air quality would not be permission. permissible. Monitoring would allow the source of any Commitment to real-time on-line monitoring to be additional pollution to be assessed. SLWP Policy WP8 provided in the education centre and via Kings College’s requires energy recovery developments to minimise monitoring role. potential adverse impacts on human health and National Policy statement EN-1 identifies air quality as one of a number of impacts to be considered.

A monitoring station in Beddington Lane will be fitted out by the Council shortly. A contribution to fund its operation for three years has previously been secured. This further Page 87 contribution would allow it to operate for six years in total, enabling post-operational monitoring to demonstrate the practical impact on the community.

4 Lorry/HGV routing Prior to the commencement of operations, Viridor will Traffic is a major concern of many respondents to the for non-municipal produce and submit, for the Council’s approval, a application. Hilliers Lane (the southern extension of waste Lorry/HGV Access and Routing Strategy that details the Beddington Lane through Beddington Village) already carries large numbers of heavy vehicles to the detriment route lorries delivering non-contract waste must take to of the local environment, and is both substandard for and from the site. The strategy shall be in accordance heavy traffic, and cannot be readily improved in a with the delivery map produced by the London Borough manner that is consistent with the character of the local of Sutton, Transport for London and the South London area. It is therefore considered necessary to route heavy Freight Quality Partnership. traffic away from Hillers Lane wherever possible. SLWP Policy WP8 requires energy recovery developments to The agreed strategy and map will be provided to delivery minimise potential adverse impacts on local amenity and Agenda Item 2 drivers bringing non-contract waste to the ERF, with the environment and National Policy statement EN-1 instructions that it must be followed. Viridor to also identifies traffic and transport as one of a number of impacts to be considered. Agenda Item 2

provide signage on site and at the site entrance/exit to remind drivers of the need to follow the specified routes The Waste Partnership has agreed to adopt measures to and to direct traffic in accordance with the strategy. route all municipal refuse vehicles to avoid Hilliers Lane other than for local waste collection routes. The legal Viridor will also install CCTV cameras to assist in the agreement will address the routing of non-municipal monitoring compliance of highways matters. vehicles.

5 Sustainable Viridor to provide £40,500 to be spent on sustainable Council SPD5, Planning Obligations requires transport transport initiatives in the area. developments that would generate significant traffic to contribution contribute towards sustainable transport improvements in the locality. It is anticipated that the contribution in this case will be pooled with other resources to address community concerns about traffic generated by the ERF. The amount has been calculated in accordance with the Page 88 formula in the SPD.

6 CHP working group Viridor to provide a financial contribution of £50,000 The provision of CHP is one of the Very Special towards the establishment and work of a CHP working Circumstances argued by the applicants to justify the group. development on MOL. It also contributes to the The aim of the working group will be to undertake achievement of carbon balance targets. Although its feasibility reviews including the identification of delivery cannot be guaranteed, there is a strong business opportunities for CHP and district heating arising from the case for it and good prospects for its delivery. The ERF. It will address matters such as the technical, applicants have already participated in meetings with the economic and commercial feasibility and the business GLA, a prospective ESCo and others to bring it about case(s) for achieving operational CHP. and their participation in and funding of a working group will further enhance these prospects. The GLA and The working group will involve, iter-alia, the GLA’s Environment Agency have both sought a commitment to Decentralised Energy Delivery Planning Unit (DEDPU), a working group to progress CHP. The working party is Sutton and Croydon Councils and any other members at necessary as it increases the likelihood of the CHP the discretion of the group. network being delivered by providing information on which to hold the applicants to account. The £50,000 that Viridor to meet with DEPDU and Sutton and Croydon Councils prior to construction of the ERF to establish the is being offered to support the work of the group is also terms of reference, remit and responsibilities of the necessary as it adds to the improved prospect of working group. success, by ensuring that there is funding available both for administering the work of the group and also for pump The group will operate for a period of at least 5 years priming purposes. The Waste Strategy for England 2007 from the first meeting. requires attention to be given to the siting of energy from waste plant to maximise opportunities for CHP. National Policy statement EN-1 repeats this and emphasises the need for applicants to identify and consult with potential customers.

7 Funding of off-site Viridor will provide £35,000 towards the provision of off- The development will have an adverse impact on the planting site planting in the locality of the development payable on landscape. Tree planting is proposed close to ERF but commencement of development, for planting will not screen such a large building in sensitive views

opportunities to be identified and secured by the Council. Page 89 outside the site, for example from Beddington Lane. The Should this not be used within five years (unless otherwise agreed) following the commencement of applicants control no land off-site and therefore propose development, any remaining monies to be returned to to contribute to a Council fund to carry out off-site Virdor. planting where the opportunity arises. This would also contribute to the general enhancement of the local area.

National Policy statement EN-1 identifies landscape and visual impact as important factors to be considered. Funding for off-site planting has been assessed by considering the cost of planting in specific locations to provide an enhanced setting for the building and to screen some close views of the building, to off-set the adverse landscape impact.

8 Provision and Viridor will build and operate the education centre, as The education centre is an integral part of the ERF Agenda Item 2 operation of the shown on the approved drawings. proposal It is necessary to promote community education centre understanding of the proposal and its implications for This education centre will include a remit to inform and Agenda Item 2

educate regarding waste management in the SLWP sustainable living, as well as to promote understanding of area, the ERF, the historic uses at the wider restored the wildlife resources of the restored area, to better site, the nature conservation objectives and restored enable the community to appreciate and participate in the wildlife habitats, and the Wandle Valley Regional Park. It benefits provided by the proposal. Core Strategic will include relevant display information and educational materials to this end. Planning Policy SO3 seeks to promote social inclusion and accessibility to local services including education. The education centre will also include accommodation for The legal agreement will ensure that it operates in a way a warden as shown on the approved drawings (also see that will also support the nature conservation objectives 1 above). of the restored areas and thus offset adverse biodiversity and other impacts of the proposals.

9 Transference of the The incorporation within the new S106 agreement of the The restoration of the Beddington Farmlands is an principles of the principles and objectives of the 2005 agreement in integral part of the proposal. The land forms part of the 2005 Section 106 relation to the CAMC, CMS and restoration proposals. Wandle Valley Regional Park and is a site of Page 90 Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). and natural London Plan Policy 7.19 confirms the importance of heritage objectives protecting nature conservation interest in these circumstances and Sutton Core Strategy Policy DM17 highlights the need for appropriate mitigation and compensation measures if development is to take place within a SINC. It is essential that the natural heritage principles and objectives of the 2005 agreement should be carried through to the new agreement.

10 Secure access to On completion of agreement with Thames Water The ERF will occupy around 3 hectares of land that additional land to (freeholders) Viridor will provide land in the SAM site to would otherwise be restored to form part of the facilitate improved the south west and the Hundred Acres to the north, to the Beddington Farmlands. The proposals will also result in a Council/ CAMC in order that an additional public access fragmentation of wet grassland, which is an important public access and can be provided from the restored land to Beddington wildlife habitat. The site also forms part of the Wandle land for nature Lane (through the SAM site) and additional land can be Valley Regional Park and is a site of Metropolitan conservation managed for nature conservation objectives (part of the Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). London Plan Hundred Acres). Policy 7.19 confirms the importance of protecting nature conservation interest in these circumstances and Sutton Viridor to make an additional payment of £50,000 to fund Core Strategy Policy DM17 highlights the need for the provision of the new access and the management of appropriate mitigation and compensation measures if the additional land. development is to take place within a SINC. The inclusion of parts of the Hundred Acre and SAM sites will help mitigate the loss of the 3 hectares and the fragmentation of wet grassland and will provide an opportunity to enhance public access to the land from Beddington Lane. The additional funds will assist the provision of the new access and future management of the two areas.

11 A commitment to Viridor will set up and run workshops for local businesses The NPPF confirms the need to take account of social providing local to meet the contractors with the aim of increasing local and economic factors and to plan for ‘strong, vibrant and employment supply of goods and services during construction. healthy communities’. London Plan Policies 5.16 & 7.1G opportunities and provide for working with community groups to create Viridor will work with the local Job Centre Plus to identify apprenticeships positive environmental and economic impacts. Core

opportunities for operational staff although potential Page 91 employees will be required to meet the requirements of Strategy Policies SO3 & SO4 make similar provision. The the post. provision of employment opportunities locally will capture some of the regeneration benefits of the Concurrent with the operation of the plant, the applicant proposals in accordance with these policies, and help will endeavour to provide sponsorship of 3 mitigate community concerns that the development will apprenticeships, or other such comparable schemes of have an adverse effect on community well being. training, from within the waste, engineering and related industries during the operational life of the energy recovery facility.

12 Commitment to Providing that the Partnership do not reduce the amount The ERF is presented as an alternative to landfill so it early closing of the of waste deposited in the landfill below annual rate of would be inappropriate for the landfill to continue once landfill 175,000 tpa for this and the next four calendar years. the ERF is operational. The application assumes the Viridor will cease the landfill of non-inert waste at the site cessation of landfill by 2017. Restoration of the landfill is by the end of 2017. In the event that the Partnership reduce the amount of waste deposited at the landfill an integral part of the proposal and the legal agreement Agenda Item 2 below this level, Viridor will submit an alternative date for will ensure this happens earlier. approval for the completion of the site that takes into account the availability of suitable materials to complete Agenda Item 2

the landform.

13 Non- Viridor will commit to not to implement the extant The Waste Partnership has confirmed that it does not implementation of permission for an AD plant. intend to proceed with AD alongside an ERF at permission for Beddington. Not proceeding with the AD plant reduces anaerobic digestion both potential traffic impact and incursion into MOL and the Regional Park, and is thus beneficial in terms of London Plan and Council Core Strategy policy.

14 Administration fee Payment of the £10,000 flat fee In compliance with the Council’s Planning Obligation SPD. Page 92 Page 93 Agenda Item 2

Development Control Committee: 24 April 2013

Addenda Report

Item 1: Beddington Farmlands Waste Management Facility, Beddington Lane, Beddington, CR0 4TD C2012/66220/FUL

Amendment to the application

The applicant has, by letter dated 19 April, revised the financial contributions they would be prepared to make towards the proposed community fund and CHP working group. The annual payment towards the former is raised from £15,000 to £25,000 (index linked) for the proposed 25 year period. The contribution towards the latter is raised from £50,000 to £100,000. Paragraph 6.95 and item 2 in appendix C to the report (community fund) and paragraph 6.66 and item 6 in appendix C (CHP working group) are amended accordingly.

Report

The following corrections to the written report are advised:

3.10 The fifth petition listed carries 63, not 52 signatures (but see also supplemental petitions gathered by the Stop the Incinerator Group referred to below)

6.12 On fourth line insert ‘made’ after compensatory provision.

6.15 Final sentence should conclude, ‘in a Construction Environmental Management Plan and Habitat Management Scheme’.

6.18 Second sentence should begin, ‘The anticipated legal agreement associated with the 2005 planning application (see 1.14 above) will establish etc.’

6.28 Final sentence should read: ‘Conditions and the proposed legal agreement etc.’

6.33 Fourth sentence should refer to paragraph 6.94, not 6.37.

6.40 The government policy referred to is to be found in paragraph 5.18, not 5.19.

6.51 Final two sentences should read: ‘In addition government advice is clear that local authorities should not generally challenge the need for a particular facility unless in response to a conflict with development plan policy. In this case, it is improbable that a plant of smaller capacity would have materially different environmental impacts than the current proposals other than a proportional reduction in traffic to and from the site.’

6.72 Second sentence should read: ‘… in Croydon where NO2 is estimated to rise by no more than 1.5%, the Agency has confirmed that the contribution the ERF would make to absolute levels would not be significant. This is considered etc.’

1 Agenda Item 2 Page 94

Additional representations received

Petitions

Five further petitions opposing the proposal have been received:

x A petition signed by 77 residents of Crispin Crescent, Beddington received on 16 April 2013. x A petition signed by 7 residents of Wandle Bank, Beddington received on 15 April 2013 x A petition signed by 2 residents of Beddington Lane received on 15 April 2013 x A petition signed by circa 400 individuals from across a wide area of south London (not all entries are legible), gathered by the Stop the Incinerator Group and sent to the Council on 21 April 2013 x An online petition carrying 723 names (addresses not given) gathered by the Stop the Incinerator Group and sent to the Council on 21 April 2013. This petition also included 92 anonymous and 18 repeat entries.

The first three all object to the application on the grounds that the land is MOL, the development would lower the value of property in the area, the 95m high stacks would impact on the visual landscape, emissions will fall on populated areas, increase in heavy traffic and impact on wildlife.

The fourth supplements the 52 signature petition listed in the main report and raises the same concerns as referred to in that.

The fifth objects on the grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to the health of local residents and is a short-sighted method of dealing with waste for the next 30 years.

Letters of objection from residents

A further four letters of objection have been received from residents (one from an address already listed in appendix A to the main report, the others from 21 Bridle Path, Beddington, CR0 and 9 Drayton Road, Croydon, CR0 and 3 Archway Close, Beddington, SM6).

Additional points raised by the letters include: Burning rubbish emits toxins that cause birth defects, respiratory problems and cancer; with a 95m high chimney these would spread over a very wide area and enter the food chain; use of bigger lorries would cause damage to road sub-structure and to air quality; ERF would worsen air quality in a designated air quality management area; burning rubbish would deter people from recycling; better alternatives exist and each would generate more jobs; a third of the waste will be imported from outside the four boroughs; rubbish will not be sorted before incineration; lack of need for the facility; impact on MOL and SINC; visibility of chimneys from Beddington Park; impact on birdlife; impact on environment of Beddington Park.

Letter of objection from Sutton & Croydon Green Party

The Sutton & Croydon Green Party object on the following grounds:

x Plan to burn domestic waste is poorly thought out, a waste of resources and damaging to local residents health and the environment.

2 Page 95 Agenda Item 2

x Air quality impact is unacceptable. Studies have shown increased rates of respiratory illnesses, birth defects and infant mortality downwind from incinerators. Application should be rejected pending Imperial College report on health effects. x Councillors have failed to engage with those against the ERF whilst accepting invitations to visit the ERF at Colnbrook. x Proposal goes against London Plan and Sutton policies to protect MOL. x Waste brought to the plant will not be sorted. Proposal doesn’t follow the waste hierarchy. x As recycling rates improve within the four boroughs, Viridor will import more waste from further away. x ERF would generate 50% more traffic, beyond what Beddington Lane could handle. This would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in Beddington due to additional noise, vibration and dust. x The site is unsuitable for an ERF as it is in a built-up area and next to a bird reserve. x Given rapidly changing demands on material resources, 25 year contract is excessive, locking the four boroughs into one solution. x The proposal for district heating is an empty promise.

Letter of support

Morgan Stanley Ltd, who have premises nearby, have confirmed their support for the proposal provided appropriate mitigation measures, particularly in relation to air quality and dust levels, are secured by planning condition.

Draft decision letter

Statement of reasons for decision

Should the recommendation be accepted, the decision letter should set out in a separate section headed Summary of Reasons for Grant of Permission, the following reasons for the decision:

Summary of relevant policies

The application has been assessed against the relevant policies of the London Plan 2011, Sutton's Core Planning Strategy 2009, the South London Waste Plan 2012 and Sutton’s Site Development Policies DPD 2012. Regard has been had in particular to: London Plan policies 2.18, 7.17, 7.19, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.17, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2 , 7.7 and 7.14; Core Planning Strategy policies PMP5, PMP9, BP5, BP8, BP9, BP12 and DP2; Waste Plan policies WP3, WP6, WP8 and WP9; and Site Development DPD policies DM2, DM5, DM9, DM11, DM13, DM15, DM17, DM20 and DM21.

Summary of reasons for grant

The proposal is in conflict with London Plan Policy 7.17 and Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP9 that broadly seek to protect the open character of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park and wider Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). It would also represent inappropriate development on MOL, again contrary to the Development Plan. However, 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

3 Agenda Item 2 Page 96

development on MOL. These include the urgent need to divert waste from landfill in line with European directives and UK government targets, the identification of local markets for heat and the existing use of the land for waste management in line with development plan policy. In respect of the latter, significant weight has been attached to the proposal’s compliance with Policy WP3 of the South London Waste Plan which safeguards the application site for waste management use. The balance is considered to be clearly in favour of the scheme.

It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient very special circumstances to warrant inappropriate development on MOL, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustianable Waste Management, and other national waste policies and directives. Where potentially adverse environmental impacts have been identified, these are considered capable of mitigation to be secured by legal agreement or planning conditions.

This will replace informative 2 in the draft decision letter appended to the written report.

Amendments to conditions

The following amendments/corrections are recommended:

x Condition 10: Should read ‘subsurface’, not ‘substances’ in final sentence x Condition 11: Add ‘lorry routing’ to the matters to be addressed x Condition 16: After ‘completed’ in first and fourth lines add ‘seeded and planted’ x Condition 20: To start, ‘ Prior to the Commissioning Date, a permanent lighting scheme associated with the operation of the development etc.’ x Condition 28: Insert ‘in operational order’ after ‘retained’ in final sentence x Condition 41: Omit ‘and lake’ from (d) as the lakes have already been constructed

Reasons for conditions

The following policy references should be included in the reasons for the imposition of the following conditions:

x Condition 4: Site Development DPD Policy DM1 (in addition to BP12 of the Core Planning Strategy) x Condition 7: Core Planning Strategy Policies PMP5 & 9 and Site Development DPD Policy DM17 x Condition 8: Core Planning Strategy Policy BP10 and Site Development DPD Policy DM21 x Condition 9: Site Development DPD Policy DM4(e) x Conditions 12 & 13: London Plan Policies 5.5 & 5.6 x Condition 20: Site Development DPD Policies DM13 & 17 x Condition 21: Site Development DPD Policies DM2, 17 & 20 x Condition 22 & 24: Site Development DPD Policy DM20 x Condition 23 & 25: Site Development DPD Policies DM19 & 20 x Condition 27: Site Development DPD Policy DM19 x Condition 39 & 40: Site Development DPD Policy DM12 x Condition 41 & 42: Core Planning Strategy Policy PMP5 4 Page 97 Agenda Item 2

The recommended reason for Condition 29 is: ‘To ensure the development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction in accordance with Core Planning Strategy Policy BP6 and Site Development DPD Policy DM6’.

The recommended amended reason for Condition 37 is: ‘To ensure that the electricity generation benefit of the proposed development is realised in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.5 & 5.6’.

Possible further changes to the conditions

Committee is reminded that the Mayor may direct the imposition of additional conditions or amendments to those already proposed when the application is referred back to the Greater London Authority.

5 Page 98

This page is intentionally left blank