Agenda Item D4: Appendix 2

Cabinet- 15 February 2011 Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF): Adoption of the Locations for Minerals Development and Locations for Waste Development DPDs (Development Plan Documents)

Report to Northamptonshire County Council

by Geoffrey Hill BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date:14th December 2010

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

LOCATIONS FOR WASTE DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT

Document submitted for examination on 31 March 2010

Examination hearings held between 12 and 15 October 2010

File Ref: PINS/K2800/429/8 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

CMD Control and Management of Development DPD CS Core Strategy DPD Development Plan Document ENRMF Resource Management Facility HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment MKSMSRS Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy NMWDF Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework PPS1 Planning Policy Statement 1 Planning for Sustainable Development PPS5 Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 Planning Policy Statement 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS10 Planning Policy Statement 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management + Companion Guide to PPS10 PPS12 Planning Policy Statement 12 Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial Planning PPG24 Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 Planning and Flood Risk + Practice Guide pSPA potential Special Protection Area RSS Regional Spatial Strategy RTAB Regional Technical Advisory Body SA Sustainability Appraisal

1 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

Non-Technical Summary

This report concludes that the Locations for Waste Development Development Plan Document provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the County over the next 16 years. The Council has sufficient evidence to support the allocations and can show that they have a reasonable chance of being delivered.

A limited number of changes have been put forward by the Council. These can be summarised as follows: deletion of description of procedural progress now overtaken by events correction of references to elements of the Control and Management of Development Development Plan Document inclusion of specific references to hazardous waste with non-inert waste management and disposal deletion of references to Project Reduce greater detail given in the site characteristics and development requirements for some allocations inclusion of an appendix identifying sites with extant planning permission which could contribute to the County‟s waste management and disposal capacity as set out in the Core Strategy, together with support for change or extensions to existing capacity as appropriate.

All of the changes recommended in this report are based on proposals put forward by the Council in response to points raised and suggestions discussed during the public examination. The changes do not alter the thrust of the Council‟s overall strategy or the validity of the allocations.

2 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

Introduction

1. This report contains my assessment of the Locations for Waste Development Development Plan Document (DPD) in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It considers whether the DPD is compliant in legal terms and whether it is sound. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 (paragraphs 4.51-4.52) makes clear that to be sound, a DPD should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the submitted DPD (Submission version dated March 2010).

3. The Submission version was based upon the Proposed Submission version published for consultation in January 2009. In response to that consultation, revisions were made by the County Council and carried through into the Submission version.

4. Representations were lodged to the Submission version some of which were accepted by the County Council and suggested changes were put forward for consideration either prior to the hearing sessions of the examination or whilst the hearing sessions were in progress. All of the changes have been proposed by the Council and are presented in Appendix A.

5. None of these changes are required in order to make the DPD sound. Neither do they materially alter the substance of the plan and its policies, or undermine the Sustainability Appraisal and participatory processes undertaken. I have not found it necessary to recommend any further changes in order for the DPD to meet the tests of soundness.

6. Some of the changes put forward by the Council are factual updates, corrections of minor errors or other minor amendments in the interests of clarity. As these changes do not relate to soundness they are generally not referred to in this report although I endorse the Council‟s view that they improve the plan. The Council has proposed to delete references to regional planning policies, but these changes are currently not appropriate, for the reasons set out below.

7. I am content for the Council to make any additional minor and consequential changes to page, figure, paragraph and appendix numbering and to correct any spelling errors prior to adoption.

3 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

Assessment of Soundness

Preamble

8. Since the publication of the Submission version of the DPD the Government announced the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect on 6 July 2010. In response the County Council proposed to delete all references to the Plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy – RSS) and the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy (MKSMSRS) from the DPD. However, the decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies has subsequently been quashed. Accordingly, reference to the RSS and MKSMSRS should be retained in the DPD as, at the time of writing this report, they still form part of the development plan.

9. The County Council has put forward suggested changes to acknowledge this, but they are justified on the basis that the Council expects the “impending abolition” of the regional plan. Whilst this may be the stated intention of the Secretary of State, this has yet to be put into effect through legislation. Accordingly, the DPD as submitted is correct and it does not need to be changed in this respect. In which case, I do not support suggested changes SC3 and SC6, as set out in the Appendix, which deal with this point.

10. Having said that, the status of the RSS and MKSMSRS makes no material difference to the matters which have to be taken into account in considering the soundness of the DPD. The DPD has been prepared to accord with the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (NMWDF) Core Strategy, which incorporates regional guidance on waste management and disposal capacity drawn up in consultation with the Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB), as advised in the Companion Guide to PPS10.

Main Issues

11. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings I have identified eight main issues upon which the soundness of the plan depends, three of which relate to allocation sites.

Issue 1 – Procedural Conformity and General Matters

12. The DPD has been drawn up in conformity with the NMWDF and, as such, forms part of a suite of documents which are to be used to control waste management and disposal across the County until 2026. The Core Strategy sets the broad geographical distribution for waste development and the capacity for various waste types and management streams, including recycling, biological processing, advanced treatment, inert recycling and hazardous waste management. Augmenting the Locations DPD within the NMWDF is the Control and Management of Development (CMD) DPD and the Development & Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document.

13. The spatial strategy (Figure W2) and the capacity to be met (paragraph 2.7) are carried through from the Core Strategy and set the context for the

4 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

allocations in this DPD. The purpose of this DPD is to identify new sites which are required to meet the Core Strategy‟s provisions. However, the new sites will augment capacity and processes at sites which already have planning permission and are in production – as noted at paragraph 3.5 of the DPD. Whilst it would not be appropriate to show these as allocations, it has been agreed by the Council to list the current sites in an appendix to the DPD1. These sites can be identified on a plan base using the Council‟s on-line interactive mapping. This is an appropriate change as both the current and allocated sites (as they come into use) will be taken into account in the monitoring of the NMWDF.

14. The site selection process has been carried out in accordance with the relevant guidance and protocols. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) was conducted for all sites which were included in the search for sites. The scope and methodology for the SA was agreed with the relevant partners, ensuring that (amongst other matters) environmental concerns, flood risk, nature conservation and cultural heritage were appropriately and impartially considered before preferred sites were selected and carried forward into the Submission version of the DPD. Whilst the SA process is appropriate for identifying sites for inclusion as allocations in the DPD, this does not circumvent the need for detailed appraisals at planning application stage where close attention can be given to site layout, design, mitigation and protection requirements.

15. The sites which are allocated accord with the spatial distribution identified in the Core Strategy, although there were representations which questioned how closely the distribution of allocated sites aligned with the Core Strategy. This is a point addressed in greater detail below (paragraph 28 et seq).

16. PPS10 looks for a DPD to demonstrate how capacity can be provided to meet the equivalent of at least 10 years of the annual rate of waste arisings2. With current sites identified, plus new site allocations and flexibility to bring forward additional or alternative sites, the DPD does show that sufficient provision can be brought forward for waste management purposes.

17. The DPD does not make specific provision for waste disposal. Inert waste is to be used for the restoration of minerals workings (see Locations for Minerals Development DPD and Policy CMD3 of the CMD DPD3. Neither is provision made for the disposal of non-inert / hazardous waste, where there is an acknowledged shortage of identified capacity4. The absence of a policy or other specific reference to management and disposal of hazardous waste was challenged in the representations. As discussed below (paragraph 69 et seq), this point has been acknowledged by the Council and appropriate changes have been put forward to remedy this. The effect of the changes is that the DPD recognises that a site or sites exist, or can be brought forward on an ad hoc basis, subject to compliance with Policy CMD2 in the CMD DPD. This

1 Suggested Change SC9c

2 Paragraph 18, PPS10

3 See also Suggested Change SC12 to the Locations for Minerals Development DPD

4 Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 of the DPD

5 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

might be seen as a shortcoming of this Locations DPD, but the point is clearly addressed across the NMWDF as a whole, taking account of the Core Strategy and CMD DPD.

18. Some representors argued that the DPD ought to specify what processes or waste types are to be handled at the identified sites – either as allocations or generally acceptable locations. Whilst this might offer a degree of close monitoring, it is neither necessary nor perhaps desirable. PPS10 makes it clear that waste plans should not necessarily deal with the types or technologies of waste at particular sites. New and up-rated waste management technologies are being developed all the time and to specify a waste type or process might unhelpfully constrain the efficiency and ability of a site to deal with arisings and, more usefully, drive treatment up the waste hierarchy. Furthermore, there is no waste „trajectory‟ against which to track compliance and neither has the County Council, as waste planning authority, any ability to intervene at such a detailed level for enforcement purposes. It is sufficient that for spatial planning purposes, once a site is established, it is run in accordance with its planning permission and any attaching planning conditions.

19. I am content that the submitted DPD has been drawn up in conformity with the relevant legislation, Regulations and associated guidance. All the required consultations have been carried out with other statutory bodies and agencies, local authorities and local communities. Representations have been received and the Council has put forward suggested changes to the DPD either in advance of the examination, or at the examination itself, either to clarify passages or to make corrections. Drawing these points together, the Locations for Waste Development DPD can be seen to be in conformity with the Core Strategy, regional planning policies and national guidance, particularly that given in PPS12 and PPS10.

20. None of the Council‟s proposed changes affect the soundness of the DPD and I have not found it necessary to recommend any further changes to ensure soundness.

Issue 2 – Deliverability of Development

21. The underlying approach of the DPD is that it is permissive and enabling, rather than prescriptive. Whereas specific sites are identified as allocations for waste management activities, it also offers a wide opportunity for sites to be developed on unallocated sites, either within identified industrial estates, or elsewhere in the County.

22. The sites shown as allocations in the DPD have been identified only after positive interest has been declared by the landowner and an operator within the waste industry. Possible overriding constraints such as landscape impact and highway capacity have been taken into account in the site selection process. The sites are identified in a published DPD and the local planning authority (ie Northamptonshire County Council) supports and promotes the plan‟s policies and proposals.

23. It has to be acknowledged that allocating a site in the DPD does not guarantee that it will be developed; either because detailed appraisal shows that some concern or other cannot be allayed through design or mitigation, or that

6 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

changes in landownership or practices in the waste industry indicate that the site is no longer suitable or available. However, the plan is predicated on a reasonable presumption that if market conditions indicate an allocated site is required then it can be brought into development, subject to all appropriate design constraints and mitigations being met.

24. Even if some of the allocated sites do not come forward, or insuperable difficulties are discovered, the opportunity for alternative sites to come forward is allowed for by Policy W3 of this DPD, Policy CMD1 of the CMD DPD and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy. That is, the success of the NMWDF overall does not depend upon the implementation of all of the site allocations in this DPD.

25. As discussed at the hearing sessions, proposals for waste-related development arguably generate a stronger reaction amongst the public than most other types of development. Whether deserved or not, waste management and disposal has an unfavourable resonance for many. However, other than for disposal to landfill and some processes which can only take place outdoors (eg composting in windrows), waste management processes are increasingly becoming similar to general industrial/warehousing (B2/B8) type development, in that they take place within an enclosed building or have an industrial type character and generate a similar number of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements as for lorries delivering to industrial premises generally.

26. Having regard to the need to consider the potential effects on the setting and surroundings of each site at application stage, and the safeguards and mitigations which can be applied to schemes which are considered acceptable in principle, it is reasonable to assume that the allocated sites can be brought into development during the plan period, notwithstanding initial resistance from some quarters to the Submission version of this DPD.

27. Taking these points together, on the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to conclude that sufficient sites and facilities to meet the capacity requirements of the Core Strategy are deliverable through this DPD and other components of the NMWDF.

Issue 3 – Emerging Technologies and Distribution of Development

28. The Core Strategy establishes that there is a gap between current permitted waste management capacity and the anticipated requirement over the plan period. This is in the order of 1.14 million tonnes5. In addition, sites are needed for disposal to landfill.

29. The DPD makes specific site allocations under policies W1, W2 and W4, which would account for some 800,000 tonnes; about 70% of the identified capacity requirement. However, the plan recognises that waste management is increasingly taking on the character of a general industrial process6. Furthermore, waste management techniques are continually advancing and evolving into more efficient and more integrated processes. It is therefore

5 Table CS3 of Core Strategy

6 Paragraph 3.2 of the DPD

7 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

unhelpful and even unrealistic to make specific allocations for all waste processing capacity.

30. The DPD‟s approach to meeting the shortfall in the capacity requirement of some 340,000 tonnes is to identify industrial estate locations across the County where new waste management facilities are likely to be compatible and broadly acceptable. Thereafter, sites would come forward in response to the requirements of the waste management industry, guided by criteria-based policies in the CMD DPD. This is a pragmatic approach and one which is likely to result in the perceived gap in capacity being met.

31. Neither does the DPD make any allocations for landfill. Whilst this may, on the face of it, be seen to be a significant omission, the NMWDF looks for inert fill material to be used for restoration of minerals workings7, which would be assessed against the criteria set out in Policy CMD2 in the CMD DPD. That is, the NMWDF as a whole recognises, and makes provision for this.

32. Also, as noted above, although there is a recognised need for the management and disposal of non-inert waste (alternatively or jointly referred to as hazardous waste in both this DPD and the Core Strategy), no sites are identified for this in the DPD. This matter was addressed in some detail during the examination of the DPD (see paragraph 69 et seq below) and an acceptable accommodation has been made.

33. As noted above, a significant proportion of the total waste management capacity is expected to be met by existing sites and facilities. Whilst these are not new allocations, it would present a more complete picture of the response to the Core Strategy if the current sites were identified somewhere, to fully inform the monitoring process of the NMWDF, to provide a reference for CMD policies supporting extension of existing sites, and to indicate where a replacement or alternative might be required at some point in the future. The Council have put forward a proposed change to list all existing sites in an Annex to the DPD8. This is a helpful change.

34. It can be seen that the DPD makes provision for all types of waste management and disposal as envisaged in the Core Strategy, either by specific site allocations or through the exercise of criteria based policies in the CMD DPD, which would include referring to locations identified in Policy W3. Furthermore Policies CS1 and CS2, in conjunction with CMD1, give the opportunity for further sites to come forward as necessary, including extensions to established sites. By these various approaches the DPD meets the requirement set out in PPS10 to identify sites capable of dealing with the equivalent of at least 10 years‟ capacity.

35. As noted above, waste management is a rapidly evolving industry. Some representors looked for closer monitoring indicators to be included in the DPD. The need and value of such close scrutiny is of questionable value, partially because activities on each site may change over time and partly because such changes would be at the initiative of the industry, rather than driven by the waste planning authority. That is, changes can be unpredictable and detailed

7 Core Strategy Paragraph 6.26 and Policy CS3

8 Suggested Changes SC5e and SC9c

8 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

control or restrictions can become out of date or irrelevant over time. The DPD does not employ a „predict and provide‟ philosophy, rather it is one which enables a flexible and non-prescriptive response to need.

36. The desire to keep waste management operations under proper regulation and control is readily understood, but the potential harm or disruption caused by waste operations should be measured and controlled not through closely specifying what should take place on the site, but through ensuring that those people and places likely to be affected are properly protected whatever waste management processes may take place. The need for such controls is identified in Policy CS14, and more detailed aspects can be „signposted‟ by policies in the CMD DPD. In parallel with this is the guidance in PPS10 and other safeguards represented by the Environmental Permitting regime operated by the Environment Agency and controls available to Environmental Health Officers (see also paragraph 46 below). That is, it would be more effective, and offer greater certainty, to monitor the performance of various sites against the potential harms rather than specifying particular processes. Monitoring this would be more associated with the CMD DPD rather than the Locations DPD, albeit all under the overall monitoring framework of the NMWDF.

37. Representations were made which expressed concern over an apparent concentration of waste management sites in Corby. The Core Strategy looks to focus such development in the central spine (Policy CS2), and Corby is within the central spine. Neither the Core Strategy nor the Locations for Waste Development DPD seek to sub-divide the central spine. Two of the three sites under policy W1, two of the seven sites under Policy W2 and four of the 21 locations under W3 are in Corby. But this does not conflict with the Core Strategy. Having said that, the majority of sites under W2 and W3 are in other parts of the central spine.

38. It also has to be acknowledged that Corby has a significant manufacturing and industrial base and, recognising the proportion of waste arisings from the commercial and industrial sector, it is not inappropriate to want to process a large proportion of this in Corby. By this approach there can be synergies or efficiencies emerging from closely related or integrated waste management in one location. Also, if a significant proportion of the waste to be managed is generated in the Corby area, then a localised concentration could minimise „waste miles‟ hauling materials across the County to other locations.

Issue 4 – Implementation, Flexibility and Monitoring

39. To a large degree, the points raised under this issue have been discussed under issues 2 and 3 above. The DPD relies upon willing landowners and expressions of interest within the waste industry to bring sites forward. Whilst it is unlikely that the County Council would choose to intervene directly to bring a site into operation, opportunities are available within the NMWDF to bring forward alternative sites.

40. As noted above (paragraphs 28 and 29), there is likely to be a requirement for further sites in addition to those identified in this DPD. This DPD is concerned with identifying sites where waste processing could take place, but it does not attempt to identify sites to meet all of the potential need. Whether sufficient sites to meet the capacity requirements of the Core Strategy are available is a

9 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

matter which would be revealed through monitoring of Core Strategy Policy CS1. Additional sites could be brought forward through the policies of the Control and Management of Development DPD. Whereas the Locations for Waste Development DPD has its own monitoring indicators, the effectiveness of the DPD and whether it is necessary to accept the development of alternative or additional sites is something which overall monitoring of the NMWDF would show up.

41. Without a trajectory or any associated target dates or quantified processing capacity targets for individual sites, monitoring can only be generalised and responses to monitoring results can only be „broad-brush‟. However, the rate of technological change within the waste industry may be significant over the plan period. Management and recycling expectations, either in terms of proportions passing though each level of the waste hierarchy or influenced by innovative processes, could change over the life of the DPD. In which case, it would be inappropriate to require the monitoring of this DPD to be particularly detailed in terms of specifying processes and types of wastes handled on individual sites. What is included in this DPD‟s monitoring framework, together with monitoring of Core Strategy Policy CS2, is sufficient to indicate the success or otherwise of the DPD‟s intentions in a geographical or spatial context. The quantitative context would be provided by monitoring of the Core Strategy.

42. As a generalisation, it can take about 2 years for a waste management site to be brought „on stream‟ once the need has been identified. Waste statistics are collected on a fairly frequent basis, and it was acknowledged at the hearing sessions that quarterly up-dates could be possible. A potential shortfall in management capacity should become apparent in sufficient time for the need for alternative or additional sites to be spotted and allow them to be brought on stream.

43. As discussed above, the policies within the NMWDF are relatively open-ended in enabling alternative sites to come forward. Accordingly, there is considerable flexibility built-in to the DPD to support the view that its implementation can be managed to respond to the results of monitoring.

Issue 5 – Sites in General

44. At the options stage all sites under investigation were evaluated under a procedure which included HRA and SA (paragraph 14 above). No serious challenges have been made to the thoroughness, adequacy or impartiality of this process. SA is a strategic level planning exercise and therefore does not cover every consideration of taking a proposed site into development. However, it is robust and reliable enough to indicate that a site could be developed subject to detailed assessment and consideration of protection and mitigation measures at planning application stage. That is, there are no serious gaps in the process used to identify allocated sites in this DPD. Given the thorough nature of the search and appraisal exercise, the identification of allocated sites in this DPD can be considered justified and therefore meeting this test of soundness.

45. Matters such as cumulative impact, traffic impact, a finer detailed environmental appraisal, and protection of cultural heritage would be relevant at planning application stage. This would address most, if not all, of the

10 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

concerns expressed against the allocations in the Submission version of the DPD. Consideration of these matters would be shaped by policies in the CMD DPD and national planning policy guidance in - amongst others - PPS1, PPS5, PPS7, PPS10, PPG24 and PPS25.

46. Further safeguards for those living and working near to, or potentially affected by, a waste management or disposal site are given by the regime of Environmental Permitting under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, administered and enforced by the Environment Agency. In addition, there are the controls available to local authority Environmental Health Officers over matters such as noise and odours.

47. In response to representations made, the County Council has put forward as proposed changes the inclusion of a note for some allocations that particular regard has to be given to siting built development on parts of the site where there is the lowest flood risk. This is a sensible cautionary note and I support the proposed changes where these have been introduced.

48. Under issue 5 the justification for some of the other site allocations was briefly considered. Three particular locations or matters were subject of more detailed discussion, and these are reported upon under Issues 6, 7 and 8 below.

Northampton East

49. The East site (WS1) may need to have a revised access to serve the proposed waste management operation, the waste water treatment site and the neighbouring minerals extractions. In view of the fact that a revised access arrangement is not an essential factor in bringing this site into development, and other options might be just as practical and acceptable, it is not necessary to include this on the site allocation plan. However, the Council has put forward a proposed change in the form of a note under the „Development Requirements‟ for the site to acknowledge the possibility. This is a useful and pragmatic change which I support. Other considerations such as traffic generation, noise and odours can be addressed at detailed planning application stage. There were no overriding objections from the Highways Agency or the local highway authority to development of this site.

North-east of the County

50. Representations were raised against the perceived grouping of waste management sites in the north-east of the County around Kings Cliffe and, in such circumstances, whether it was appropriate to allocate the Nassington site (WS13) for further waste development purposes. In particular there are concerns over a potential conflict with the development of Rockingham Forest Park as a leisure/recreation area.

51. From the discussions at the hearing session, the Rockingham Forest Park scheme is still at a very early stage and it cannot be regarded as a commitment. Nassington is a waste management site at present and the allocation under Policy W4 would mean it would be developed for processes appropriate to a rural area. Whilst there may be concerns over a potential cumulative impact, how such cumulative impact would be manifested or perceived were not immediately apparent at the hearing session.

11 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

52. Events may prove that this allocation is not a viable proposition in the longer term. However, on the basis of the evidence available at the time of the hearing session, it would be premature to delete the site from the DPD. Policy CMD1 would allow for an alternative site to come forward were this seen to be necessary before a review of this DPD.

Chelveston

53. The allocation of the Chelveston Site (WS12) was queried, having regard to its rural setting and its proximity to the County boundary. Its peripheral location could mean that this site may not be readily accessible to a wide area of the County, or that use of this site might generate a disproportionate number of „waste miles‟ hauling material to the site by road, and hence be seen to be unsustainable.

54. The rural setting would be entirely consistent with Policy W4, which requires sites in rural areas as locations for processes which would be inappropriate in an urban setting (such as windrow composting). With regard to its location, it is reasonably close to the A6 and A45 and hence within easy access to much of the urbanised parts of the county. Also, the County boundary is not necessarily the same as the market area for an operation on this site. Whilst it would be desirable for waste to be managed at locations closest to the point of arising, this does not mean that every waste planning authority (ie County Council) has to be regarded as a self-contained geographical unit. It can be efficient and sustainable for a site to serve a wide area, parts of which may be in a neighbouring county – as acknowledged at paragraph 3.7 of the Control and Management of Development DPD.

Rushden / Higham Ferrers

55. Concerns were also raised over site WL20 - Rushden / Higham Ferrers west of the bypass. This site is within an urban area and arguably close to a number of sensitive receptors, including a school. However, development of a waste management facility here would be compatible with Policy W3 in that it is an existing industrial area. A waste management operation here would be very likely to have a similar appearance and character to a B2/B8 use (see paragraph 25 above), and the potential impacts would be subject to detailed appraisal at application stage, further reinforced by the supervision and controls of planning conditions and an environmental permit.

Conclusion on sites in general

56. Representations made against a number of other allocated sites were also considered, but none of the points raised are seen to be compelling objections which would justify their removal from the DPD. The sorts of concerns raised were consistent with the more general matters discussed under paragraph 14 above, and could be addressed at planning application stage as discussed at paragraph 45 above.

57. None of the identified allocations or general location sites can be considered as inappropriate or inadequately justified and hence do not need to be removed or substituted in this DPD for it to be considered sound.

12 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

Issue 6 - Boughton (Site Allocation WS4)

58. At consultation stage of the plan it was claimed that not all relevant local interests for this site were properly notified as required by the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The reasons for this are not clear as the County Council informed the examination hearing that all appropriate steps had been taken. However, it is clear that the possibility of the site being included as an allocation was widely known and local representatives and individual representors had been able to submit their views to the County Council before the Submission version of the DPD was published. In which case, nobody‟s interests have been prejudiced by the apparent departure from the consultation process set out in the SCI.

59. The underlying objection to this site being allocated for waste management purposes is that it is seen to lie too close to existing and proposed residential development. The site is within 200m or so of housing to the south-east of the roundabout junction with the A508. The land on the opposite side of Brampton Lane has been allocated for housing development in the Local Plan. Concerns were expressed that the waste management operation would be incompatible with residential development by reason of appearance, noise, smell, dust, litter, vermin, traffic generation and other disturbances such as lighting.

60. The site was identified through the site search procedure employed by the County Council. This included HRA and SA which, as discussed above (paragraph 14), followed the relevant guidance and included contributions from bodies such as English Nature and English Heritage. The SA process also took into account traffic implications and the potential harm to nearby residential areas and other sensitive land uses. The SA procedure had been conducted appropriately and impartially identified this as a site for waste management purposes in or adjacent to an urban area under Policy W2.

61. The site is a presently part of an ironstone quarry (with planning permission for quarrying until 2042), but much of the permitted mineral reserve is unworked and, indeed, is not expected to be worked in the future. The identified waste management site does not extend into the unworked area. It is currently operated as a waste management site and the DPD sees the scope of waste operations here being widened. Whereas local residents have the expectation that the site would have been restored to agriculture by 2015 in accordance with temporary planning permissions, the site was identified in the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan 2003-2016 as a landfill site (site No.2) which allows for the principle of waste related development here after 2015.

62. The waste operations are likely to take place inside enclosed buildings, offering visual containment, noise mitigation and the opportunity for negative pressure ventilation to ensure no undesirable escape of odours or bio- aerosols. The buildings could be set to the north (back) of the site, furthest away from present and proposed housing and maintaining an appropriate separation distance to safeguard health and amenity. The buildings would be set on the floor of the old quarry, which is some 10m below natural ground level, meaning that the buildings would be substantially, if not totally, screened from views from outside the site. Planning conditions could be imposed to control matters such as hours of operation, management of dust and mud and lighting. All of such safeguards are embodied in Core Strategy

13 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

Policy CS14. In which case, I do not consider that allocating this as a waste management site is incompatible with both the present and planned residential development in this vicinity.

63. Traffic generation is predicted to be in the order of 20-40 HGV movements per day (about 2-4 per hour). This would be within the capacity of the existing highway network and its junctions. Routeing of vehicles can be controlled through planning obligations or agreements, which could be monitored by a local liaison group meeting regularly with the site‟s management9. Concerns were raised over the Air Quality Assessment in the Northampton area, but no recommendations have been published to indicate whether increased traffic at this site would seriously degrade the present conditions to the point where they must be regarded as unacceptable.

64. Having considered the likely form of development here, its setting in the old quarry and the range of mitigation measures, the envisaged waste management operation on the site would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of local residents. It was acknowledged at the hearing session that the present site operations have not given cause for complaint and that it is reasonable to assume that this could continue with a revised role as envisaged in the DPD.

Issue 7 – Corby - Gretton Brook Road (Site Allocation WS9) and Corby - Pilot Road (Site Allocation WS10)

65. These sites have been identified in the DPD as appropriate for waste management uses in or adjacent to an urban area under Policy W2. However, it was argued that, as established waste management sites, they have the potential for a wider or more integrated range of processes and should be allocated under Policy W1 as sites for integrated waste management facilities.

66. The philosophy underlying the DPD is that it should identify sites which would ensure a satisfactory range of waste management options could be brought into development. Having the support of the landowner and the waste industry for the identified sites offers a degree of confidence that the envisaged provision will be forthcoming. It was seen to be necessary to specifically identify sites which are large enough for integrated waste operations in order to ensure anticipated contractual schemes could be accommodated.

67. Having said that, as discussed at the hearing session, this does not preclude other options coming forward if they are feasible and can be accommodated without causing unacceptable harm to the environment and neighbouring land uses. It is not the policy of the NMWDF or this DPD in particular to limit further options. It would be wrong to infer some kind of hierarchical relationship between sites listed under Policy W1 and those under Policy W2. This is agreed by the County Council who have put forward a suggested change to acknowledge this.10 I support the proposed change.

9 See Policy CMD14 for support for local liaison groups. 10 Suggested Change SC5f

14 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

68. The NMWDF is open-minded about widening the role and scale of other waste sites, as recognised at paragraph 6.14 of the Core Strategy and 3.13 of this DPD. Core Strategy Policy CS2 and Control and Management of Development Policy CMD1 would allow for this. The County Council propose to revise the wording of paragraph 3.13 to strengthen this interpretation11, which I endorse. That is, if viable schemes for advanced and integrated waste treatment operations are proposed for these sites, then subject to appraisal against the other NMWDF policies and detailed appraisals of a planning application, these could well be acceptable.

Issue 8 – Sites for Hazardous Waste Disposal

69. Policy CS1 in the Core Strategy identifies the need to make provision for the management of hazardous waste, yet no site has been included in the Locations DPD to serve this requirement. Having said that, at present the East Northamptonshire Resource Management Facility (ENRMF) at Kings Cliffe receives specialist hazardous waste streams from over a wide area, fulfilling a sub-national role. The Submission version of the DPD is seen to inadequately acknowledge the role and significance of the hazardous waste management and disposal operations at this site. It was argued that failure to acknowledge this unreasonably constrains the future use and development of this site.

70. At the hearing session it was accepted by the County Council that the present site would meet the expectations of Policy CS1. The operational area would be large enough to accommodate the envisaged scale and extent of non-intert/hazardous waste management and disposal12 on this site throughout the plan period (ie up to 2026). The County Council has put forward suggested changes to the DPD13 to recognise this and to establish a favourable context for continuing operations here during the plan period.

71. Correspondence between the County Council and the current operator of the ENRMF site after the hearing session explored alternative or revised wording to aspects of the Council‟s proposed changes both to this DPD and the Control and Management of Development (CMD) DPD. It is not appropriate to make any comment on the CMD DPD in this report.

72. With the inclusion of paragraphs 2.17, 2.18 and 2.19 as proposed to be changed, it is not necessary to add a fourth bullet point to paragraph 2.2 to note the DPD also acknowledges the role of committed (ie existing) sites such as ENRMF. The Council‟s suggested wording for paragraph 2.17 is an accurate reflection of the role and scope of this Locations DPD. Paragraph 2.18 makes explicit reference to the need to recognise hazardous waste management and disposal and Appendix 2 lists ENRMF as a committed site which meets the role outlined in paragraph 2.17. Paragraph 2.19 gives support to the position that future operations on the Appendix 2 sites –

11 Suggested Change SC5i

12 Agreed through exchange of e-mails between Augean plc (24 November 2010) and Northamptonshire County Council (30 November 2010) [Document 831Ba]. 13 Suggested Changes SC5b, SC5c, SC5e and SC9c

15 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

including ENRMF – should not be unreasonably frustrated or constrained where these meet the objectives of the NMWDF overall.

73. Other elements of the NMWDF provide a policy context for controlling development on existing/committed sites; that is, the Core Strategy and CMD DPD, plus any further guidance or advice in the Development & Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document.

74. Taking all of these points together, the status, function and continued role of the ENRMF site would be adequately safeguarded by the council‟s proposed changes – which I fully endorse. Other Matters

75. I acknowledge that paragraph 1.9 is unnecessary and its deletion, as proposed at SC4 (but not for the reason given by the Council), would not mislead users of the DPD. Accordingly, in the interest of clarity or simplification, I support SC4.

Legal Requirements

76. My examination of the compliance of the Locations for Waste Development DPD with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the DPD meets them all.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Local Development The Locations for Waste Development DPD is Scheme (LDS) identified within the approved Minerals and Waste Development Scheme dated 30 March 2010 which sets out an expected adoption date of December 2010. Albeit the timing for adoption may slip by a month or two, I do not consider that this materially departs from the published timescale. Accordingly, I consider the DPD‟s content and timing are compliant with the LDS.

Statement of Community The SCI was adopted in 2006 and, albeit there was Involvement (SCI) and a possible difficulty with publicity for the Boughton relevant regulations site WS4 (see paragraph 58 of this report), consultation has been compliant with the requirements therein. Even allowing for the possible problem at that site, I am content the Council‟s proposals were widely publicised and that, in the event, no one‟s interests were prejudiced in taking the site forward through the DPD procedures.

Sustainability Appraisal SA has been carried out, independently verified (SA) and is adequate.

Appropriate Assessment The Habitats Regulations AA Screening Report (April 2007) and Assessment (August 2007) have

16 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Inspector‟s Report December 2010

(AA) been undertaken in consultation with Natural , in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations 1994. Possible effects on the pSPA have been taken into account in drawing up the Locations for Waste Development DPD policies and site allocations.

National Policy The Locations for Waste Development DPD complies with national policy.

Sustainable Community Satisfactory regard has been paid to the SCS. Strategy (SCS)

2004 Act and Regulations The Locations for Waste Development DPD (as amended) complies with the Act and the Regulations.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

77. I conclude that the Locations for Waste Development DPD satisfies the requirements of s20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in PPS12.

78. For the avoidance of doubt, I endorse the Council’s suggested changes as set out in Appendix A, with the exception of those relating to the status of the East Midlands Plan and the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy, (SC3 and SC6) and recommend that the plan be changed accordingly. Geoffrey Hill

INSPECTOR

This report is accompanied by Appendix A Council‟s Suggested Changes

17 Locations for Waste Development DPD - Appendix A Council‟s Suggested Changes

Appendix A Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination

18

Northamptonshire MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD: Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination

Policy / Ref. Suggested Change Rationale Paragraph SC 1 Para 1.6 Amend fourth bullet point - to read “Control and Management of Development DPD, Accurately reflect role of the CMD. which covers aspects of controlling and managing minerals and waste development, as well as locally specific issues (such as the built & natural environmental, design, restoration, Mineral Safeguarding Areas, and preventing land use conflict).” SC 2 Para 1.6 Amend sixth bullet point – delete “adopted March 2007,” The SPD is currently undergoing review and so this date would not be relevant upon adoption of the revised document. SC 3 Para 1.8 First sentence of paragraph 1.8 should be amended to: “The DPDs above, those Impending abolition of the Regional prepared by the district planning authorities in Northamptonshire (including the joint Plan. planning committees), and whilst it remains extant the Regional Plan for the East Midlands, form the Development Plan for the area”. SC 4 Para 1.9 Delete paragraph 1.9. Impending abolition of the Regional Plan. SC 5a Para 1.12 Delete the word “European” from the final sentence. Ensure correct referencing. SC 5b Para 2.12 Amend para title to read “Non-inert and hazardous waste disposal” To provide clarity. Insert reference to Core Strategy Table CS4 into second last sentence. Amend last sentence to read “Currently available space for non-inert waste disposal is sufficient until around 2016, but ...” SC 5c Para 2.13 Amend para to read To provide clarity. “Disposal facilities for non-inert and hazardous waste have not been specifically identified through the spatial strategy for waste management. No disposal facilities for non-inert and hazardous waste have been allocated in this DPD. Proposals ...” SC 5d Para 2.14 Amend sentence to read “... (granted or agreed), as identified on the Proposals Map”. To provide clarity and adequate referencing in relation to preferred locations for inert waste disposal. SC 5e Para 2.16 Insert new section after para 2.16. To provide a context for existing “Commitments commitments. 2.17 This DPD is concerned only with allocations. It does not specifically include commitments (i.e. sites with planning permission or equivalent) for waste-related development. However, these commitments make a fundamental contribution in delivering the waste infrastructure that will enable the treatment and disposal of Northamptonshire’s waste to 2026, and for the MWDF to meet its objectives. It should be noted that the Core Strategy seeks to safeguard waste sites from alternative non- waste uses through Policy CS11. 2.18 Commitments in the county are identified in Appendix 2, and include sites for: NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 19

Policy / Ref. Suggested Change Rationale Paragraph Waste management (non-inert and inert), Non-inert waste disposal, Inert waste disposal, Hazardous waste management and disposal, and Sewage and waste water treatment. 2.19 Proposals for extensions or change in waste-related development on the committed sites (and on other sites on which planning permission for waste use has been subsequently granted) must be in accordance with the MWDF policies. However, it is accepted that being commitments confers a favourable status on these sites for a continuation of a waste use where this meets the intent of the MWDF strategy and policies, and is also in accordance with national planning policy.” SC 5f Para 3.4 Insert new footnote after “Such matters are addressed within policy in this DPD in the To improve clarity. following manner” to read “The classification of sites does not infer hierarchical status or preference.” SC 5g Para 3.10 Remove second sentence referencing project Reduce PFI. To update the DPD. SC 5h Paras 3.12, Amend relevant sentences in paras to read “It is estimated that this would not be less To improve clarity. 3.15, and 3.19 than a combined total of 400, 000 / 300,000 / 100,000 tpa” (figures are respective of para numbers). SC 5i Para 3.13 Delete wording in brackets in first sentence “(where relating ... integrated facility)”. To provide clarity. SC 6 Para 4.1 Delete “the Regional Plan” from the second sentence. Impending abolition of the Regional Plan. SC 7 Figure W2 & Replace “Figure” with “Plan” for Figures W2 & W3. Ensure consistent referencing. W3 SC 8 Table W1 Delete “MWDF” in first column header. Ensure consistent referencing. SC 9a Appendix 1 – Insert development requirements regarding flood risk. Clarify site specific development WS1, WS3, WS1 – “Built development to be located in areas of lowest flood risk, avoiding areas requirements and compliance with WS6, WS7, affected by highest level of flood risk (northern and southern sections of the site).” PPS25. WS11 WS3 – “Built development to be located in areas of lowest flood risk, avoiding areas affected by highest level of flood risk (southern boundary of the site).” WS6 – “Built development to be located in areas of lowest flood risk, avoiding areas affected by highest level of flood risk.” WS7 – “Built development to be located in areas of lowest flood risk, avoiding areas affected by highest level of flood risk (south-western corner of the site).” WS11 – “Built development to be located in areas of lowest flood risk, avoiding areas affected by highest level of flood risk (south-western corner of the site).” Delete “No specific strategic requirements“ where relevant. SC 9b Appendix 1 – WS1: Northampton – East. Insert additional development requirement to read To provide additional detail. WS1 “Access / egress to be from the west. The implementation of a one-way traffic system should be considered. This may utilise: an existing site road from Lower Ecton Lane NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 20

Policy / Ref. Suggested Change Rationale Paragraph feeding into the allocation; and land to the south and west of the existing Wastewater Treatment Works, rejoining an existing site road and access to Crow Lane. Carriageway and junction improvements from the site onto Crow Lane, Lower Ecton Lane, and the A45 may be required.” SC 9c Appendix 2 Insert new Appendix (see attached) for the purpose of identifying existing and To reflect SC 5e. committed sites for waste management and disposal facilities. Appendix 2 to be re-numbered to 3. Appendix 3 will be deleted in its entirety upon adoption. SC 10a Appendix 5 - Delete “European” from the explanation to the pSPA acronym. Ensure correct referencing. List of acronyms SC 10b Proposals Map Relevant existing and committed sites for mineral extraction to be identified on the To reflect SC5d (para 2.14) relating to DPD Proposals Map for the purpose of identifying sites where inert waste will be directed to directing inert disposal to mineral support restoration works. extraction sites for the purpose of restoration.

NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 21

SC9c Appendix 2: Commitments Commitments for waste management and disposal as at end 2010 are set out in the schedule below, and include sites for: Waste management (non-inert and inert), Non-inert waste disposal, Inert waste disposal, Hazardous waste management and disposal, and Sewage and waste water treatment. Appendix 2a: Waste management (non-inert and inert) Permission Grid reference Site Facility reference Easting Northing Deer Park Nursery, Crick Anaerobic digestion DA/05/0292 459900 272300 Rothwell Lodge Farm, Kettering Anaerobic digestion 09/00033/WAS 482408 280201 Road, Rothwell West Lodge Farm, Courteenhall Anaerobic digestion 08/00079/WAS 475000 253100 Westwood, Higham Park, Anaerobic digestion 08/00002/WAS 498825 263172 Rushden Storefield Plant, Storefield Road, Bio diesel research & KE/06/0891 484700 283200 Rushton development project Blackbridge Farm, Cranford Biodrying & pyrolysis 09/00014/WAS 490912 276388 Road, Kettering, NN15 5JJ Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Biomass fuelled 09/00057/WAS 490153 269582 , NN8 power generation Pebble Hall Farm, Biomass fuelled Theddingworth, , 08/00053/WAS 466307 284848 power generation LE17 6NJ Land at Chelveston Renewable Biomass plant & 08/00003/WAS 500669 268856 Energy Ltd recycling Land at Chelveston Renewable Biomass renewable 08/00003/WAS 500669 268856 Energy Ltd energy plant 07/00059/WAS Composting Blackpits Farm, Helmdon 10/00012/NMA 458400 242300 (In-vessel, IV) 10/00013/NMA Brigstock Road, Stanion, Corby Composting CO/01/0196 492350 286870 (Land off) Lowick Composting Site, Old Composting EN/06/1416 498400 280700 Aldwincle Road Pebble Hall Farm, Composting (IV & Theddingworth, Leicestershire, 08/00054/WAS 466219 284694 Open Windrow, OW) LE17 6NJ Brigstock Road, Stanion, Corby Composting (IV) 10/00058/WAS 492300 286850 (Land off) Burnham Landscapes Ltd, Browns Road, Daventry, NN11 Composting (IV) 09/00005/WAS 455486 262510 4NS Kirby Lodge, Gretton Road, Composting (IV) 07/00007/WAS 491740 292036 Corby Collyweston Quarry, Duddington Composting (OW) EN/01/0034 499900 301300 Composting , Field Number 0295 SN/00/0697 470200 257100 (Windrows) Composting Sidegate Lane Landfill Site WP/02/0736 491556 270188 (Windrows) Rushton Landfill Site, Oakley Composting 09/00018/WAS 484823 283516 Road, Rushton (windrows) & NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 22

Permission Grid reference Site Facility reference Easting Northing bioremediation Browns Road, off Staverton HWRC DA/89/1527 455514 262423 Road, Daventry Garrard Way, Telford Road Industrial Estate, Kettering, NN16 HWRC 10/00020/WAS 487328 277613 8PP (Kettering HWRC) Grendon Road, Wollaston HWRC BW/78/570 Kettering Road, Weldon, Corby HWRC Lower Ecton Lane, Great Billing, HWRC NO/86/683 481622 262064 Northampton Northampton Road, Rushden HWRC EN/92/0376 494000 267600 (Land off) Old Greens Norton Road, HWRC SN/86/855 468662 249306 Towcester Paterson Road, Finedon Road HWRC BW/87/9C 489894 270218 Industrial Estate, Wellingborough Road, HWRC DA/88/1307 475373 271075 Weedon Road, Northampton HWRC NO/93/0544 473100 260500 A45 between junction 16 and Upper Heyford Inert recycling SN/05/1558 466800 259700 (Land north of) Astwick Quarry, Croughton Inert recycling SN/07/0318 456700 233400 (Former) Boughton Quarry Inert recycling 08/00014/WAS 474600 265500 Brackley Road, Croughton (Land Inert recycling 08/00058/WAS 455492 233655 off) Castle Manor Farm, Titchmarsh Inert recycling 09/00006/WAS 501600 278200 Collyweston Quarry, Duddington Inert recycling EN/06/1279 499900 301300 Great Billing Sewage Treatment Inert recycling NO/06/1570 481980 262100 Works, Northampton (Land at) Great Billing Sewage Treatment Inert recycling NO/06/0069 481980 262100 Works, Northampton (Land at) Gretton Brook Road (Westminster building), Gretton, Inert recycling 10/00051/WAS 489642 291405 Corby, NN17 4BA Gretton Brook Road, Corby (Land Inert recycling CO/05/0065 489700 291400 at) Quarry, Harlestone Inert recycling DA/05/0876 470794 263581 Road, Harlestone King’s Cliffe Industrial Estate Inert recycling 07/00039/WAS 504300 298295 Lilford Lodge Farm, Lilford, Barnwell, Oundle, , Inert recycling 09/00049/WAS 504002 284811 PE8 5SA Long Drowpits, The Boughton 08/00081/WAS Inert recycling 487793 281516 Estate, Weekley, Kettering 08/00082/WAS The Old Sewage Works, Northampton Road, Blisworth, Inert recycling 09/00055/WAS 472739 254243 Northampton The Potato Store, Oundle Road, Inert recycling EN/06/2516 504500 285600 Barnwell Weldon Landfill Site Inert recycling 09/00042/WAS 491900 288500 King's Cliffe Industrial Estate Inert recycling (glass) EN/06/2508 504300 298400 Princewood Road, Corby (Land Inert recycling, 08/00067/WAS 488338 291511 to the north of) transfer, and landfill Brookside, Northampton Road, Metal recovery SN/03/0179 470100 260100 NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 23

Permission Grid reference Site Facility reference Easting Northing Kislingbury (vehicles) Martins Yard, Unit 14A, Metal recovery NO/04/1657 474744 261472 Northampton (vehicles) Metal recovery Sandy Lane, Harpole SN/04/1799 470470 261380 (vehicles) Blackpits Farm, Helmdon Recycling & transfer SN/07/0277 458400 242300 Brunel Road, No 1, Earlstrees Industrial Estate, Corby, NN17 Recycling & transfer 07/00058/WAS 489062 291095 4JW Crow Lane, Great Billing, Recycling & transfer NO/96/0071 481000 261000 Northampton Crow Lane, Great Billing, Recycling & transfer NO/04/1034 482200 261500 Northampton Finedon Industrial Estate, Rixon Recycling & transfer WP/00/0365 490153 269582 Road, Wellingborough Grendon Road, Earls Barton, 09/00007/WAS Recycling & transfer 485950 262640 NN6 0RB (The Recycling Centre) 09/00068/WAS Hill Farm Estate, Irthlingborough Road, Little Addington, Kettering, Recycling & transfer 08/00084/WAS 496153 273093 NN14 4AS Liliput Road, Brackmills Industrial Recycling & transfer NO/01/0203 477400 259200 Estate, Northampton Martins Yard, Unit 19, Recycling & transfer NO/02/0452 474700 261600 Northampton Martins Yard, Unit 5, Recycling & transfer NO/05/0974 474157 260891 Northampton Monkton Sidings, Fineshade Recycling & transfer EN/00/0619 497130 298900 Pebble Hall Farm, Theddingworth, Leicestershire, Recycling & transfer 10/00038/WAS 466449 284389 LE17 6NJ Pilot Road, Phoenix Parkway, Recycling & transfer 09/00019/WAS 490228 289729 Corby, NN17 5YH Pilot Road, Phoenix Parkway, Recycling & transfer CO/97/0267 490900 290300 Corby, NN17 5YH Rushton Landfill Site, Oakley 08/00069/WAS Recycling & transfer 484823 283481 Road, Rushton 10/0004/WAS Sandy Hill Lane, Moulton Recycling & transfer DA/05/1215 476160 266660 Shelton Road, Raunds (Land at) Recycling & transfer EN/03/0024 500910 271490 Southfield Avenue, Unit 5, Far 07/00069/WAS Recycling & transfer 475667 259368 Cotton, Northampton 10/00010/WAS Telford Way, Furnace Park Recycling & transfer 08/00071/WAS 485964 280252 The Old Brickworks, Harborough Recycling & transfer DA/03/0280 474900 268600 Road, The Old Brickworks, Harborough Recycling & transfer 09/00054/WAS 474950 268640 Road, Pitsford Upper Higham Lane, Chelveston- Recycling & transfer EN/02/334 499200 267300 Cum-Caldecott (Land off) Road, Crick, Recycling & transfer 07/00053/WAS 459043 273258 Northamptonshire, NN6 7TF High March Industrial Estate, Recycling & transfer Daventry. Same site as (hazardous storage - DA/05/1008 458200 261800 DA/05/0904 asbestos) Hunters Point, Hunters Road, Recycling & transfer Weldon North Industrial Estate, 08/00011/WAS 491734 290051 (tyres) Corby, NN17 5JE

NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 24

Permission Grid reference Site Facility reference Easting Northing Tweed Road, Unit C, Weedon Recycling & transfer Road Industrial Estate, 08/00020/WAS 473441 260460 (tyres) Northampton Gretton Brook Road, Corby (Land Renewable fuel 09/00052/WAS 489756 291459 at) production Renewable fuel Gretton Brook Road, Corby (Land production & recycling 08/00097/WAS 489756 291459 at) plant 15-21 Links Road, Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Wellingborough, Transfer 10/00016/WAS 490221 269692 NN8 4EY Appleby Lodge Farm, Sywell Transfer WP/05/0432 485000 268000 Road, Wellingborough Hannington Grange Farm, Red Transfer DA/05/0679 482300 272000 House Lane, Hannington Sandy Hill Farm, Overstone Transfer DA/98/0778 479240 266740 Lane, Moulton Sandy Hill Lane, Unit 7, Moulton, Transfer DA/06/1448 479000 266000 Northampton White's Yard, Horsley Road, Kingsthorpe Hollow, Transfer 10/00029/WAS 474960 262010 Northampton, NN2 6BJ King's Cliffe Landfill Site, Stamford Road, King's Cliffe, Treatment soils 07/00048/WAS 500553 300005 Peterborough, PE8 6XX Drive, Unit 15, Daventry WEEE recycling 08/00080/WAS 456015 264359 High March Industrial Estate, Unit WEEE recycling DA/05/0904 458000 261800 4, Daventry. Shed 1, Mill Rd Works, Mill Road, WEEE recycling 09/00032/WAS 490489 268725 Wellingborough The Leyland Trading Estate, Unit 19B, Irthlingborough Road, WEEE recycling 07/00025/WAS 490750 267780 Northants, NN8 1RT The Leyland Trading Estate, Unit 21, Irthlingborough Road, WEEE recycling WP/05/0179 490750 267780 Wellingborough Yeldon Court, No 11, Finedon Road Industrial Estate, WEEE recycling 08/00072/WAS 489596 270471 Wellingborough, NN8 4SS Appendix 2b: Non-inert waste disposal Grid reference Site Permission reference Easting Northing Corby Landfill Site CO/04/0498 491600 288400 Cranford Landfill Site 09/00016/WAS 488803 280279 08/00101/WAS Rushton Landfill Site 485000 283500 09/00018/WAS Sidegate Lane Landfill Site WP/04/0806 491556 270188 Weldon Landfill Site 09/00042/WAS 491900 288500 Appendix 2c: Inert waste disposal Grid reference Site Permission reference Easting Northing Astwick Quarry, Croughton SN/07/0318 456700 233400 NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 25

Boughton Quarry 08/00014/WAS 474600 265500 Castle Manor Farm, Titchmarsh 09/00006/WAS 501600 278200 Churchfield Farm, Oundle 09/00040/WAS 500372 287655 Collyweston Quarry, Duddington EN/06/1279 499900 301300 Earls Barton West 07/00050/MIN 484359 262356 SN/06/1670 Earls Barton Western Extension 486130 261960 WP/07/0039 Harlestone Quarry, Harlestone Road, DA/00/0617 470794 263581 Harlestone DA/05/0876 Long Drowpits, The Boughton Estate, 08/00081/WAS 487793 281516 Weekley, Kettering 08/00082/WAS Passenham Quarry, Passenham SN/05/0395 477300 239500 Princewood Road, Corby (Land to the north 08/00067/WAS 488338 291511 of) 07/00011/MIN Pury End Quarry, Paulerspury, Towcester 471000 246100 07/00012/MIN Sywell Shooting Club, Kettering Road, 10/00005/WAS 482054 269672 Northampton 07/00002/WAS Sywell Aerodrome, Lane, Sywell 485000 268000 10/00043/WAS The Piggeries, Cranford Road, Burton 08/00093/WAS 491400 276000 Latimer, Kettering Welford Landfill Site (restoration soils only) DA/03/0926 466300 277900 Appendix 2d: Hazardous waste management and disposal Grid reference Site Permission reference Easting Northing East Northants Resource Management EN/05/1264 400553 300005 Facility (formerly known as King’s Cliffe) Appendix 2e: Sewage and waste water treatment Site Facility 42 East Avenue, Kettering Landfill leachate treatment Gayton Landfill Site, Road, Gayton Landfill leachate treatment Weldon Landfill Site, Kettering Road, Weldon Landfill leachate treatment Wootton Quarry and Landfill, Collingtree Landfill leachate treatment Crucible Road, 5B and 5C, Corby Sewage sludge treatment Ashton Sewage Treatment Works Sewage Treatment Works (STW) Aston Le Walls Sewage Treatment Works STW Barnwell Sewage Treatment Works STW Benefield Sewage Treatment Works STW Blakesley Sewage Treatment Works STW Bozeat Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Braybrooke Sewage Treatment Works STW Bridgstock Sewage Treatment Works STW Brington Sewage Treatment STW Brixworth Sewage Treatment Works STW Broadholme Sewage Treatment Works STW Broughton Sewage Treatment Works STW Bugbrooke Sewage Treatment Works STW Byfield Sewage Treatment Works STW Caldecote Sewage Treatment Works STW

NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 26

Site Facility Castle Ashby Sewage Treatment Works STW Chacombe Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Chipping Warden Sewage Treatment Works STW Clipston Sewage Treatment Works STW Collyweston Sewage Treatment Works STW Corby Sewage Treatment Works STW Corby Sewage Treatment Works, Weldon, Corby STW Courteenhall Sewage Treatment Works STW Cranford Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Croughton Sewage Treatment Works STW Culworth Sewage Treatment Works STW Dingley Sewage Treatment Tanks STW Dingley Sewage Treatment Works STW Draughton Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Easton Maudit Sewage Treatment Works STW Easton Maudit Sewage Treatment Works STW Easton on the Hill Sewage Treatment Works STW Evenley Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Eydon Sewage Treatment Works STW Gayton Sewage Treatment Works STW Geddington Sewage Treatment Works STW Grafton Underwood Sewage Treatment Works STW Great Billing Sewage Treatment Works STW Great Doddington Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Greatworth Sewage Treatment Works STW Greens Norton Sewage Treatment Works STW Grendon Sewage Treatment Works STW Gretton Sewage Treatment Works STW Hackleton Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Hardwick Sewage Treatment Works STW Hargreave 2 Sewage Treatment Works STW Harrington Sewage Treatment Works STW Helmdon Sewage Treatment Works STW Hemington Sewage Treatment Works, off Main Street, STW Hemington Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Irchester Sewage Treatment Works STW Islip Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Kilsby Sewage Treatment Works, Rugby Road, Kilsby STW King's Sutton Sewage Treatment Works, Mill Lane, King's STW Sutton Kingscliffe Sewage Treatment Works STW NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 27

Site Facility Lamport Sewage Treatment Works STW Little Addington Sewage Treatment Works STW Loddington Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Lutton Sewage Treatment Works STW Manor House, Winwick (Land adjacent to the entrance of) STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Middleton Cheney Sewage Treatment Works STW Middleton Sewage Treatment Works STW Moreton Pinkney Sewage Treatment Works STW Nassington Sewage Treatment Works STW Newnham Sewage Treatment Works STW Newton Bromswold Sewage Treatment Works STW Norton Sewage Treatment Works STW Oundle Sewage Treatment Works STW Potterspury Lodge Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Princewood Road, Corby STW Pytchley Sewage Treatment Works STW Quinton Sewage Treatment Works STW Radstone Sewage Treatment Works STW Raunds STW, Stanwick Road, Raunds STW Ravensthorpe Sewage Treatment Works STW Rockingham Sewage Treatment Works STW Rushton Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Silverstone Sewage Treatment Works STW Stanion Sewage Treatment Works STW Staverton, Daventry (Land to the West of) STW Stoke Albany Sewage Treatment Works STW Stoke Bruerne Sewage Treatment Works STW Syresham Sewage Treatment Works STW Thorpe Malsor Sewage Treatment Works STW Thorpe Mandeville Sewage Treatment Works STW Tiffield Sewage Treatment Works STW Titchmarsh Sewage Treatment Works STW Towcester Sewage Treatment Works STW Wappenham, Sewage Treatment Works STW Warmington Sewage Treatment Works STW Watford Sewage Treatment Works STW Weedon Sewage Treatment Works STW Welford Sewage Treatment Works STW Welton Sewage Treatment Works STW Weston By Welland Sewage Treatment Works STW Sewage Treatment Works STW Whitfield Sewage Treatment Works STW Winwick Grange Farm (Land adjacent to entrance of) STW Wollaston Sewage Treatment Works STW Woodnewton Sewage Treatment Works STW

NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 28

Site Facility Yardley Hastings Sewage Treatment Works STW Waste Water Treatment (WWT) Dodson and Horrell Ltd, Kettering Road, Islip, Kettering (Reedbeds) Kilsby Landfill Site, Grove Farm, Daventry Road, Kilsby WWT Note: The locations of commitments are not indicated on the hard copy MWDF Proposals Map DPD. This information can be viewed via the County Councils online Proposals Map (http://northamptonshire.devplan.org.uk) or in hardcopy upon request to the County Council. The identification of a site as a commitment does not necessarily mean that the permission has been implemented or that the site is currently operational.

NCC MWDF Locations for Waste Development DPD Schedule of suggested changes made by the Planning Authority at examination 29