Development and Regulation Committee
Committee Room 1, Friday, 25 April 10:30 County Hall, 2014 Chelmsford, Essex
Quorum: 3
Membership:
Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor K Bobbin Councillor A Brown Councillor P Channer Councillor M Ellis Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves Councillor S Walsh
For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 01245 430565 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 128 Essex County Council and Committees Information
All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.
Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx
There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.
The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.
The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
Page 2 of 128 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)
Pages
1 Apologies and Substitution Notices The Committee Officer to report receipt (if any)
2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members
3 Minutes 7 - 12 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2014.
4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.
5 Minerals and Waste
5a Land at Wallasea Island, Rochford 13 - 106 Continuation of the importation of waste to develop a coastal nature reserve without compliance with certain conditions attached to planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC to allow the importation of suitable natural material and to require cessation of site operations and restoration by 31 December 2025, together with the inclusion of previously agreed non-material amendments to permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC.
Location: Wallasea Island, Rochford.
Ref: ESS/09/14/ROC DR/14/14
6 Enforcement Update
Page 3 of 128 6a Michelins Farm, Rayleigh 107 - 112 Unauthorised Development: A material change of use of the land from agricultural land to land used for the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials, substantially raising the land levels.
Location: Land at Michelins Farm, Southend Arterial Road, Rayleigh SS6 7NG.
Ref: ENF/0614 DR/15/14
7 Information Items
7a Enforcement Report 113 - 124 To update members of enforcement matters for the period 1 January to 31 March 2014. DR/16/14
7b Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics 125 - 128 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. DR/17/14
8 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next meeting will be held on Friday 23 May 2014 at 10.30am.
9 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)
To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.
In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Page 4 of 128
10 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
______
All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.
______
Page 5 of 128
Page 6 of 128 28 March 2014 Unapproved 1 Minutes
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 28 MARCH 2014
Present
Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr I Grundy Cllr J Abbott Cllr C Guglielmi Cllr K Bobbin Cllr M Mackrory Cllr P Channer Cllr Lady P Newton Cllr M Ellis Cllr S Walsh
1. Apologies and Substitution Notices
Apologies were received from Cllr Anne Brown, Cllr John Lodge and Cllr Jill Reeves (substituted by Cllr Grundy).
2. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Lady Newton declared a personal interest in agenda item 5a, Little Warley Hall Farm, as a Member of Braintree District Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning at Braintree.
Cllr Abbott declared a personal interest in agenda item 5a, Little Warley Hall Farm, as a Member of Braintree District Council.
Cllr Bobbin declared a personal interest in agenda item 6a, Fulmar Way, Wickford, as a member of Basildon Council.
3. Minutes
The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 28 February 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chairman, subject to the amendment of the last paragraph on page 3, to accurately reflect the voting:
“The resolution was moved, seconded and following a vote of none in favour and eleven against, failed. Then a second resolution, to identify the reasons for this decision was moved and seconded and following a vote of eleven in favour and none against it was Resolved …”
4. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking
The person identified to speak in accordance with the procedure was identified for the following item:
Change of use from B8 (Storage and Distribution) to a waste transfer (Health Care Waste), storage and associated offices. Location: Fulmar Way, Wickford Business Park, Wickford, SS11 8YW Ref: ESS/08/14/BAS Public Speaker: Tim Hammond speaking for.
Page 7 of 128
Minutes 2 Unapproved 28 March 2014
5. Little Warley Hall Farm
The Committee considered report DR/09/14 by the Director for Operations, Environment and Economy. The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
The Committee was reminded that the original application (attached as Appendix 1 to the paper) was retrospective and so referred to an existing development. Permission had been resolved to be refused by the Committee at its meeting of 28 February, and, in line with Committee Protocol, the formal decision was being taken at this meeting to allow officers to present appropriate and reasonable reasons for refusal to the Committee. The Committee would also consider whether it was appropriate to take enforcement action.
The Committee noted the Considerations as set out in the Report.
In response to questions raised by Members, it was noted: It was not appropriate to introduce any new reasons for refusal without re-consideration of the application; Any enforcement notice would follow once permission had been refused. Any appeal against a notice would need to be lodged before the notice takes effect, normally within 28 days of service. Provided a valid appeal is lodged the Planning Inspectorate would decide what the appeal procedure would be (eg by written submissions or public enquiry) and as such this would determine the length of time any appeal would take. If significant harm was being caused from odour etc. after an Enforcement notice was served the planning authority could serve a Stop Notice, however if planning permission was subsequently granted the council could be liable for a significant compensation claim from the appellant for loss of business. Officers of the Council would need evidence of any suggestion of a change in activity – eg an increase in vehicle movement.
The resolution was moved, seconded and following a unanimous vote in favour it was
Resolved
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
1. That the development occupies an inappropriate location, which does not conform with the principles of sustainable development, as defined within the Framework, due to the detrimental impact the provision would have on the locality and local residential amenity, contrary to Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001 policy W3A (Sustainable Development, National Waste
Page 8 of 128 28 March 2014 Unapproved 3 Minutes
Hierarchy & Proximity Principle).
2. Insufficient and/or inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate that the design of the development would not cause unacceptable odour impacts and/or an unacceptable impact upon groundwater and flooding in the event of structural damage/failure to the tank, contrary to Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001 policy W10E (Material Considerations: Policy Compliance and Effects of the Development) and Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 policies RLP36 (Industrial and Environmental Standards), RLP62 (Development Likely to Give Rise to Pollution, or the Risk of Pollution) and RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development).
And that:
3. Given the continued injury to local amenity, it is considered expedient that an Enforcement Notice is issued requiring removal of the tank within 3 months of the date the notice comes into effect.
6. Fulmar Way, Wickford
The Committee considered report DR/10/14 by the Director of Operations: Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
The Committee was advised that the proposal was for a change of use. At present the Operator carries out both laundry and waste transfer functions on one part of the site; the plan proposes to relocate the waste transfer activities to the application site, leaving the laundry at the existing site. There is no intention to change or expand current operations.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of Consultation and Representations received were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Need & Principle of Development Impacts upon Local Amenity
In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Tim Hammond, representative of SKM Enviros. Mr Hammond said: This proposal forms part of PHS’s ongoing development strategy, one of several sites in the South East, enabling it to provide a better and more efficient service It brings a building back into use, with appropriate economic and employment benefits. It will replicate the work carried out in the present Unit, providing an essential public service. PHS has been on this site many years, with no problems with local Page 9 of 128
Minutes 4 Unapproved 28 March 2014
residents or authority. There has been no nuisance recorded, either through noise or odour. The activities will be closely regulated by the Environment Agency – the appropriate permit has been applied for.
In response to a Member’s question regarding operations on bank holidays, it was confirmed by the presenting officer that due to some of the facilities the applicant serves (hospital/health care facilities) continuing to operate on bank holidays they would need to still collect the necessary healthcare wastes. However, the operation would run at a reduced service with no processing taking place, simply storage/ bulking of the waste would take place.
The resolution was moved and seconded, and with a unanimous vote in favour, it was:
Resolved:
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:
1. COM1 – to be implemented within 5 years; 2. COM3 – to be carried out in accordance with submitted details; and 3. HIGH2 – compliance with indicated access.
7. Kingswode Hoe, Colchester
The Committee considered report DR/11/14 by the Director of Operations: Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
The Committee was advised that the application seeks to extend the use of 3 temporary classbases to 31 August 2019.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of Consultation and Representations received were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Need Policy considerations Design and location Impacts on Landscapes and Residential Amenity
Concern was expressed as to whether 5 years was justified.
In response to a question on the likely timescale for the Education Estates Strategy Review, Members were informed that a Report should be produced in 2- Page 10 of 128 28 March 2014 Unapproved 5 Minutes
3 months’ time. However, that would only set out the principles of how the review would be undertaken; then the review itself would need be carried out and then the recommendations implemented, subject to planning, thus it might be a number of years before the outcomes were implemented.
Another Member expressed disappointment that funding was not being found for replacement of temporary classrooms, in the wake of the capital programme.
One Member proposed amending the period of the extension from five to three years. This was seconded and, following a vote of 7 in favour and 2 against, was agreed.
The resolution, as amended, to extend the permission was moved and seconded and, following a vote of 7 in favour, 1 against, with Cllr Bobbin abstaining, it was
Resolved:
That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application reference CC/COL/04/14 dated 14 January 2014 and validated on 20 January 2014 together with Essex County Council Information Sheet dated 10 January 2014 and Site Plan: Kingswode Hoe School, Colchester and in accordance with any non- material amendments as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, except as varied by the following condition:
2. The use of the temporary classbases hereby permitted shall cease on 31 August 2017 and within 3 months of that date the units shall be removed from site and the land restored to its former condition within a further 28 days.
8. Periodic Reviews of Old Mineral Planning Permissions The Committee considered report DR/12/14, by the Director of Operations: Environment and Economy, on the programme of Periodic Reviews of Old Mineral Planning Permissions. The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
The Committee NOTED the report.
9. Statistics The Committee considered report DR/13/14, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth. The Committee NOTED the report.
Page 11 of 128
Minutes 6 Unapproved 28 March 2014
. 10. Date and time of Next Meeting
The Committee noted that the next meeting will be held on Friday 25 April 2014 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.15 am.
Chairman
Page 12 of 128 AGENDA ITEM 5a
DR/14/14
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 April 2014
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Continuation of the importation of waste to develop a coastal nature reserve without compliance with conditions 2 (compliance with submitted details); 39 (cessation of operations and restoration by 31 December 2019); and 40 (removal of construction infrastructure) attached to planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC to allow the importation of suitable natural material and to require cessation of site operations and restoration by 31 December 2025, together with the inclusion of previously agreed non-material amendments to permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC Location: Land at Wallasea Island, Rochford, Essex Ref: ESS/09/14/ROC Applicant: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 03330136824 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Page 13 of 128
1. BACKGROUND
On 09 July 2009 planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was granted for:
The importation by sea of 7.5 million cubic metres of high quality recovered inert material to achieve, by phased extraction and landraising, a change of use from agricultural land to 677 hectares of coastal nature reserve principally comprising mudflats, saltmarsh, coastal lagoons, brackish marsh, coastal grazing marsh, drier grass capable of developing new saltmarsh as sea levels rise together with the development of 5 bird hides, car park and associated off shore unloading facility, conveyor and pipeline, material handling area, sea wall engineering works and modification to Footpath Number 21, to be completed by 2019.
The development is known as the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project.
Permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was subject to 43 conditions and a legal agreement. The committee report associated with this development can be viewed at Appendix 3.
The legal agreement requirements included financial contributions towards the upgrade of public transport facilities in the vicinity of the application site and the
Page 14 of 128
creation of passing places on local highway routes. It also required the developer to enter into a highway works agreement for the provision of signage to direct visitors from the strategic road network to the site.
In addition, the legal agreement required a liaison meeting to take place twice per year.
All of the requirements of the legal agreement and the relevant conditions have been discharged and complied with.
The following existing requirements are of relevance to this application:
- The legal agreement requires the majority of imported waste to be from the Crossrail project and for it to be clean, inert and uncontaminated; - Condition 2 references the proposal for the imported material to be inert; - Condition 39 requires the development to be complete by 31 December 2019; - Condition 40 requires all associated infrastructure to be removed by 31 December 2019 and the unloading facility to be removed within 12 months of the completion of the final phase.
Planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC has also been subject to 13 ‘non-material amendments’ which have allowed minor changes to take place without the need for further planning permission.
In June 2009 Development and Regulation Committee Members agreed that a previously recommended condition requiring the submission and approval of details to show improvements to the access junction between Creeksea Ferry Road and the application site could not be lawfully imposed. This was because the access junction was located outside of the red line application area and did not lie within land under the applicant’s control; rather it was privately owned. The Chairman of Committee asked the applicant to use best endeavours to resolve the issue with the private land owner.
Accordingly, the developer applied to Rochford District Council for planning permission to alter the access arrangements, planning permission ref 13/00284/FUL was granted on 11 July 2013 and the amended access is now in place.
Additionally, Rochford District Council granted planning permission ref 11/00778/FUL on 16 February 2012 for the permanent retention of a webcam tower in connection with the Wild Coast Project.
2. SITE
Wallasea Island is located in the District of Rochford on the south-eastern coast of the County between the River Roach and the River Crouch.
Burnham on Crouch, in Maldon District, is located across the River Crouch to the north, although the application area is located wholly within the Rochford District
Page 15 of 128
Council administrative boundary. Great Wakering, Rochford and Canewdon are the nearest towns. The nearest residential properties are Grapnells Farm and cottages, which are located on Creeksea Ferry Road, approximately 350m from the western edge of the proposed development.
The application site area is 677 hectares. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site leads from Creeksea Ferry Road in the north-west through Grapnells Farm. Access for this application, however, would be by ship via the unloading facility located on the River Crouch to the north of the application site.
Footpath 21 Canewdon is located on the northern boundary of the site and is maintained over the conveyor by the use of a footbridge. The footpath would be permanently closed on the western boundary as a result of the breach of the sea wall at Cell 1. Fifteen km of new permissive paths are proposed across the site.
Wallasea Island has several area designations. It is located within the Coastal Protection Belt, is in the Metropolitan Green Belt, an area at risk from flooding, and parts of the site are designated as sites of National and International Nature Conservation Importance. It is also separated from an area designated as a Wildlife Site by the River Roach to the south and east. Parts of the site cross into the Wallasea Managed Retreat Local Wildlife Site, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area, the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation and the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar Wetlands Site, all of which surround the edges of the river and abut the application site.
3. PROPOSAL
The application is for two main alterations to the existing permission. The first is an extension of time for the cessation and restoration of the development to 31 December 2025.
The second element of the application is for the removal of the restriction to inert material. The applicant proposes that the planning permission is amended to allow the importation of suitable, natural material.
The proposed changes would require variations to conditions 2, 39 and 40 of permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC, as well as a change to the wording of the S106 Agreement.
The application also proposes to include several ‘non-material amendments’ which have been previously granted alongside permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC. This would have the effect of formalising these changes into the permission, should it be granted.
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been required by the Waste Planning Authority and submitted with the application. Details of the Environmental Statement are set out at Appendix 2.
4. POLICIES
Page 16 of 128
The following policies of the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan, (RDLP), Adopted 2006 (saved policies only), the Rochford District Core Strategy (RDCS), Adopted 13 December 2011, the Rochford District Allocations Plan (RDAP), Adopted 25 February 2014, and the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (WLP), Adopted 2001, provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
RDLP RDCS WLP
Wallasea Island URV2 Employment Growth ED1 Landfill and Landraising for its own W9B sake Need for Waste Development W3C Development Control Criteria W10E Green Belt Protection GB1 Airport Safeguarding W10H Access to Waste Management Sites W4C Public Transport T3 Parking Standards T8 Flood Control W4A Water Pollution W4B Protecting and Enhancing the Built CS2 and Natural Environment Conserving and Enhancing Heritage CS7 Retaining Character of Place CS8 Protection and Enhancement of the ENV1 Natural Landscape and Habitats and the Protection of Historical and Archaeological Sites Coastal Protection Belt ENV2 Flood Risk ENV3 Upper Roach Valley URV1 Creation of Intertidal Habitats NR13
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, as the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMP) is the overarching National Plan for Waste Management. Therefore, until Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) is updated in accordance with the advice contained within the NWMP, PPS10 remains the most up-to-date source of Government guidance for determining waste applications. As such, reference to PPS10, in addition to the NPPF, will also be provided, as relevant in the body of this report/appraisal.
Page 17 of 128
Paragraph 214 of the NPPF states that, for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 20041 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that in other cases, and following this 12 month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.
Since they are considered to fall within paragraph 215, the level of consistency of the policies contained within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan and the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan is considered at Appendix 1.
Rochford District Council has carried out its own NPPF compliance review with regard to the Core Strategy. It has found that the Core Strategy is broadly in compliance with the NPPF.
The Rochford District Development Management Document has been submitted to the Government in December 2013 and, at the time of writing this report, the Examination in Public was due to be held in March 2014. The outcome is not yet known. The NPPF allows weight to be allocated to this document according to the stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with the NPPF.
The Essex and Southend Replacement Waste Local Plan is yet to reach submission stage. Similarly, the NPPF allows weight to be allocated to this document according to the stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with the NPPF.
5. CONSULTATIONS
ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL – Any comments received will be reported.
MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection. Raises concern at the potential to change the whole intention of the scheme.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Comments that material from the new ‘Sizewell C’ power station site has been found to be fit for purpose for the proposed habitat creation scheme. The material would not be an issue for water quality. The development is controlled by an Environmental Permit.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comments received.
ROCHFORD AND CASTLE POINT RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
ESSEX BRIDLEWAY ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
1 In development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Page 18 of 128
BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY – No comments received.
LONDON CITY AIRPORT – No comments received.
LONDON AND SOUTHEND AIRPORT – No objection. Notes the change from importation of suitable material to importation of waste. Comments that there is concern over an increased risk to aviation due to waste being an attractant to birds and that this risk should be considered with any risk assessment and method statement associated with these works.
Comment: The development is currently permitted for the importation of waste. Previously it was ‘inert’ and it is now proposed to be ‘suitable and natural’.
LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY – No comments received.
THAMES WATER – No comments received.
ANGLIAN WATER – No comments received.
ESSEX AND SUFFOLK WATER – No objection.
BRITISH TELECOM – No comments received.
NATIONAL GRID – No comments received.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY – No comments received.
CROUCH AREA YACHTING FEDERATION – No comments received.
KENT AND ESSEX INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE – Comments that the quality of material should not be reduced; deposited material should remain below the permitted levels of contaminants for contact with the marine environment; and there are concerns over the impact on the adjacent protected oyster beds through the sea wall breaches and the subsequent tidal flows.
ROACH AREA FAIRWAYS AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE – No comments received.
CROUCH HARBOUR AUTHORITY – No comments received.
ROYAL BURNHAM YACHT CLUB – No comments received.
CROUCH AREA YACHTING FEDERATION – No comments received.
ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
BURNHAM HARBOUR AND MARINA LTD – No comments received.
Page 19 of 128
MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION – No objection. Confirms that an application has been received for the marine aspects of the works.
ENGLISH HERITAGE – No comments received.
CPRE – No comments received.
NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT – No comments received.
THE COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE/AIR QUALITY/LIGHTING CONSULTANT – No objection subject to the continuation of the noise monitoring regime. Comments that dust and odour are unlikely to cause detrimental impact. No objection on lighting grounds. Comments that the management of lighting is being improved by the operator outside of this application.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL EMERGENCY PLANNING – No comments received.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment, Landscape, Ecology) – No objection.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford South – Any comments received will be reported.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford North – Any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
5 properties were directly notified of the application. 1 letter of representation has been received. This relates to planning issues covering the following matters:
Observation Comment The single track route from the ‘no Damage to the public highway should through road’ signs to the farmyard is be reported as a problem via the Essex muddy due to lorries going on and off County Council website. Wallasea. The verges are damaged and the road is subsiding. More lorries will make the situation worse.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Need & Principle of Development B. Policy considerations C. Environmental impact
Page 20 of 128
D. Amenity impact E. Traffic & Highways F. Airport safeguarding
A NEED & PRINCIPLE
Principle
The principle of development at Wallasea Island is enshrined in planning policy, as follows.
RDCS Policy URV2 (Wallasea Island) states:
‘The Council will support the RSPB in delivering the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project with the aim of enhancing the biodiversity value of the area’.
RDCS Policy ED1 (Employment Growth) states, in summary, that the Council will encourage development that enables the economy to diversify and modernise, and that the Council will support the development of the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project.
The Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan is yet to reach submission stage, and therefore cannot hold any significant weight in the determination of planning applications. However, it is worth noting that the latest Waste Capacity Gap, dated July 2013, recognises the Wallasea Island development as existing inert landfill capacity.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development is appropriate in principle, in compliance with RDCS Policy URV2 and RDCS Policy ED1. The question of whether there is a need for the proposed time extension and change of material type is considered further in the report.
Need
The need to utilise inert waste to achieve the objectives of the project was confirmed during the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC.
The risk of an unmanaged breach of the sea wall was considered to be high without significant private investment. This meant that the agricultural land would have been lost to the sea. Further, the lack of management of the breach could have had disastrous consequences for the local population and the surrounding oyster fisheries.
Taking this into account, it was considered at that time that the development proposed the minimum amount of material necessary to ensure land levels appropriate to replicate natural tidal cycles and to help in the creation of wetland. The development was therefore considered to comply with WLP Policy W9B (Landfill and Landraising for its own sake), despite not being an allocated ‘preferred site’ for landfill/landraise.
Page 21 of 128
Having established the overall need for the development, the consideration of need for this current application ref ESS/09/14/ROC relates to the proposed extension of time and the change of material type.
Planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC requires, via the S106 Agreement, that the majority of imported material must originate from the Crossrail tunnelling project. This was considered to be as far as the Waste Planning Authority could go in ensuring that the development would be fully completed. The development requires 7.5 million m3 of material, with the result that approximately 3.6 million m3 would need to be found from projects other than Crossrail.
The applicant has established that the current end date of 2019 is restrictive when competing for contracts for major infrastructure projects which have longer timescales. In order for the applicant to be in a position to compete for such contracts, the timescale for completion of the development is proposed to be extended to 31 December 2025.
It is considered vital that the development is completed in its totality in order for the original benefits to be realised. It is also considered reasonable that the developer would be in a better position to compete for contracts if a longer completion timescale was allowed. It is therefore considered that there is a need for the proposed time extension in this respect.
The applicant has also proposed that ‘suitable, natural material’ should be allowed to enter the site; as opposed to the current ‘inert’ restriction.
The reasoning behind this proposal is due to ongoing investigations into the suitability of peat importation to the site. Studies carried out on behalf of the applicant have shown that this type of material could be very suitable for the development, but it cannot be classified as ‘inert’, due to its organic content.
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, states that ‘waste planning authorities should (not) concern themselves…with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities…The planning system controls the development and use of the 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 the land. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.’
It is noted that there is an Environmental Permit in place which controls the suitability of imported material. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposals. Therefore, it is considered that there is a need for the ‘inert’ restriction to be removed from the planning permission so that the planning and pollution control regimes do not duplicate each other. This would allow the developer to appeal to a wider range of projects supplying construction material. The detail of necessary changes to the planning permission will be discussed further in the report.
Waste Local Plan Policy W3C (Need for Waste Development) requires that
Page 22 of 128
significant waste management developments will only be permitted where a need for the facility has been demonstrated for waste arising in Essex and Southend.
Exceptions to WLP Policy W3C may be made in the following circumstances:
- where the proposal would achieve other benefits that would outweigh any harm caused; - where meeting a cross-boundary need would satisfy the proximity principle and be mutually acceptable to both WPAs; - In the case of landfill, where it is shown to be necessary to achieve satisfactory restoration.
Given that the proposal would accept waste from outside of Essex and Southend, the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC considered that the development would achieve other benefits (namely, the avoidance of an unmanaged breach and the creation of a coastal nature reserve) that would outweigh any harm caused through accepting waste sourced from outside of the County.
It is considered that these benefits would remain as part of the current proposals. It is further considered that the proposed extension of time and altered material type would allow the benefits to continue to be achieved, in compliance with WLP Policy W3C.
B POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning policy has altered since the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC. The East of England Plan and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan have both fallen away. The Rochford District Council Local Development Framework has also progressed, as explained at section 4 of the report.
Green Belt
The main land use designation on the proposal site is considered to be Green Belt. During the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC, Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2) formed the primary guidance on this matter. PPG2 was replaced by the NPPF in March 2012; however, the 5 purposes of including land within the Green Belt, and the need to maintain openness and permanence have been retained.
The NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
Such ‘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.
One of the key planning objectives within PPS10 is to protect Green Belts, whilst recognising the particular locational needs of some types of waste management
Page 23 of 128
facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management as material considerations to be given significant weight in determining planning applications.
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control Criteria), in summary, permits waste management development where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on the purposes of the Green Belt.
RDCS Policy GB1 (Green Belt Protection) states that: ‘the Council will direct development away from the Green Belt as far as practicable and will prioritise the protection of Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt. Rural diversification and the continuation of existing rural businesses will be encouraged, as appropriate, so long as such activities do not significantly undermine the objectives or character of the Green Belt.’
The completed development, i.e. a nature reserve, is still considered to be an appropriate use of Green Belt land. However, the temporary harm caused by the construction period, including the retention of the unloading facility, would continue for 6 additional years in the event that planning permission is granted. Further, it is still considered that the raising of land levels would impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
It is, however, considered that very special circumstances still exist for the proposed development now as they did during the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC. Importantly, the likelihood of unmanaged flooding of the area could still occur within the next 10-20 years.
Given that there is considered to be a legitimate need for the proposed time extension, it is considered that the development would still comply with WLP Policy W10E, RDCS Policy GB1 and the requirements of the NPPF and PPS10.
Sustainable Development
The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Its states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation and gains in each should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
The economic gains put forward by the applicant include:
- Catastrophic flood risk reduction, - Jobs creation, - Future-proofed coastal defence, - Beneficial reuse of waste material.
Social gains include:
- Improved access to the coast, - Health benefits of new amenities, - Focus for local volunteering.
Page 24 of 128
Some of the benefits put forward by the applicant include:
- Avoidance of road transportation impacts, - New angling and bird watching sites, - Maintenance of protected terrestrial species, - Internationally protected mudflats and marshes, - Fish and shellfish habitat.
The applicant has also noted that the economic, social and environmental benefits of the development often overlap so that they don’t fall into just one category.
The benefits of the development will be explored further in the report to allow a conclusion to be drawn on the question of whether it constitutes sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.
C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
As stated previously, the application area and its surroundings are environmentally sensitive. It is located within the Coastal Protection Belt, a flood risk area and is partially designated as important nationally and internationally for nature conservation.
The following policies apply in respect of flood risk:
WLP Policy W4A (Flood Control) requires, in summary, that waste management development will only be permitted where there not be an unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere or adverse effect on the water environment, as a result of the proposals.
WLP Policy W4B (Water Pollution) requires, in summary, that waste management development will only be permitted where it would not result in unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters.
RDCS Policy ENV3 (Flood Risk) states, in summary, that the council will work with the Environment Agency to manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water.
As noted previously in the report, the development was previously permitted with the risk of a natural breach of the sea wall as a real alternative. In considering the environmental impacts of the current proposals, it is noted that there would be an increased risk of an unmanaged breach prior to the completion of the project due to the proposed 6-year extension of time.
The applicant has confirmed that, in the event of this occurring, appropriate restorative actions would be implemented to allow the completion of the project. It is noted that the Environment Agency has raised no objection. It is further noted that, without the proposed extension of time, there is a risk of the development not being completed at all in its approved form. Therefore, the proposed time extension is considered to present the most desirable option, in compliance with
Page 25 of 128
WLP Policies W4A, W4B and RDCS Policy ENV3.
RDLP Policies CS2 (Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural Environment), CS7 (Conserving and Enhancing Heritage) and CS8 (Retaining Character of Place) and CS8 (Retaining Character of Place), in summary, aim to protect and enhance Rochford’s natural and cultural heritage.
RDCS Policies ENV1 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats and the Protection of Historical and Archaeological Sites) and ENV2 (Coastal Protection Belt), in summary, require the protection and enhancement of sites of international, national, and local importance for nature conservation, as well as the qualities of the coastline.
RDCS Policy URV1 (Upper Roach Valley) requires, in summary, that the Upper Roach Valley will become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreational opportunities for local residents.
All of the above designations are noted, in the knowledge that permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC was permitted in consideration of the real risk of an unmanaged breach of the sea wall. In the balance, it was considered that these important designations would be lost if this event was to occur. Therefore, the approved development would serve as a way of protecting the environment, since the breach of the sea wall would be controlled and new habitats would be created. This was in compliance with RDLP Policy NR13 (Creation of Intertidal Habitats) which, in summary, permits the creation of new intertidal habitats providing that the benefits of the proposed habitats outweigh the resultant loss of other habitats.
It is considered that the proposed alterations to the development would still achieve the overall end use, in compliance with RDLP Policies CS2, CS7, CS8 and NR13 and RDCS Policies ENV1, ENV2 and URV1.
However, the proposed change to the type of material is understood to be of some local concern, in particular in relation to the potential for contaminants in the marine environment and the impact on the adjacent protected oyster beds.
This is of particular relevance, since the Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) was designated in November 2013 for the protection of the native oyster and their beds.
The approved development has been put forward by the applicant as a positive contributor to the MCZ management objective of recovering native oysters to a favourable condition. This is because it will involve the creation of new intertidal habitats which provide refuge locations, water quality benefits and sources of food and nutrients that will inherently benefit shellfish species.
The Marine Management Organisation has raised no objection to the proposals. It is also noted that Natural England raises no objection.
As discussed previously in the report, the planning system should not seek to duplicate the pollution control regime. Therefore, it is proposed that the
Page 26 of 128
requirement for the imported material to be ‘clean, inert and uncontaminated’ is removed from the S106 Agreement.
D AMENITY IMPACT
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control Criteria), in summary, permits waste management development where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
The application site is relatively remote from any residential receptors. However, it is acknowledged that the proposed time extension would extend the period of time over which noise, dust, odour and light impacts could occur.
Noise limiting and monitoring conditions are attached to the existing planning permission. It is considered that such conditions could continue to be imposed, in the event that planning permission is granted. The County Council’s noise consultant has no objection, subject to the continuation of such a monitoring regime.
It is recognised that there may be some local concern that the proposed removal of the restriction to inert waste may result in the importation of undesirable waste material. Maldon District Council, although raising no objection, has concerns that there is potential to change the original intention of the scheme.
It is considered that any restriction on the type of waste should not duplicate the pollution control regime, as noted previously in the report. The type of waste material to be imported is considered to be properly controlled by the Environment Agency under permit. It is therefore considered that the original intention of the scheme would remain in place and only appropriate waste material would be allowed to be imported.
The County Council’s air quality consultant has commented that there is unlikely to be detrimental impact arising from dust or odour as a result of the proposals.
Lighting restrictions exist on site and exact details have been discharged via condition. However, one complaint was received and site investigations have found that there could be improvements made to the existing lighting requirements. The applicant had agreed to make changes to the lighting design outside of the existing planning permission requirements. However, in this particular case, it is considered that the proposed development provides an appropriate opportunity to impose a condition requiring further lighting details to be submitted and approved in a formal manner. This would ensure that the proposed time extension would not have undue impact on amenity due to lighting, in the event that permission is granted.
The County Council’s lighting consultant has no objection and has commented that the management of lighting is being improved by the operator outside of this application.
Taking into account the need for the longer timespan to ensure the completion of
Page 27 of 128
the project, and the other environmental controls on the site in relation to the type of waste, it is considered that the proposals would not have unnecessary detrimental impact on amenity, in compliance with WLP Policy W10E.
E TRAFFIC & HIGHWAYS
Importation of waste by road to the Wallasea Island project is not currently permitted, in compliance with WLP Policy W4C (Access to Waste Management Sites) which, in summary, encourages water transport of waste.
The only traffic associated with the construction is the arrival of heavy construction machinery at the beginning of the project and departure at the end, together with occasional maintenance or replacements. Staff vehicles also create traffic movements. This is not proposed to change as part of the current application, although these existing movements would continue for a further 6-year period.
The planning permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC does not allow the construction of a visitor centre; such a facility would require planning permission from Rochford District Council. However; it was recognised that the creation of a nature reserve has the potential to increase visitor numbers in itself.
Therefore, the developer has paid for signage to direct visitors from the main highway network to the site. This is already in place. In addition, the developer has provided a financial contribution to the Highway Authority for the upgrade of public transport facilities at the junction of Lambourne Hall Road and Creeksea Ferry Road. This is in compliance with RDCS Policy T3 (Public Transport), which, in summary, encourages alternative transport other than the private car. The developer has also provided a financial contribution for the creation of passing places and highway improvements on the route from the bus stop at the Lambourne Hall Road/Creeksea Ferry Road junction to Wallasea Island. All of this infrastructure is now in place.
Given that the importation of waste does not take place by road, it is not considered appropriate to require any additional highway improvements of the developer.
Parking provision would continue in accordance with the existing permission, in compliance with RDCS Policy T8 (Parking Standards).
It is acknowledged that the proposals would result in a delay in the provision of permissive rights of way. However, given that the alternative could result in the development not being completed to its full potential, it is considered that the delay would not have significant impact.
F AIRPORT SAFEGUARDING
WLP Policy W10H (Airport Safeguarding) states, in summary, that waste management facilities within airport safeguarding zones will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no hazard to air traffic.
Page 28 of 128
London and Southend Airport has raised no objection, but has noted a change from importation of suitable material to importation of waste. It has raised concern over an increased risk to aviation due to waste being an attractant to birds and that this risk should be considered with any risk assessment and method statement associated with the works.
The development at Wallasea Island is currently permitted for waste importation. The proposed importation of suitable and natural material is not considered to pose a change in the attraction to birds, or an increased threat to air traffic, since it would not contain putrescible waste, as noted previously in the report.
The applicant has provided committed to the production of an aviation/bird management plan, in consultation with airport safety personnel, through the existing planning permission. The continual review of this plan is considered to provide adequate assurance that there would be no hazard to air traffic, as required by WLP Policy W10H.
8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it considered that the principle of development at Wallasea Island is established through RDCS Policy URV2 and RDCS Policy ED1. It is further considered that there is a need for the proposed time extension to 31 December 2025 and the amendment to the type of imported material, in compliance with WLP Policies W9B and W3C.
Very special circumstances have been put forward for development within the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposed development would be considered to be in compliance with WLP Policy W10E, RDCS Policy GB1 and the requirements of the NPPF and PPS10.
There are not considered to be any significant environmental or amenity impacts arising as a result of the proposed changes to the approved scheme. The existing reference to ‘clean, inert and uncontaminated’ material is proposed to be removed from the S106 Agreement. Conditions are proposed in relation to lighting and noise monitoring. Subject to the restrictions, the proposed development is considered to comply with WLP Policies W4A, W4B and W10E, RDLP Policies CS2, CS7, CS8 and NR13 and RDCS Policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV3 and URV1.
Since the development would not involve the importation of waste by road, it is considered to comply with RDCS Policies T3 and T8.
In terms of airport safeguarding, there is considered to be no increase in hazard to air traffic as a result of the current proposals. The continual review of the existing bird management plan would comply with WLP Policy W10H.
Overall, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in light of the need for the completion of the development in its approved form. The risk of a natural, unmanaged breach of the sea wall would be slightly increased during the proposed 6-year extension of time, however, when this is balanced with the risk of never completing the project within the current timescales, it is considered to be
Page 29 of 128
acceptable.
Finally, it is considered that there would be economic, social and environmental gains as a result of the proposed development, such that it would be considered to constitute sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.
For clarity, the existing approved non-material amendments shall be included within the new permission, should it be granted.
9. RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to:
the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination; and,
the completion within 12 months of a S106a legal agreement relating to the removal of the existing obligation for imported material to be clean, inert and uncontaminated; and,
conditions covering the following matters:
Conditions to be amended as follows:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of the application dated November 2008, covering letters dated 28 November 2008 and 16 December 2008 and accompanying Planning Statement, together with drawings numbered ‘Location of Wallasea Island’ Figure 1 (July 08), ‘Planning Application Boundary’ Figure 3a (Oct 08), ‘Proposed Design’ Figure 5 (Oct 08), 60039950/IPER/50 Rev 03 (11/12/08), 60039950/3563/65 (27/11/08), 60039950/3563/66 (26/11/08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation at Mean Low Water’ Figure 10 (Sept 08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation at Mean High Water’ Figure 11 (Sept 08), ‘Aerial View Visualisation as Viewed from the East at Mean Low Water’ Figure 12 (Sept 08), ‘Selection of Photos Describing the Key Habitat Types to be Created’ Figure 14 (Nov 08), 60039950/3563/60 (26/11/08), ‘Location of the Unloading facility and Route of the Conveyor Belt and the Wet Chalk Pipeline’ Figure 16 (Oct 08), 60039950/3563/51 Rev 01 (26/11/08), ‘Locations of the Footpaths on Wallasea Island’ Figure 17 (sept 08) as amended by email from RSPB ‘Footpath 21 Supplementary Submission’ dated 20 March 2009, ‘Topography of the whole of Wallasea Island’ Figure 3 (Oct 08), 60039950/3563/100 Rev 01 (11/12/08), Schematic Cross Sections Showing Design of Key Features of the Proposed Realignment Scheme’ Figure 9 (Oct 08), 60039950/IPER/101 Rev 02 (15/07/08), ‘Location and Extent of the Five Cells’ Figure 4 (Oct 08), 60039950/3593/53 November 2008, 60039950/3563/53 Rev 01 (11/12/08),
Page 30 of 128
‘Existing and Indicative Standards of Protection along the Crouch and Roach Estuaries’ Figure 6 (July 08), ‘Historic Embankments, Creeks and Postulated Medieval Marsh Boundaries’ Figure 8 (Oct 08) and ‘Location of Historical EHER References’ Figure 25 (Oct 08) and Environmental Statement dated November 2008 and Appendices A-R, together with email from RSPB dated 11 December 2008, email from RSPB headed ‘Burnham Access’ dated 09 February 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Working Hours Submission’ dated 04 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Impacts on Oyster Fishery’ dated 06 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Sailing Submission’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Submission Spreading Hedge Parsley’ dated 13 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Green Belt Submission’ dated 24 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘PROW steps’ dated 25 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: Supplementary Submission Working Hours (2)’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Wallasea: 1900-0700 Noise Generation and Mitigation’ dated 20 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Permissive Paths’ dated 26 March 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘further submissions’ dated 06 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Supplementary Submissions’ dated 02 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Roach Erosion’ dated 02 April 2009, email from RSPB headed ‘Supplementary Submission: Landscape’ dated 02 April 2009 and Design and Access Statement,
AS AMENDED BY
The details of the application dated 17 January 2014; covering letter from ABPmer dated 17 January 2014; Planning Statement by ABPmer Report no. R.2213 Version 2.0 dated 17 January 2014, including appendices A-C; and the Environmental Impact Assessment by ABPmer Report no. R.2202 Version 3.0 dated 17 January 2014, including appendices A- D.
Except as varied by the following conditions:
4. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, full details of the location, height, design, sensors and luminance of the existing and proposed fixed lighting on site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for its approval in writing. The details shall ensure the lighting is designed and managed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage on adjoining properties and highways. The lighting shall thereafter be erected, installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.
6. Except for temporary breaching works2 (which shall not exceed 70dBLAeq), the free field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq, 1hr) at noise sensitive premises adjoining the site shall not exceed background levels plus 10dB during normal working hours, 42-44dB LAeq 1hr in the evening and 42dB LAeq 1hr at night, except at Burnham Wick Farm where
2 The temporary breaching works referred to under Condition 6 are defined as breaching of the existing sea walls. Page 31 of 128
the free field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq, 1hr) shall not exceed 46 – 48 dB during normal working hours, 42-44dB LAeq 1hr in the evening and 42dB LAeq 1hr at night. Measurements shall be made no closer than 3.5 m from the façade of properties or other reflective surface and shall be corrected for extraneous noise.
38. The development hereby permitted shall be completed by 31 December 2025, by which time operations shall have ceased and the site shall have been reinstated and restored to a coastal nature reserve and shall be the subject of aftercare for a period of 5 years.
39. Any building, plant, machinery, foundation, hard standing, roadway, structure or erection in the nature of plant or machinery used in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be removed from the site when they are respectively no longer required for the purpose for which built, erected or installed and in any case not later than 31 December 2025. The unloading facility, conveyor and pipeline shall be removed within 12 months of completion of the final phase of development.
All remaining conditions attached to permission ref ESS/54/08/ROC to be re- numbered, updated, removed or re-imposed as appropriate.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representation
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010
The proposed development would be located adjacent to two European sites, namely the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation.
The development would be directly connected with or necessary for the management of that site for nature conservation.
Following consultation with Natural England and the County Council’s Ecologist, no issues have been raised to indicate that this development would adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT: The report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission and takes into account any equalities implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
Page 32 of 128
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
Essex County Council as Waste Planning Authority has liaised with the applicant for several months prior to the submission of the application. Several meetings have taken place to establish the application requirements.
An Environmental Impact Assessment Screening application has been encouraged and submitted, in order to inform the content of the planning application.
This is in addition to the regular contact which has been maintained with the applicant since the determination of application ref ESS/54/08/ROC, via the local liaison group, Technical Advisory Panel, and quarterly site monitoring visits.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
ROCHFORD – Rochford South. ROCHFORD – Rochford North.
Page 33 of 128
APPENDIX 1
Consideration of consistency of Policies
Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan W3C Subject to policy W3B, in the case of landfill Paragraph 3 of PPS 10 highlights and to policy W5A in the case of special the key planning objectives for all wastes, significant waste management waste planning authorities (WPA). developments (with a capacity over 25,000 WPA’s should, to the extent tonnes per annum) will only be permitted appropriate to their responsibilities, when a need for the facility (in accordance prepare and deliver planning with the principles established in policy strategies one of which is to help W3A) has been demonstrated for waste implement the national waste arising in Essex and Southend. In the case strategy, and supporting targets, are of non-landfill proposal with an annual consistent with obligations required capacity over 50,000 tonnes per annum, under European legislation and restrictions will be imposed, as part of any support and complement other planning permission granted, to restrict the guidance and legal controls such as source of waste to that arising in the Plan those set out in the Waste area. Exceptions may be made in the Management Licensing Regulations following circumstances: 1994. Where the proposal would achieve other benefits that would outweigh Therefore, as Policy W3C is any harm caused; concerned with identifying the Where meeting a cross-boundary amount of waste treated and it need would satisfy the proximity source the policy is considered principle and be mutually acceptable consistent with the requirements of to both WPA5; PPS10. In the case of landfill, where it is shown to be necessary to achieve satisfactory restoration.
W4A Waste management development will only Paragraph 99 of the NPPF states be permitted where: that ‘Local Plans should take There would not be an unacceptable account of climate change over the risk of flooding on site or elsewhere longer term, including factors such as a result of impediment to the flow as flood risk, coastal change, water or storage of surface water; supply and changes to biodiversity There would not be an adverse effect and landscape. New development on the water environment as a result should be planned to avoid of surface water run-off; increased vulnerability to the range Existing and proposed flood of impacts arising from climate defences are protected and there is change. When new development is no interference with the ability of brought forward in areas which are responsible bodies to carry out flood vulnerable, care should be taken to defence works and maintenance. ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure’. In addition Annex E of PPS10 Page 34 of 128
highlights at section a. protection of water resources that ‘Considerations will include the proximity of vulnerable surface and groundwater. For landfill or land- raising, geological conditions and the behaviour of surface water and groundwater should be assessed both for the site under consideration and the surrounding area. The suitability of locations subject to flooding will also need particular care’.
Therefore, as policy W4A seeks to only permit development that would not have an adverse impact upon the local environment through flooding and seeks developments to make adequate provision for surface water run-off the policy is in conformity with PPS10 and the NPPF.
W4B Waste management development will only See above. be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters or of impediment to groundwater flow.
W4C 1. Access for waste management sites will Paragraph 21 (i) of PPS10 normally be by a short length of existing highlights that when assessing the road to the main highway network suitability of development the consisting of regional routes and capacity of existing and potential county/urban distributors identified in the transport infrastructure to support Structure Plan, via a suitable existing the sustainable movement of waste, junction, improved if required, to the and products arising from resource satisfaction of the highway authority. recovery, seeking when practicable 2. Exceptionally, proposals for new access and beneficial to use modes other direct to the main highway network may than road transport. be accepted where no opportunity exists for using a suitable existing access or Furthermore, Paragraph 34 of the junction, and where it can be NPPF states that ‘Decisions should constructed in accordance with the ensure developments that generate County Council’s highway standards. significant movement are located 3. Where access to the main highway where the need to travel will be network is not feasible, access onto minimised and the use of another road before gaining access onto sustainable transport modes can be the network may be accepted if, in the maximised’. opinion of the WPA having regard to the
Page 35 of 128
scale of development, the capacity of Policy W4C is in conformity with the road is adequate and there would be paragraph 34 in that it seeks to no undue impact on road safety or the locate development within areas environment. that can accommodate the level of 4. Proposals for rail or water transport of traffic proposed. In addition the waste will be encouraged, subject to policy seeks to assess the existing compliance with other policies of this road networks therefore, being in plan. accordance with the NPPF and PPS10.
W9B Landfill, or landraising, for its own sake, PPS10 sets out the key objectives without being necessary for restoration, will to achieve sustainable waste not be permitted. Landfill outside the management including Paragraph boundaries of the preferred sites will not be 3“…driving waste management up permitted unless it can be demonstrated the waste hierarchy, addressing that satisfactory restoration cannot waste as a resource and looking to otherwise be achieved. Landfill will not be disposal as the last option, but one permitted when at a scale beyond that which must be catered for:…” which is essential for restoration of the site. Policy W9B seeks to minimise landfill ad landraising to that essential to achieve restoration, thereby minimising the amount of waste going to landfilling pushing waste management up the waste hierarchy.
W10E Waste management development, including Policy W10E is in conformity with landfill, will be permitted where the NPPF in that the policy is satisfactory provision is made in respect concerned with the protection of the of the following criteria, provided the environment and plays a pivotal role development complies with other for the County Council in ensuring policies of this plan: the protection and enhancement of the natural, built and historic 1. The effect of the development on the environment. The policy therefore, amenity of neighbouring occupiers, is linked to the third dimension of particularly from noise, smell, dust sustainable development in the and other potential pollutants (the meaning of the NPPF. factors listed in paragraph 10.12 will be taken into account); 2. The effect of the development on the landscape and the countryside, particularly in the AONB, the community forest and areas with special landscape designations; 3. The impact of road traffic generated by the development on the highway network (see also policy W4C); 4. The availability of different transport modes;
Page 36 of 128
5. The loss of land of agricultural grades 1, 2 or 3a; 6. The effect of the development on historic and archaeological sites; 7. The availability of adequate water supplies and the effect of the development on land drainage; 8. The effect of the development on nature conservation, particularly on or near SSSI or land with other ecological or wildlife designations; and 9. In the Metropolitan Green Belt, the effect of the development on the purposes of the Green Belt.
W10H Proposals for waste management facilities Annex E part i vermin and birds of within the safeguarding areas of airports PPS10 highlights that and aerodromes and, where appropriate, considerations of planning close to other airports will be resisted applications will include the unless it can be demonstrated that the proximity of sensitive receptors. development and the nature of the waste materials involved would not constitute a Some waste management facilities, hazard to air traffic. especially landfills which accept putrescible waste, can attract vermin and birds.
The numbers, and movements of some species of birds, may be influenced by the distribution of landfill sites. Where birds congregate in large numbers, they may be a major nuisance to people living nearby. They can also provide a hazard to aircraft at locations close to aerodromes or low flying areas.
Therefore, policy W10H seeks to mitigate the impact waste development may have on airport safeguarding zones in conformity with PPS10.Some waste management
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan
CS2 It is the Council’s aim to protect, sustain Sections 11 and 12 of the NPPF and enhance the district's natural resources respectively refer to conserving and
Page 37 of 128
and cultural heritage through the application enhancing the natural and historic of the policies and proposals in the plan for environment, as is the aim of Policy future generations to enjoy and to ensure CS2. that new development contributes to environmental quality.
CS7 It is the Council’s aim to protect and Sections 11 and 12 of the NPPF enhance the District’s identity and in respectively refer to conserving and assessing the design and quality of enhancing the natural and historic development proposals will take account of environment, as is the aim of Policy the following: CS7. a. Conserve and enhance buildings and their settings and areas of architectural Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states and historic significance; that good design is a key aspect of b. Conserve, protect and enhance green sustainable development, is spaces, hard landscaped spaces, as indivisible from good planning, and well as spaces between buildings that make should contribute positively to a contribution to an area or the district; and making places better for people. c. Encourage a high standard of design for new development that respects and enhances the environmental quality and character of the district's urban and rural heritage.
CS8 The local planning authority will protect and Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states enhance the district's identity and will, that good design is a key aspect of when assessing the design and quality of all sustainable development, is development proposals, take account indivisible from good planning, and of the following: should contribute positively to a. The contribution to local identity and making places better for people. sense of place; b. Suitability of the overall design and appearance of the proposed development, (including size, scale, density, layout, access, lighting, street furniture, and signage) when assessed in relationship with surrounding buildings, spaces, vegetation, water areas and other features of the street scene; and c. use, and where appropriate re-use, of local and traditional materials or suitable artificial alternatives.
Page 38 of 128
APPENDIX 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR: WALLASEA ISLAND (Application ref: ESS/09/14/ROC)
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application and examines the main potential impacts associated with the development.
The key subject areas identified are:
Green Belt and landscape and visual impact Emissions impacts.
The significance of each subject area has been identified as either negligible, minor adverse significance, or moderate and major adverse significance.
Green Belt, Landscape and Visual Impacts
The proposed extension in completion date from 2019 to 2025 would result in the jetty and material handling infrastructure remaining in place for a longer time period.
The current working of the site is visible from Burnham on Crouch but is not imposing on the landscape, especially at a distance of 1km or more.
There is no evidence of the works being a deterrent to public access. There has been an increase in visitors from 3,000 visits per year prior to the start of development to over 8,000 in the year up to March 2012.
Overall, the jetty and construction structures have a small adverse and beneficial impact on the landscape. The completed development will result in landscape and visual gain. The extended duration is considered to be of minor adverse significance.
Emissions Impacts
The proposed time extension will not change the magnitude of effects resulting from the approved development. However, the frequency of construction activities may be reduced.
Noise
Noise monitoring has taken place on a regular basis during the implementation of the existing approved development. Typically, observed increases in noise levels have been attributable to external factors rather than site construction activities.
No public complaints have been received in relation to noise.
The proposals are considered to have minor adverse effect.
Note: Noise limitations and monitoring requirements are proposed via condition.
Page 39 of 128
Lighting
Lighting is in place on site and has generated some discussion at the local liaison meetings. Work is continuing to ensure that lighting is managed and kept to a minimum. The situation will be kept under review.
The effects of the proposed development are considered to be negligible.
Note: Lighting management is proposed via condition.
Odour/Dust
Mitigation measures (water bowsers) are in place with regard to dust control and are proposed to continue. The proposals are approximately 1.5km from receptors, thus mitigation is only required during dry and windy conditions.
The proposed landscaping materials would be subject to controls on their quality and suitability through the environmental permitting process and the application of the waste hierarchy.
The impact of the proposed development is considered to be negligible.
Shipping Interactions
An additional note about sailing interactions has also been included, concluding that the existing Shipping Management Plan is proposed to continue and is working well. The effects of the proposed development are considered to be negligible.
Page 40 of 128
APPENDIX 3 AGENDA ITEM ......
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 24 April 2009
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Application for the importation by sea of 7.5 million cubic metres of high quality recovered inert material to achieve, by phased extraction and landraising, a change of use from agricultural land to 677 hectares of coastal nature reserve principally comprising mudflats, saltmarsh, coastal lagoons, brackish marsh, coastal grazing marsh, drier grass capable of developing new saltmarsh as sea levels rise together with the development of 5 bird hides, car park and associated off shore unloading facility, conveyor and pipeline, material handling area, sea wall engineering works and modification to Footpath Number 21, to be completed by 2019. Land at Wallasea Island, Rochford, Essex Ref: ESS/54/08/ROC
Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Shelley Birch Tel: 01245 437577
Page 41 of 128
40. BACKGROUND
A 115ha managed realignment scheme of the northern sea wall on Wallasea Island was carried out in 2006 on behalf of Defra and Wallasea Farms. This realignment involved the construction of a new sea wall up to 400m inland of the previous one at a crest level of 5.0m AOD, and the formation of salt marsh and mudflat through planned breaches of the old sea wall on the outer edge of the island. The Environment Agency approved the level of 5.0m AOD for the new sea wall and it is maintained by the landowner. The proposed project, the subject of this application, would ecologically integrate with the existing Defra site.
41. SITE
Wallasea Island is located in the District of Rochford on the south-eastern coast of the County between the River Roach and the River Crouch.
Burnham on Crouch, in Maldon District, is located across the River Crouch to the north, although the application area is located wholly within the Rochford District Council administrative boundary. Great Wakering, Rochford and Canewdon are the nearest towns. The nearest residential properties are Grapnells Farm and cottages, which are located on Creeksea Ferry Road, approximately 350m from the western
Page 42 of 128
edge of the proposed development.
The application site area is 677 hectares. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site leads from Creeksea Ferry Road in the north-west through Grapnells Farm. Access for this application, however, would be by ship via an unloading facility located on the River Crouch to the north of the application site.
There are no existing buildings on the site and it is currently used as arable farmland.
Footpath 21 Canewdon is located on the northern boundary of the site. It is proposed that this footpath would be maintained over the proposed conveyor and pipeline by use of an appropriate footbridge. An additional path would also be provided on a permissive basis to accommodate walkers not wishing to use the footbridge. The footpath would also be permanently closed on the western boundary as a result of the breach of the sea wall at Cell 1. Fifteen km of new permissive paths are proposed across the site.
Wallasea Island has several area designations. It is located within the Coastal Protection Belt, is in the Metropolitan Green Belt, is a Special Landscape Area, an area at risk from flooding, and parts of the site are designated as sites of National and International Nature Conservation Importance. It is also separated from an area designated as a Wildlife Site by the River Roach to the south and east. Parts of the site cross into the Wallasea Managed Retreat Local Wildlife Site, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI, the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area, the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation and the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar Wetlands Site, all of which surround the edges of the river and abut the application site.
42. PROPOSAL
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been required by Essex County Council and submitted with the application. Details of the Environmental Statement are set out at Appendix A.
The proposal has been called the ‘Wallasea Wild Coast Project’ and has two key objectives:
- The creation of new intertidal habitats that would offset historical national losses of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) coastal habitats and species in the UK. - The reduction of flood risk to the Roach and Crouch Estuary and the Island itself from an anticipated future unmanaged breach of the existing sea wall.
668 hectares of new coastal and transitional habitat would be created. 133 hecatres of mudflat and 276 hectares of saltmarsh would contribute to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets for the creation of these two coastal habitats.
Importation of Material
Page 43 of 128
The proposal is for the importation of 7.5 million cubic metres of inert waste materials to raise levels on the island, reinforce sea walls and create a new topography closely linked to the historical condition. The average height increase across Cells 1 to 4 would be 1.4m, with a maximum of 4m above existing, along internal walls and new defences, to excavations of -1m at the breaches.
Up to 6 million cubic metres of this material is proposed to be sourced from the London Crossrail project. The Crossrail Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport in February 2005 and was enacted as the Crossrail Act on 22 July 2008. The Crossrail Act authorises the construction of a new railway linking Heathrow and Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east using existing Network Rail tracks and new tunnels under Central London. Preparatory works are scheduled to begin in early 2009 and completion of the project is expected in 2017/18.
The materials would comprise 40% London clay, 15% chalk, 22% Lambeth group (relict estuarine mixed sediments and marine deposits) and the remainder comprising sands, gravels and inert tunnel construction materials (piling and diaphragm wall arisings). It is proposed that the remaining 1.5 million cubic metres of material would be sourced from other London based projects, possibly including river dredgings, and delivered alongside the Crossrail material.
The annual operational throughput would be 2 million tonnes.
The material would be brought to the site by ships from London to Wallasea. Waste material would not be brought to the site by road. A new unloading facility, either temporary floating or fixed, is proposed on the north shore of Wallasea to the west of Ringwood Point. It would be large enough to accommodate two ships at once as well as unloading plant. The non-chalk majority of the imported material would be placed on a conveyor and transported either to direct placement in the appropriate area of the island (within a 4km radius) or to a designated temporary storage area landward of the existing sea wall. At night, the material would be taken no further than the temporary storage area. Wet chalk and dredge arisings would be pumped onto dewatering basins surrounded by low bunds on the island. In order to create a stable elevated platform for the conveyor and pipeline, an intertidal channel (0.8 hectares) within the Defra site to the north would be temporarily infilled. The original levels would be reinstated after completion of the project.
Soils would be temporarily stored pending final placement. Crushing and grading of inert materials would be necessary.
Breaching of the Existing Sea Wall
Managed realignment of the site is proposed. This can be defined as the deliberate breaching or removal, of existing seawalls, embankments or dikes, in order to allow the waters of adjacent coasts, estuaries or rivers to inundate the land behind.
Breaches (controlled and uncontrolled) would be created within the existing sea wall to allow the tide to enter. Due to the proposed raising of land levels only 2.1 million cubic metres of water would be allowed in. Most of the flow would be through the
Page 44 of 128
outer section of the River Roach and away from the shellfisheries. Sea wall breaches would fit in with existing features (e.g. sluice location) and align with the historical landform where possible (follow the alignment of relict creeks).
The scheme would take place in five phases with Cell 5 lying landward of the improved coastal defence line on the west side of the island. Cell 3 would be a Regulated Tidal Exchange area that would control the rate of tidal water release back into the estuary and create a distinct mix of invertebrate and breeding bird habitats.
It is recognised within the application that settlement of 20cm over 1m of placed material could occur over a 40 year period. However, it is not proposed to overfill the intertidal areas to compensate, as studies on the adjoining Defra site have shown that new mud can be anticipated at a rate of 2cm per year.
It is proposed that a new sea wall would be provided running north to south towards the western end of the application area to improve the flood defences for the existing properties and businesses on Wallasea Island.
Public Access
The completed nature reserve would have 3 zones for public access. The long term intention is to create a visitor centre so that the site would become an educational resource in the future; however visitor facilities do not form part of this application.
An additional 15km of new permissive routes are proposed across the application area and there would be an assigned dog walking area with its own car park.
Two car parks are proposed to eventually incorporate a total of 110 car parking spaces, three disability spaces, 50 cycle spaces and two coach spaces. These car parks would replace the existing car park currently provided for access to the Defra site. Cycling spaces and a wheelchair access trail would be centred on the main car park. Vehicular access would be from the public highway network onto a private access track leading to designated parking areas. Lockable gates would be installed at the entrance to allow control in times of emergency or disease outbreak, but the gate would only be locked when necessary.
A landing beach for sea kayaks is proposed.
Visitor management plans would be prepared for the construction phases to give phased access throughout the scheme. Access would be maintained to the ‘Defra’ sea wall throughout and extended as soon as practicable.
Five bird hides are proposed with a total internal floorspace of 106 square metres. These are proposed to be open to the public for 24 hours a day.
Working Hours
The application proposes 24 hour/7 days a week working. This would be broken
Page 45 of 128
down as follows:
The transport by ship, unloading and transfer of excavated material by conveyor or pump 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, taking account of tidal conditions.
Working on site Monday to Friday 07:00 hours to 19:00 hours and 07:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays. It is proposed that non-disturbing preparatory works, repairs and maintenance could be carried out between 08:00 hours to 16:00 hours on Sundays.
No other operations outside of these hours, except for cases of emergency or for safety or by prior agreement.
Pumps and generators not associated with the unloading facility are proposed to be kept running for 24 hours a day using appropriate noise mitigation measures.
Extracts from the Crossrail Construction Code have been provided and it is suggested that this would be adhered to. Among other things, this code requires the production of a number of Environmental Management Plans for such issues as working hours and the intention to use clean excavated material and handle contaminated material with care.
Existing electricity cables would be moved to follow the alignment of certain internal cell walls, where they would be accessible for the long term.
43. POLICIES
The following policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (RSS), adopted May 2008, Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan (RSP), adopted 2001, Rochford District Replacement Local Plan, (RDRLP), adopted 16 June 2006, and Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (WLP), adopted September 2001, provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
RSS RSP RDRLP WLP
Development Within the Green Belt R1 Special Landscape Areas NR1
Biodiversity on Development Sites NR4 European and International Sites NR5 Sites of Special Scientific Interest NR6 Other Landscape Features of Importance for NR8 Nature Conservation Species Protection NR9 The Undeveloped Coast – Coastal Protection CC1 NR10 Belt/Coastal Protection Belt Development Within Flood Risk Areas NR11 Creation of Intertidal Habitats NR13 Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural CS2 Page 46 of 128
Environment Conserving and Enhancing Heritage CS7 Retaining Character of Place CS8 Safeguarding and the promotion of Walking, TP6 Cycling and Horse Riding Routes Car parking Standards TP8 Public Transport TP5 Noise Generating Development PN5 Need for Waste Development W3C Flood Control W4A Water Pollution W4B Access to Waste Management Sites W4C Landfill and Landraising for its Own Sake W9B Development Control W10E Hours of Operation W10F Rights of Way W10G Airport Safeguarding W10H Agriculture, Land and Soils ENV4 Biodiversity and Earth Heritage ENV3 Waste Management Objectives WM1 Imported Waste WM3 Regional Waste Apportionment WM4
44. CONSULTATIONS
ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL – Support the proposal but raise the following concerns:
Local businesses, the campsite and local residents should be consulted.
Possible badger setts should be investigated.
24 hour working for 6-9 years could impact on amenity.
Ships in the Crouch will be an issue for the Harbour Authority. A financial contribution should be required for highway improvements due to at least 100,000 additional visitors in the summer. They should be in place prior to the commencement of development. The construction traffic should enter through a recognised Lorry Route, not through Great Stambridge or Canewdon.
The potential upstream impact of tidal surges on tidal flow in the Rivers Crouch and Roach should be investigated.
The potential long term impact on Baltic Wharf and its environs should the hydrological estimates go adrift should be investigated. How would the proposed flood breaches impact on lower reaches of the Rivers Crouch and Roach and on Havengore. The main channels of these areas should be dredged regularly during the construction period. The project has not been guaranteed by Defra as the previous Wallasea project was.
Page 47 of 128
ECC should require insurance and bonds to be in place to cover unforeseen eventualities.
Recommend conditions to restrict the importation of material by sea only and to ensure no river, port or harbour dredgings are accepted.
Comment: The application confirms that up to 100,000 visitors would be possible throughout the year, not at least 100,000 during the summer.
MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection subject to clarification of noise issues relating to the time of day the noise assessment was undertaken, Environmental Health having no record of agreeing to a reasonable correction being made to obtain night time data at Burnham-on-Crouch or discussions relating to noise sensitive premises, and request this information is submitted. State that existing background noise levels would be raised by 16dB and more during temporary operations. Question the temporary nature of the operations.
If background noise levels are to be exceeded by 10dB then mitigation measures will be required. Request clarification of what activities are being proposed during daytime (07:00 – 23:00) hours. Night time Leq should be represented by up to five minutes. Not enough detail about berthing operations at night, including predicted noise levels, unloading of spoil and platform design. Would there be any distinct tonal elements? Noise barriers would be welcomed. Details on final operational phase noise impacts are requested. An illustrative schedule to represent phased working and the noise impacts at each phase is requested. Request a plan of the island indicating types and location of noisy works and location of the jetty. Consent is likely to be required under section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and detail of construction works will be required. A dust mitigation scheme should be submitted.
State that the proposal is in line with policies within the Maldon District Replacement Local Plan in relation to the designated sites. Consideration should be given to promote use of public transport to visit the site from nearby districts. Clarification required on the number of bird hides proposed and point out that Policy BIW8 was referenced in the ES but has not been saved.
50,000 – 100,000 additional visitors would have significant impact on the road system and may impact on Maldon and this needs to be assessed.
A further response from Maldon District Council states:
The Council strongly supports the principle of the development.
If approval is recommended a Section 106 Agreement should be entered into to secure environmental and local transport link improvements and to provide an economic impact assessment of the implications of the development on Burnham-on-Crouch.
Additional funding should be provided for Maldon District Council’s Environmental Health Department due to the likelihood of increased noise Page 48 of 128
complaints.
Supporting information for a protocol on noise, dust and vibration together with noise and visual attenuation to be provided.
Anticipated noise levels should note that an increase of 6dB doubles to any measure doubles the level of noise.
Working hours (not delivery hours) to be limited to between 07:00hours and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00hours to 12:00hours on Saturday, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Details to be submitted on the route and times plant and machinery would arrive at site.
Feedback is requested from ECC on the above issue prior to determination of the application.
Comment: It is not considered appropriate to require financial contribution from the applicant to fund Maldon District Council’s Environmental Health Department.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – Material imported from Crossrail tunnelling should be thoroughly inspected for contamination. In particular polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated hydrocarbons should be looked for in the deeper material and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and metals in the shallower deposits. Dredgings from estuaries other than the Crouch and Roach should be inspected for Tributyl Tin and those from areas close to industries on the Thames should be analysed for TPH and metals.
Advises that changes to the Environmental Permitting regulations 2007 are due to be implemented from October 2009.
The project is welcomed and no significant negative impacts in terms of coastal processes are expected. The impacts on wider estuary currents and flows would be greater if the scheme was not implemented.
Recommend a condition to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application including new sea walls to be constructed with a minimum crest level of 5m AOD.
The LPA is expected to formally consult its Emergency Planners.
Recommended that the EA is contacted to clarify proposals for freshwater and brackish features in Cell 5.
Full support is given in terms of ecology and habitat creation which contributes towards national biodiversity targets for saltmarsh and intertidal habitats.
Page 49 of 128
The addition of planning informatives is requested.
No negative impacts are envisaged and significant benefits are likely. The wetland was supported by the Roach and Crouch Estuary Flood Risk management strategy.
The potential for breach in the existing sea wall would increase over time and an unmanaged breach would have impacts on flows and sediment erosion. Flood defence funds are unlikely to be a priority for this area in future and private funding would be required to maintain defences, this is not a sustainable option given sea level rise predictions.
Flood risk would be reduced during surge events.
GO-EAST – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
NATURAL ENGLAND – The project would have a significant effect on the Essex Estuaries SAC, Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA/Ramsar Site, and Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI, which extend into the application site, but it is connected with or necessary for the management of the designated site.
It is agreed that the chosen alternative has the least environmental impact of those shown in the ES. An Appropriate Assessment is not required under the Conservation (Natural habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
Advises the creation of natural barriers in the form of water ways and ditches may be advisable to discourage badgers from areas where they may impact on ground nesting birds.
As far as practical, the better quality topsoil stripped from Cells1-4 should be used in grassland areas. The presence of calcareous soils should be confirmed by a competent soil scientist and the findings used to draw up soil stripping plans.
Soil handling methods should minimise trafficking and compaction of the soil layers.
NATURAL ENGLAND (International Protected Areas Team) – Satisfied that that all issues have been covered. Pleased to see that construction would take place outside of the overwintering period and that mitigation would be put in place for human disturbance, noise, vibration, lighting and dust.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
ESSEX AND SUFFOLK WATER PLC – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
ANGLIAN WATER SERVICES – Any comments received shall be reported verbally. Page 50 of 128
THAMES WATER - The Thames Tunnel is predicted to generate 4 million tonnes of material that is being considered as a potential material for this project. The need to divert suitable material from landfill is high on the Government’s agenda and won’t be delivered without innovative schemes such as this.
BRITISH TELECOM – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
KENT AND ESSEX SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE – The River Roach Oyster beds (protected under the River Roach Oyster Fishery Order 1992 Statutory Order No 2957), Paglesham Pool, shellfish beds above Paglesham, oyster cultivation in the Crouch north of Wallasea and mussel cultivation above Burnham would be affected by any increase in sediment or deterioration in water quality.
Concerns are raised over:
Cells 2 and 4 discharge directly onto plots within the River Roach Oyster Fishery Order. The excavated discharge channel in the middle of the breaches would erode the oyster beds and deposit sediment and decomposed vegetation. Hydrodynamic modelling has not given sufficient consideration to this matter.
Discharged sediment, particularly during the initial breach, would likely deposit on oyster beds at Paglesham Pool Creek and other sites.
Increased bird numbers would deposit faecal material and increase levels of e- coli and salmonella in the water discharged across the oyster beds. Monthly public health checks are carried out to ensure the oysters are safe for public consumption.
Imported material could carry contaminants and chalk deposit could cause harm to oysters.
Lighting on the loading jetty should be designed to minimise glare for navigation.
Monitoring of the above impacts should be required together with mitigation to allow the fishery businesses to continue.
ROACH AREA FAIRWAYS AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE – Raises concern over the time allowed for the planning process which is stated to be not in the public interest.
Notes social economic benefits for the area and the need to preserve historic oyster beds, marine flora and fauna. A sustainable level of fish and shell fish stock and existing navigational rights should be maintained.
Sediment build up and gully formation up stream of the breaches would be a hazard to sailing craft.
Page 51 of 128
Quay Reach near to breaches 1 and 2 could be affected.
Long term effects of breaches and siltation is a concern. Siltation is considered to have increased in recent years due to existing breaches and plough dredging in the harbour.
Permanent sills are recommended to control flow and side erosion.
The position and 24 hour use of the unloading facility is a concern as are 8 ships per 24 hours using the facility. The location is tight to the deep water fairway and the channel is very narrow. The CHA will be looking for will be looking for running costs to cover the responsibility for safe passage.
Navigational lamps or the restricted use of lighting at night will be required to reduce reflected glare.
The possibility of leaving the unloading facility in place after the development has ceased is put forward.
There is no provision for visitor landing via the river from Burnham. Road access across the Defra site to the island would be required if this was to be provided.
CROUCH HARBOUR AUTHORITY – Supports the application in principle and acknowledges it is a pragmatic solution to the poor condition of existing flood defences and that substantial benefits would be achieved for nature conservation and in socio economic terms.
Raises the point that in the event of unforeseen adverse hydrodynamic consequences, it would be the Crouch Harbour Authority who would have to take remedial measures such as monitoring, dredging or navigational marking.
There is no intention for the applicant to maintain the riverward faces of the floodwalls and the CHA may be obliged to remedy decaying armouring if it causes an obstruction to navigation.
Recommend that consent should be granted subject to:
A condition requiring a scheme of insurance or indemnity for costs incurred by the CHA in remedying unforeseen consequences of the development.
A condition requiring an agreement between the applicants and the CHA which shall specify the status of proposed intertidal creeks so that the extent of public access rights and the fact that the CHA would not have responsibility for users of those creeks is made clear.
A condition requiring signage and navigational marking of breaches and associated hazards or obstructions.
A condition requiring provision for public access by river via ferry/excursion
Page 52 of 128
vessel and dinghy/tender.
A condition requiring construction and operation of the jetty to take place with regard to navigational safety and avoidance of conflict with sailing and yacht racing activities.
A condition requiring full details of the construction and design of the unloading facility to be submitted and approved in consultation with the CHA.
ROYAL BURNHAM YACHT CLUB – Raise concerns over the potential impact on tidal flows, increased silting and restricted navigation on the rivers Crouch and Roach. Suggest there is anecdotal evidence that the existing DEFRA managed realignment site has increased tidal flows during spring tides. Raise concerns that the volume of river traffic required to deliver materials to the site, noise and dust during construction work may impact on the enjoyment of the rivers and the town of Burnham-on-Crouch.
CROSSRAIL – Supports the application.
LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
CROUCH AREA YACHTING FEDERATION – Raise concern over the short length of time between the issue of the Scoping Opinion and the submission of the planning application.
Concerned about the potential impact of ships and the unloading facility on sailing/racing events. The risks should be mitigated by close working between the applicant and sailing organisations including incentivising participation in sailing, possibly by a financial contribution.
The omission of a sluice or sill at the sea wall breaches a gully would be eroded into the island and a gap would form in the river outside each breach with a spit on the upstream side. Increased meandering and shallows may result, impacting on sailing. The sheltered anchorage on Quay Reach would be affected by two breaches. A condition should be imposed to require a sluice or sill at each breach. The long term impact on navigation should be recognised by supporting the CHA to improve buoyage and maintain up to date river bed surveys.
Lighting on the unloading facility should be directed away from vessels. Seek confirmation that the facility would be dismantled by a certain date or clarification of any other plans.
The use of marine sediments may cause contamination. A condition should be imposed to require each source of material to be subject to a waste disposal application which would be reviewed by stakeholders in the river environment.
Page 53 of 128
Visitor numbers have been understated. Contributions to funding of transport infrastructure improvements should be sought as well as minimisation of car numbers. Permanent public ferry landings would be useful.
Refer to previous comments made on the EIA Scoping application.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY – No objection. Comment that importation by river is a sustainable method of transport supported by planning policy.
ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION – No objection. Considers it essential to the preservation of estuary navigation that the additional tidal interchange be constrained to <3 million m3 for all tides.
BURNHAM HARBOUR AND MARINA LTD – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
CPRE – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
EAST OF ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY – Supports the application as it complies with the goals of the Regional Economic Strategy.
EAST OF ENGLAND REGIONAL ASSEMBLY – The application is in general conformity with the RSS and seeks to manage an area of coastline to protect and enhance the environment for both wildlife and the shellfish industry.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY – No comment to make.
SOUTHEND AIRPORT CO LTD – No objection.
LONDON CITY AIRPORT – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
ESSEX BRIDLEWAY ASSOCIATION – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
CASTLE POINT AND ROCHFORD DISTRICT RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION –
Object as the development would affect Footpath 21 Canewdon and the present permissive paths on Wallasea Island.
No part of Footpath 21 should be lost; rather it should be extended to upgrade the present permissive paths under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme which continues until September 2012.
Under the adjacent Defra scheme the public footpath along the old sea wall was to be improved and maintained.
The proposed works should be carried out without loss of public use of the island. Any loss of public rights of way and restrictions on access to coastal land is opposed. OPEN SPACE SOCIETY – Any comments received shall be reported.
Page 54 of 128
THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
PIPELINES – No comment to make.
EDF ENERGY – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection subject to, prior to commencement of development:
Provision of a signing scheme from the existing strategic road network to the site, details to be agreed.
A contribution towards the upgrade of public transport facilities at the junction of Lambourne Hall Road and Creeksea Ferry Road.
A contribution towards the creation of passing places and highway improvements on Wallasea Island.
Details of the number, location and design of cycle parking facilities.
Details of the number, location and design of powered two wheeler parking.
Details of areas within the site for loading/unloading and manoeuvring.
The implementation of a Traffic Management Plan to control the movements associated with construction vehicles.
Prior to occupation:
The vehicle parking area shall be hard surfaced, sealed and marked out in parking bays.
The vehicular hardstanding shall be a minimum of 2.5m x 5.0m.
The existing Public Right of Way (No 21) will require a Diversion Order and Extinguishment Order. The creation of permissive routes is supported, but they must be maintained in perpetuity.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No objection but comment that maintenance of permissive paths would be the applicant’s responsibility and request confirmation that they would be created in perpetuity and of the proposed widths. Request confirmation that the applicant would cut Footpath 21 twice per year and ask if there would be a landing area on the eastern side of the island for access by boat. State that keeping the definitive line of Footpath 21 open would be the best option.
Comment: The applicant has confirmed that paths across the site would be maintained in perpetuity and they would be 1-2m in width. Page 55 of 128
EMERGENCY PLANNING – No objection.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – The worst-case noise levels determined for the construction noise predicted at the Burnham-on-Crouch sites would occur when operating plant on the central dividing walls and islands and just below the height of the existing walls.
Noise control is required on the conveyor for night time operations and an acoustic barrier would allow reduction of at least 8dB (details to be submitted).
Three two-four week periods would be required for the breaching activities when noise would exceed 50dBLaeq, 1h. Temporary operations are defined in MPS2 as 8 weeks per year and the proposal may exceed that.
Construction works can only be carried out between 01 April and 30 September subject to breeding birds not being present.
Noise impacts associated with traffic would be negligible.
The noise from the operational stage is considered to be much lower than that arising from the existing agricultural activities.
Individual plant activities should be undertaken separately and monitoring at noise sensitive locations is required.
More data with regard to night time noise is required if surveys were not undertaken during the night time. Mitigation may be necessary.
A difference of 6-12dB between background figures and the levels of acceptable noise at the noise sensitive receptor is too high.
Night time periods should be in line with MPS2 and/or the appropriate District Council’s policy.
Precise details of the location of the noise mitigation bund are required.
The application should be dealt with using MPS2 not industrial (BS5228) standards.
After a supplementary submission by the applicant, comment as follows:
Night time surveying should be carried out at Burnham Wick to establish background noise levels.
The effects of meteorological conditions should be included in predictions of noise impact.
Noise limits should be achievable in Burnham and are in line with MPS2.
Page 56 of 128
Future noise monitoring is suggested.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – The applicant has addressed protected habitat and species considerations.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Strategic Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – A master plan is sought for submission prior to deposition of materials in the final locations. It should indicate the manner in which features are to be laid out including footpaths, fences, ditches, hides and planting. There is an opportunity for experimental trees to be planted although there are no trees on the site at present.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (Archaeology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – The Environmental Statement is comprehensive but does not fully address the potential for archaeological survival within the areas where LiDAR shows major relict creeks (e.g. in the south west of Cell 1) and an archaeological evaluation of the creeks should be undertaken post determination and prior to the breeching of the sea wall. In the event that significant archaeological deposits are discovered more detailed excavation of a change in the scheme design may be required.
BARLING MAGNA PARISH COUNCIL – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
FOULNESS ISLAND PARISH COUNCIL – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
CANEWDON PARISH COUNCIL – Objects to the proposals for the following reasons:
- The roads are unable to deal with increased traffic and HGVs. Apton Hall Road, Brays Lane, Gore Road and Creeksea Ferry Road are in need of repair.
- Roads are liable to flooding in heavy rain.
- 20-30 cars per hour are expected and Satellite Navigation systems will direct them through Canewdon, affecting safety and ambience.
- Concerned about the future visitor centre, although not part of this application, and increased use of services in Canewdon.
- Creeksea Ferry Road floods at high tide and cuts off access to Wallasea Island. This issue should be resolved first.
Page 57 of 128
- Recommend conditions to require the repair and maintenance of Apton Hall Road, Brays Lane, Gore Road and Creeksea Ferry Road, and signage to denote a route which does not go through Canewdon.
ROCHFORD PARISH COUNCIL – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
PAGLESHAM PARISH COUNCIL – Raises concerns over increased traffic along Brays Lane and potential effects on leisure sailing in the River Roach due to silting from drainage outlets.
- BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH TOWN COUNCIL – Supports the proposal and concurs with the observations made by the Crouch Harbour Authority on 13 February 2009. Seeks assurance that:
- the river deliveries would work around the existing commercial and leisure users of the Rivers Crouch and Roach.
- the long and short term impacts on river and local ecology and surrounding residents would be monitored and minimised during and after construction.
- regular liaison with the Town Council is maintained.
- conditions are imposed to ensure waterborne access to the finished wetlands on both sides of the river and to ensure improvements to existing infrastructure and facilities for Burnham.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Southminster – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford North – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
LOCAL MEMBER – ROCHFORD – Rochford South - Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
45. REPRESENTATIONS
Extensive pre-application consultation has been carried out by the applicant.
A Communication Strategy was devised at the outset and began with a major media announcement in October 2007 with extensive national and regional television, radio and newspaper coverage. A public exhibition was held in November 2007 and individual presentations to a range of specialist parties have taken place. Leaflets have been produced and the applicant’s website holds details of the project.
In the weeks prior to submission of the planning application media releases were arranged by the applicant to raise the profile of the imminent application and people
Page 58 of 128
were encouraged to make their views known to the Waste Planning Authority. The relevant Parish and Town Councils have been consulted and local meetings/presentations have been held by the applicant throughout the determination of the planning application.
The applicant has put forward the intention to establish a local liaison group should planning permission be granted. Public communication is advocated by Essex County Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
Five properties were directly notified of the application. 46 letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:
Observation Comment
Support the application but comment that See appraisal. public transport links, including those from Southend on Sea, will need to be improved from the outset and that the cost should be on Crossrail through a S106 Agreement.
A boat jetty should allow access from See appraisal. Burnham. This could possibly be where the Crossrail unloading facility is proposed.
Full support for a wonderful idea which Noted. should go ahead. Good for recreational activities and for the environment.
Essex Amphibian and Reptile Group: Raise The common lizard and adder concerns over two priority BAP species – the would be removed from affected Adder Vipera berus and the Lizard Lacerta areas of the sea wall prior to vivipara. Adders were translocated as part of breaching and land forming and the DEFRA scheme in 2006 but no placed at a suitable alternative monitoring has been undertaken. An location within the site. The impacts ecological survey should be undertaken prior on these protected species has to determination of the application. Reptiles been assessed as part of the should be monitored and adders should be application as minor adverse identified using head photographs. significance with mitigation. Freshwater habitats should be a series of water features rather than one lake to contribute to reintroduction of great crested newts and water voles. Would be willing to assist with future monitoring.
Support in principle but raise concerns over See appraisal. the potential impact on tidal flows in the Rivers Crouch and Roach and the affect on sailing.
Page 59 of 128
Sailors should be given access to anchor or See appraisal. moor within the project site. Free access for walkers should continue.
The project would resolve a number of Noted. environmental problems: - There is no government money for the repair of the vulnerable sea walls. - Poor quality farmland exists and requires high amounts of fertiliser, leading to runoff to the rivers. - Railway construction spoil can be safely disposed of. - New reed beds would provide a CO2 sink. - Habitats will be provided for rare birds as global temperatures increase, the endangered water vole and otters. - Opportunities for school trips and bird watching. - Employment for paid and volunteer workers. - The recovery of marsh areas being lost to coastal erosion.
The site should be dog-free except for the Access for dogs would be up to the current sea wall access. site owners, as it is currently. A designated dog walking area is proposed along with its own car park.
The creation of nature reserves helps to Noted. protect and monitor the environment. Environmental study is a hobby for many people, hence why the RSPB has so many members.
The project will preserve natural habitats for Noted. future generations, especially with so much land in Essex being built on.
Support the nature conservation proposals Noted. and appreciate the proposed tidal and flood management measures.
Public ferry/private boats should be given See appraisal. access from Burnham by water. The ferry for Wallasea marina is too far up river.
Wallasea is an ideal location for such a Noted.
Page 60 of 128
project and the Crossrail involvement is ideal. Planning and environmental considerations A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment have been very thorough, however a risk (SFRA) of the South Essex area assessment of flood risk for surrounding was carried out for the Thames villages such as Fambridge and Ashingdon Gateway South Essex Partnership should be carried out, perhaps as part of an Ltd in November 2006. The overall strategy for flood prevention in the Environment Agency considers the area. inclusion of a 5m AOD wall would be sufficient flood mitigation.
Local public transport provision should be See appraisal. received in light of proposed increased visitor numbers. The site is inaccessible unless travelling by car or taking rail to Burnham and then crossing on the ferry. A weekend shuttle bus from Rochford Station is suggested.
The project would provide an important Noted. resource for local people wishing to study nature.
There would not be much disturbance to Noted. local people.
A waste of productive land. Due Natural England has no objection – consideration should be given to the loss of see appraisal. 677ha of agricultural land. Food security is becoming important and the Royal Institute of International Affairs produced a report in 2009 called ‘Food Futures – Rethinking UK Strategy’ which shows a widening gap between world food demand and production. The project is about procuring a place to deposit spoil from Crossrail. If this was used to improve the sea walls the bulk of the land could still produce food.
Traffic on local roads would be excessive, See appraisal particularly as Hall Road is already dangerous due to Baltic Wharf lorries. The Ashingdon Road from Rochford has considerable hold ups and Highway Officers are already aware of the pressure on Brays Lane and Apton Hall Road, which has 6 schools along its length. Apton Hall’s driveway is often used as a passing place. The road is unable to be improved in places and cannot carry more traffic.
Page 61 of 128
S106 conditions should be required for the provision of significant improvements to the highway network. Wallsea has a limited lifetime before a Noted. breach occurs as in 1953 and this would negate its current value as farmland. The project would safeguard Burnham.
Further sea defence work has been ruled out The Environment Agency is but in principle this frees resources to protect responsible for maintaining sea more productive farmland along the Crouch defences. It is not known how its or to upgrade defences near Creeksea on budgets would be allocated. the Crouch itself. The proposed scheme would reduce the impact of tidal surges.
A new wetland and reduction in impact on Noted. local navigation and fisheries is positive as is the visitor attraction to local services.
The use of Crossrail spoil is an example of Noted. joined up thinking that deserves credit. Its movement by ship would minimise the environmental impact for local communities.
RSPB have created reserves along the Noted. Thames Gateway and the DEFRA site is a good example which will be even better with the addition of the proposed works.
The loss of local populations of farmland Noted. birds would be compensated by mitigation measures proposed by the RSPB.
More advertising is required. The planning application was advertised in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, on site and in the local press.
Object to the movement of 1-5 million cubic The application proposes metres of earth by road. It is difficult for 2 importation by sea only. cars to pass on Upton Hall Road, large vehicles from Baltic Wharf almost collide with cars and extra traffic will make it worse. A new road would be beneficial from the A130 to Wallasea following the line of the River Crouch so that large vehicles have a purpose built route. There has been an increase in large lorry traffic over the last 4.5
Page 62 of 128
years.
It is not inevitable that the island would be The sea wall on the north side was lost to the sea in the near future. The sea constructed in 2006 as part of the wall on the north side was only recently Defra realignment scheme. The constructed. Environment Agency has stated that flood defence funds would not be a priority for Wallasea Island and private funding long term would not be sustainable due to climate change and sea level rise predictions.
Any delays in the Crossrail project should The proposed project would have not lead to the period of dumping at an end date by which time it would Wallasea being extended indefinitely. 2019 be required to be completed. Any seems excessive and 2016 should be extension of time would be subject imposed as an end date. to a further planning application. The Crossrail project is not expected to be complete until 2018.
The finished ground levels shown on the Noted. drawings should not be exceeded.
Only clean inert material should be allowed, Noted and as proposed. no commercial or domestic refuse and no contaminated soil.
Material should only be brought by sea, not The application proposes by road. importation of material only by sea.
Conditions should be imposed to restrict the The planning permission for landfill hours of construction vehicle movements on at Barling Quarry and Landfill Site the island. Barling Marsh landfill already requires completion by the end of compromises recreational activities on the 2013. However, this is not a river by smell, noise and flashing lights. consideration for the current When will this close? application.
Concern is raised over possible silting. The Environment Agency has no Although addressed in the ES, evidence objection. from the Defra site cannot be conclusive as it was smaller scale.
Discussion should have been provided See appraisal. regarding the possibility of the habitat being achieved using sluices rather than uncontrolled breaches.
Page 63 of 128
Depths of less than 1.5m exist at the See appraisal entrance to the Roach at low water. Any reduction would mean boats would not be able to enter. Dredging would be necessary to allow ships to access the proposed unloading facility. Any planning agreement should provide for the RSPB to bear the cost if deemed necessary by the Crouch Harbour Authority. A contingency of 10% of the project cost See appraisal should be set aside for maintenance each year due to build up of silt.
Object to two breaches along the east side It is recognised that a breach would facing Quay Reach/Branklet as it is popular reduce the available space for for overnight anchorage. anchorage, however locations have been chosen carefully with regard to other factors such as impact on saltmarsh and tidal flows – see appraisal.
Observed that localised shoaling of the The ES concludes that the potential riverbed has occurred on either side of the change in flow would be Defra breaches on the Crouch and will considered as negligible. Mitigation probably occur on the Roach. The ES would be provided through a local concludes flows of water would be up to notice to mariners. 2knots extending to 20m from the breaches. Small sailing boats use the full width of the The Environment Agency supports river or keep closely to one bank and would the proposed project. be affected by currents or shoaling/silting.
‘Excessive’ noise during piling should be Noise limits would be imposed, controlled through a noise limit or hours of however noise levels at Burnham working. would be below the 55dBLAeq 1h allowed for daytime hours by MPS2.
The car park would cause nuisance if moved Noted. closer to Grapnells Farm than shown on the drawings.
Would the car park have adequate provision See appraisal. for the development proposed? Currently dog walkers sometimes park on and block the farmland access road.
The farm access road is not currently in line The Highway Authority has no with the County road, creating a difficult objection. turning which would need to be realigned to
Page 64 of 128
allow heavy machinery to negotiate it.
The County road is inadequate for 2 cars to Passing bays would be required. pass. Farm tractors can go into the field to allow passage but cars cannot. Passing bays would alleviate this problem. Visibility when leaving the marina is poor and Parking would be provided on site the County Council’s posts further limit the which should alleviate this problem. space. One car parked on the tarmac blocks all traffic movements.
One section of the road has subsided and The highway is maintained must be maintained before increased vehicle routinely by the Highway Authority. numbers use it.
Noise, light and dust should be sensitively See appraisal managed throughout the construction phase so that it does not affect the tranquillity of the river, particularly at night.
Concern is raised over the impact on boat See appraisal. racing and youth training, particularly the sailing regatta Burnham Week. The shipping movements would be in the starting and finishing area. The area from the Horse Shoal to the down river end of the moorings is used for junior and youth sailing and training. Shipping movements should avoid Burnham Week, Bank Holidays and peak sailing times throughout the season (March- November) on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 to 17:00 hours and on Wednesday evenings (April-September) from 17:30 onwards. Other responses have requested suspension of shipping movements between Saturday 10:00 hours and Sunday 16:00 hours as well as Wednesday evening between 18:00 and 21:00 hours from April to September. Others have stated that the racing season begins in March and continues every weekend until the end of December. Advance planning of ship movements should mean that waste could be moved from London on a regular basis with shared use of the river.
The size of the unloading jetty is See appraisal. unnecessary and is much larger than the Baltic Wharf. It extends into the deep water
Page 65 of 128
channel and the navigation channel would be severely reduced. Wharf movements should have priority and a feasibility study should be carried out to demonstrate that the ships travelling to Baltic Wharf would not be impeded.
A condition should be imposed to require the This would be outside the scope of upgrade of the sea walls to the west of the this application. new north south wall on the Crouch and Roach and the easterly wall along Lion Creek.
The road infrastructure should be upgraded See appraisal. to accommodate the number of envisaged visitors.
All sailing clubs must still be viable when the See appraisal. project is finished as the economy of Burnham Town relies on them.
Rochford DC’s Core Strategy Preferred See appraisal Options supports the long-term future of Baltic Wharf. To achieve this, the new west cut-off wall must be built to at least 1 in 100 years, to be required through S106 condition. The remaining ‘developed’ west end must be provided with improved flood defences to a similar standard by Defra/EA or applicant S106 condition.
In approving this application the Minerals Planning applications are dealt with and Waste Planning Authority will be individually on their own merits and expected to approve similar applications for therefore this question is the beneficial use of clay materials for the impossible to answer at the present maintenance and improvements of other time. rural sea walls by landowners.
It is reassuring to learn that the material Noted. being brought to Wallasea would be tested for hazardous material and that the EA would monitor the situation.
An overspill car park is suggested to cater The proposed parking area would for visitors during busy periods. be introduced in phases as the development progresses. A grassed overflow area would be available in drier months until the hardstanding car park reaches its
Page 66 of 128
final size.
There is a potential for accidents as the road The Highway Authority has no leading into and out of Wallasea has a concerns over highway safety. number of sharp bends. These should be remodelled. The remodelling of bends along Creephedge Lane may provide some precedent.
Proposed Breach One would destroy old salt There are no prominent land marsh adjacent Brankfleet. masses on the eastern boundary so the breach channel would be forced to pass through 50-100m of marsh habitat. However, breaches 1 and 2 are proposed to be located to the north and south of (and thus avoid) approximately 200m of marsh habitat.
Existing erosion in the mouth of the Roach The scheme has been designed to would increase and it is not clear if the work with existing estuary Environmental Statement models the erosion morphology and to ensure there on the saltmarsh and sea wall. would be no significant adverse effect on estuary flows or existing morphological trends. A supplementary statement has been submitted to specifically address this issue and provide clarity that the marshes and sea wall would not be directly affected.
Three badger setts have been identifed but The third sett identified contained there are at least five and they would be 3-4 holes, which is perhaps what made uninhabitable. The main badger sett is this representation is referring to. proposed to remain but it is only habitabal due to the existing field drainage which would no longer function. The sett is not far from the unloading facility and the noise of the project would frighten the badgers away.
Brent geese feed on the eastern fields at The Environmental Statement Wallasea during the winter but the flooding considers Brent Geese. It is would mean they would move to other accepted that they are present in farmers’ fields. high numbers on the existing agricultural land and that they may be displaced.
Closure of approximately 1km of the eastern The site is proposed as a nature end of Footpath 21 is unacceptable and reserve for the public to enjoy. against national moves to increase public Rights of way and permissive paths
Page 67 of 128
access to the coast. The public would have have been proposed to maintain no access to the old sea wall, saltmarsh or public access to the area. The the historic ‘red hill’. Proposed permissive areas mentioned here would be paths could be closed by the applicant at any flooded so access wouldn’t be time (e.g. during nesting season) & therefore practical in any case. Also see there is a reduction in public access. appraisal.
Routes on the southern, eastern and central See appraisal. parts of the island have permissive path status and their closure would prevent enjoyment of the attractive estuary location. Wallasea has many uses so long as it See appraisal. remains as land. Once flooded into treacherous mudflats it will be no use for anyone. Noted that the proposals do not include provision to protect the western inhabited part of the island and that this would be the EA’s responsibility.
The development would destroy historical See appraisal. sea walls and creeks. At least three ‘red hills’ have been found on Wallasea. The lower regions are likely to be buried underground and would be destroyed, along with any other surviving relics, by the excavations.
The proposal is contrary to RSS Policies RSS Policies SS1 to SS9 set out SS1, SS7, SS9 and ENV4, RSP Policy CC1, the core strategy for development RDRLP Policies CS2, and CS7. in the region. Policy SS1 is about achieving sustainable development, Policy SS7 is about maintaining the broad extent of Green Belt designations and Policy SS9 relates to coastal policy formation. RSS Policy ENV4 relates to the sustainable use of soil resources. RSP Policy CC1 relates to the coastal protection belt and RDRLP Policies CS2 and CS7 relate to the protection of the built and natural environment and the conservation of heritage. It is disputed that the development would be against any of these policies (see appraisal).
Breaches 2 and 3 are likely to cause water to Through breach 1 a max flow short-cut through the site. speed of 0.9m/s is predicted and 0.6m/s through breach 2. The
Page 68 of 128
breach flows are expected to integrate well into the prevailing estuary flows and the overall effect on estuary hydrodynamics is expected to be negligible.
The application states that Wallasea was The farmland would be likely to be claimed as land in the 13th/14th centuries, destroyed by an unmanaged which is unlikely and convenient speculation breach in any case - see appraisal. to attempt to justify the destruction of current farmland. Much of Wallasea has been dry land for the last 40,000 years. The 13th century was stormy and therefore not surprising that sea walls were constructed.
Contrary to the application statement, there Noted. is ‘built infrastructure’ on Wallasea, namely the sea wall, roads, land drainage pipes, drainage ditches, sluices, water tanks, underground electricity cables and a footbridge for the DEFRA permissive footpath.
The area is already a nature conservation, Noted. flood defence, recreational and educational resource as proposed, as well as productive agricultural land.
The project is an illustration of how the Noted. Government has no strategy defending low lying Britain from sea level rise even though much productive farmland is situated in low lying areas.
The project would not create a landscape in See appraisal. keeping with the environs as the island has been used for agriculture for as far back as records go.
Would the applicant maintain the site after The applicant/landowner would construction or be insured for unforeseen maintain the site post construction. consequences? If not, who would be responsible for this?
CO2 storage claims should be clarified to The applicant has submitted a say whether this is a continuous process statement which estimates the site figure or just the initial formation stage, and would store 1 tonne of carbon per should be compared with the existing hectare year for intertidal habitat, agricultural use especially if straw is burned based on sediment accretion rates
Page 69 of 128
to become charcoal before being buried. per year in the long term and the possible rates achieved immediately after realignment. Arable land is a net emitter of carbon.
The economic basis is unsound as it states The Environment Agency has the scheme would safeguard built assets, stated that flood defence funds whilst elsewhere in the application it is stated would not be a priority for Wallasea that this is the EA’s responsibility. It assumes Island and private funding long the alternative would be the loss of the island term would not be sustainable due due to flooding. However there may be an to climate change and sea level alternative strategy for the owners to extend rise predictions. the life of the existing sea walls. A study should be done to establish whether A study such as this would be a Thames-Barrier like structure should be outside the scope of this built on the Crouch estuary. Does the application. economic case look at the loss of agricultural land? It is an exaggeration to say that jobs would be created through visitors using local facilities.
The main road from London (A127) is very The applicant has stated that busy and it unlikely that visitors would use cyclists would be encouraged. public transport as the railway station and buses are too far away. Cyclists are to be encouraged; however they are discouraged at Elmley Island as they disturb the birds.
The ‘existing and indicative standards of It does but is taken from the Roach protection along the Crouch and Roach and Crouch Flood Management Estuaries’ drawing predates the construction Strategy and is the most up to date of the DEFRA northern sea wall. data available to the applicant. The standards of protection relate to the lowest level of defence and so the indicative standard would not alter in any case.
The ‘location of the footpaths on Wallasea See appraisal. Island’ drawing is deceptive as it does not show existing DEFRA permissive paths, implies that some paths would be more than permissive paths.
The artist’s impression shows green areas This is not considered to be which would in fact be brown mudflats. material as other drawings state clearly what the proposed habitat would be.
The ES states that the soils at Wallasea Natural England has no objection –
Page 70 of 128
produce comparatively low arable yields but see appraisal. also states that wheat yields have ranged from 6 to 9 tonnes per hectare since 2001. This is slightly above the UK average of 7.2 tonnes per hectare.
The hydrodynamic modelling should be The Environment Agency has seen independently verified. the details and is satisfied with the modelling.
If the grant of planning permission would The Environment Agency would be allow importation of dredgings, how would it responsible for pollution control. be ensured that they are free from pollutants?
Protected and high value oyster beds in See appraisal. Pagelsham Reach would be destroyed.
Any negative effects of the proposed Noted. development should be negligible on the basis of the information in the application and ES.
There is justification for the conversion of Noted. arable land to a Conservation Area. The land is Grade 3 and 4, production value is limited and mostly uneconomic to farm. Uncertainty over long term maintenance of the sea wall means the risk of inundation will increase and raise concern over long-term business investment. The project would provide much needed replacement habitat for coastal/estuary bird populations. The nearby 115 hectares has demonstrated how successful this type of project can be.
46. APPRAISAL The key issues for consideration are:
G. Need H. Ecological Impact I. Green Belt J. Highway/Transport Impact K. Rights of Way/Public Access L. Landscape and Visual Impact M. Noise, Dust, Odour and Light N. Flooding O. Water Quality P. Impact on Sailing Q. Loss of Agricultural Land
Page 71 of 128
R. Archaeology S. Airport Safeguarding
A. NEED
The application area is not identified as a preferred site for waste disposal in the Waste Local Plan. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) states that applications for sites that have not been identified as suitable for new waste management facilities should be considered favourably when consistent with PPS10 policies, the waste planning authority’s core strategy and providing the applicant can demonstrate that the facility would not undermine the waste planning strategy through prejudicing movement up the waste hierarchy. Essex County Council’s Waste Core Strategy is at the very early stages of drafting with an Issues and Options document scheduled to be consulted on at the end of 2009. Therefore the relevant waste policies are contained within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001. WLP Policy W9B (Landfill and Landraising for its own sake) states that landfill or landraising for its own sake, without being necessary for restoration, will not be permitted. Landfill outside of the preferred sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that satisfactory restoration cannot otherwise be achieved. Landfill will not be permitted at a scale beyond that which is necessary for the restoration of the site. This application is for landraising and is not strictly for restoration purposes, but rather land alteration; however WLP Policy W9B is the relevant policy.
The raising of land levels would reduce the volume of tidal exchange with the estuary and achieve a managed realignment approach that would reduce risk to the estuary system from an unmanaged breach. 7.5 million tonnes is stated to be appropriate because it would reduce the tidal exchange volumes to those that could be accommodated by the estuary. Reduced material would increase the volume of water on each tidal exchange and increase flow speeds and water levels. The use of more fill material than that proposed would reduce the amount of coastal habitat created, thus reducing the contribution to national biodiversity objectives.
Alternative options such as using Regulated Tidal Exchange across the whole site would require less fill and would represent a technically viable solution, however it would be less natural and sustainable and would not create the mix of habitats achieved through the proposed managed realignment and small areas of Regulated Tidal Exchange.
Diversion of Waste from Landfill
‘Any substance or object the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard’ is waste under the Waste Framework Directive 2006. Waste remains waste until it has been fully recovered and no longer poses a threat to the environment or human health.
Whether or not a substance is waste is ultimately a matter for the courts, however
Page 72 of 128
in this case it is considered that the material would be surplus material discarded from the Crossrail project and other sources. Therefore, the Waste Planning Authority is rightly the determining authority for the application.
The Waste Hierarchy requires the reduction of waste to be the first priority with reuse, recycling & composting, energy recovery and with disposal as a last resort. The proposal is for the importation of inert materials, the majority of which would be derived from tunnelled material from the London Crossrail project, but would also possibly include dredge arisings. The Crossrail tunnel arisings would principally comprise relict estuarine mixed sediments and marine deposits. Chalk would also be imported.
It is important that inert waste remains available for the restoration of landfills, particularly as other types of waste are now increasingly being recovered and/or treated prior to landfilling. In Essex there are several voids which have been created through mineral extraction which require inert waste arisings for restoration purposes.
It is also, however, important that disposal is a last resort for waste materials as required by the Waste Hierarchy. By using the waste material for the purposes of constructing a nature reserve, it would be put to beneficial use rather than being disposed of. This is not to say that the waste material is being ‘recovered’.
The Crossrail project is an unusual development which will produce a large amount of waste material requiring management. The quarry sites requiring restoration in Essex would have been granted planning permission based on calculations of waste arisings which could not have anticipated the waste from the Crossrail project. It is considered that the restoration of voids in Essex would therefore not be significantly delayed as a result of this project as current waste policy would not take account of this ‘windfall’ of waste. The benefits of disposing of the waste from Crossrail using the sustainable transport methods proposed are considered to outweigh any unlikely minor delays which may arise in the restoration of void space in Essex. Should planning permission be granted, a legal agreement could be sought to restrict the majority of the imported waste to be sourced from the Crossrail project only. This would ensure that the sustainable benefits of shipping the waste would be retained as well as ensuring that the volumes and quality of the waste arisings would be secured for this development.
Importation of Waste from Outside of the County of Essex
In accordance with the requirements of RSS Policy WM4 (Regional Waste Apportionment), each region should assume responsibility for managing its own waste. There is a requirement for Essex to accept a proportion of waste from London, as London has no landfill capacity, in line with RSS Policy WM3 (Imported Waste). The allocated proportion is 290,000 tonnes in the year 2010/11 and 140,000 tonnes in the year 2015/16. After 2015 the apportionment is restricted to the landfill of residual waste that has been subject to the maximum practical level of recovery and treatment, for which landfill is the only practical option.
Whilst the above policy is not strictly applicable to the current application because
Page 73 of 128
it was formulated to apply to municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, not construction and demolition waste as this application proposes, the principle of the region assuming responsibility for its own wastes is still consdiered relevant.
Waste Local Plan Policy W3C (Need for Waste Development) takes the self sufficiency argument further by stating that significant waste management developments will only be permitted where a need for the facility has been demonstrated for waste arising in Essex and Southend. This policy relates to landfill and the application is not strictly for landfill (rather it is for landraising), however in the absence of any policies relating to landraising and need it is considered that WLP Policy W3C (Need for Waste Development) would be aimed at the type of development proposed. Exceptions to WLP Policy W3C (Need for Waste Development) may be made in the following circumstances:
- where the proposal would achieve other benefits that would outweigh any harm caused. - where meeting a cross-boundary need would satisfy the proximity principle and be mutually acceptable to both WPAs. - In the case of landfill, where it is shown to be necessary to achieve satisfactory restoration.
Given that the proposal would accept waste from outside Essex and Southend it is necessary to consider whether the development would achieve other benefits that would outweigh any harm caused through accepting waste sourced from outside of the County. These issues will be considered further in the report.
Nevertheless, solely in respect of the need to utilise inert waste material for the project, it is considered that the amount of material proposed is reasonably necessary to bring about the stated objectives and the development would comply with WLP W9B (Landfill and Landraising for its own sake).
Other relevant criteria contained within PPS10 are consideration of the sustainable movement of waste and existing and proposed neighbouring land uses. These aspects will be considered in the sections below.
B. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
The applicant proposes that this development would act as a ‘National Flagship’ to demonstrate sustainable options for coastal management and landscape management for adapting to climate change on the coast, with attendant wildlife gain, flood management benefit, recreation and educational use. An information and education centre is in the long term plans for the site but does not form part of this planning application.
UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats for coastal saltmarsh and mudflats are currently being lost at a rate of 600ha per year. The UK BAP targets for these areas seek to achieve no net loss of these habitats and to create a further 3,600 ha by 2015 to offset historic losses. An additional target seeks the creation of a further 120 ha of saline lagoon habitats by 2015. One of the main objectives of the
Page 74 of 128
proposed development is the creation of new intertidal habitats to offset historical national losses of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) coastal habitats and species in the UK. Furthermore, the restoration of such habitats can help to reduce flood management costs, improve water quality and act as carbon soaks.
National planning guidance on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system is set out in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. In accordance with RSS Policy ENV3 (Biodiversity and Earth Heritage), internationally and nationally designated sites, SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites should be given the highest level of protection for biodiversity. The application site is surrounded by the Rivers Roach and Crouch which have these international designations. The proposed pipeline/conveyor, unloading facility and the breaches would encroach into the internationally designated areas. The majority of the application site lies adjacent to these areas but not within them.
Despite the presence of Internationally designated sites, Natural England has confirmed that Appropriate Assessment will not be required for this project under the Conservation (Natural habitats &c) Regulations 1994.
RDRLP Policy NR5 (European and International Sites) provides that development affecting an SPA, Ramsar site or SAC which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site will not be permitted unless there is no alternative solution and it is necessary due to overriding public interest. In this case, Natural England has confirmed that although there would be likely to be a significant effect on the Essex Estuaries SAC, Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA/Ramsar Site and Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI, the development would be required for the management of the designated sites and therefore it is considered to comply with RDLP Policy NR5 (European and International Sites) and RSS Policy ENV3 (Biodiversity and Earth Heritage).
Bearing in mind the potential consequences of an unmanaged breach in the future due to the lack of maintenance of the sea walls, the development is also considered to comply with RDRLP Policy NR6 (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) which states that development will not be permitted unless the justification for the development clearly outweighs the national nature conservation interest of the site.
The application is proposed to be divided into 5 cells through the construction of internal bunds to heights of approximately 5.5mAOD. Material to build the bunds would primarily be sourced from the reprofiling of the site and the channel and lagoon excavation works.
Damage to existing habitats on Wallasea Island is proposed to be mitigated against using habitat creation which would facilitate and encourage biodiversity in compliance with RDRLP Policy NR4 (Biodiversity on Development Sites). Cell 5 would be the mitigation area and would not be connected to the estuary by breaches. It would remain predominantly as terrestrial and brackish water grazing and marshland habitat. Within this area 15ha would be set aside as a Corn Bunting area (wild bird cover) managed on a rotational basis to provide food for this species. An initial 2ha of brackish marsh habitat would be created for water
Page 75 of 128
voles and invertebrates which would be displaced and relocated from cells 1-4. The brackish marsh would be expanded to 6ha in phase as the development from cells 1-4 progresses and would contain at least 7km of meandering creeks with specifically designed water vole cliffs. There would also be a release area for translocated reptiles in cell 5.
Several rare and protected invertebrate species exist on Wallsea Island. The overall change from farmland to natural intertidal and terrestrial habitats would be of benefit to these species and in cell 5 saline lagoons, exposed banks and shallow freshwater ditches would be created to compensate for the habitat loss experienced throughout the construction of the development.
Cells 1-4 would be constructed independently of one another. Cells 1, 2 and 4 would be subject to full realignment with six 100m wide breaches in total facilitating tidal exchange. Cell 3 would have Regulated Tidal Exchange (RTE) and would be hydrodynamically linked to cells 1 and 2 by a 28m wide weir allowing controlled tidal exchange and 2 culverts which would allow the one way flow of water out of cell 3 into cells 1 and 2.
On completion of the project cells 1, 2 and 4 would contain a total of approximately 250ha of mid, high and transitional saltmarsh which benefits nesting redshank. It is proposed that these areas would be maintained through moderate intensity grazing, helping to increase the diversity of species in the 48ha of grassland of the sea level rise adaptation zones. Cell 3 would contain the Regulated Tidal Exchange area with constant salinity throughout the year. This would provide ideal conditions for prey for waterbirds. The following protected species have been found to exist on Wallasea Island:
- Adder and Common Lizard - Brown Hare - Water Vole - Badger - Several species of breeding birds
Appropriate mitigation measures are proposed for all of these species and Natural England is satisfied with the proposals. It does, however, suggest that the creation of natural barriers in the form of waterways or ditches may be appropriate in order to discourage badgers from entering areas where they may impact on ground nesting birds.
The applicant has declared full knowledge of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and its obligations under this Act including development restrictions around a badger sett. Any offences committed under this Act would remain outside the remit of the Waste Planning Authority.
In order to address concerns raised over the UK BAP and UK Red Data List plant species Spreading Hedge-Parsley, the applicant has submitted a supplementary statement. It is concluded that the species may well establish in multiple locations across the site and the presence of visitors may even help to distribute it. The cessation of use of herbicides and nitrogenous fertilisers would also be of benefit
Page 76 of 128
to the species. The County Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that Spreading Hedge Parsley would not be unduly impacted upon.
RDRLP Policy NR9 (Species Protection) states that planning permission will not be granted for development likely to cause harm to species protected under English and/or European law. In cases where the justification for the development clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the species or habitat conditions should be imposed to secure the protection of the species, minimise disturbance and provide adequate alternative habitat. The development would itself be the creation of a coastal nature reserve and although protected species would be impacted upon they would all be accommodated through mitigation and migration areas. This would keep disturbance to a minimum and ultimately create an area of additional benefit. Therefore the proposals are considered to be in compliance with RDRLP Policy NR9 (Species Protection).
In light of all of the above proposals the application is considered to meet the requirements of RDRLP Policy NR4 (Biodiversity on Development Sites) which requires applicants to incorporate appropriate measures in development proposals to facilitate and encourage biodiversity. The above measures demonstrate this requirement very well.
Oysters and Fisheries
The Environmental Statement includes a section relating to potential impacts on fisheries. Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee aim to protect habitats and fish stocks and holds the River Roach Oyster Fishery Order (1992) for the area of the river to the south and west of the application site.
The impacts of the proposed development on commercial and recreational fisheries through changes in water quality and to estuarine ecology/habitats has been assessed as negligible at worst. It has also been presented that finfish species important for recreational angling would be likely to moderately benefit from the creation of new intertidal habitat, which can provide good spawning ground and feeding areas.
Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee has raised concerns over the potential for erosion to oyster beds, deposit of discharged sediment, possible impact of contamination by increased bird numbers, contamination from imported material and the glare from lighting on the unloading facility.
A supplementary statement has been submitted to address these concerns and has reiterated the proposals would not have a significant effect on oyster beds. An investigation has been undertaken into the potential for the introduction of e-coli and salmonella into the water through increased bird numbers. The investigation found that impacts to oysters would be negligible/minor, especially as more than half of the tidal exchange would occur downstream of the oyster lays with 50% of water being exchanged through cell 1 alone. It is also noted that the oyster beds in Paglesham Reach are Class B2 under the Food Standards Agency guidance, meaning that they require purification prior to human consumption in any case.
Page 77 of 128
After considering all of the above and bearing in mind the potential consequences of an unmanaged breach if the development does not go ahead it is considered that the development would have many benefits to ecology and would be in compliance with the above policies.
C. GREEN BELT
The proposal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site has very flat topography and distant features in Southend on Sea, Kent and Sheerness can be seen from within it, although lower features cannot be seen over the sea wall when viewed from the centre of the island.
One of the key planning objectives within Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management is to protect Green Belts whilst recognising the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management as material considerations to be given significant weight in determining planning applications. Policy WM1 (Waste management Objectives) of the RSS concurs with this approach.
Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt and such development should not normally be approved except in very special circumstances.
The final landform and use of the application site as a nature reserve would not conflict with the Green Belt land use objectives of providing opportunities for access to open countryside for the urban population, the retention of attractive and enhanced landscapes near to where people live and the securing of nature conservation interest. However, the construction machinery and operations required to import waste material and raise land levels, and the raising of land levels itself, could be said to conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. PPG2 states that the carrying out of development is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it maintains the openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
In the long term, the use of the site as a nature reserve would contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts as required by PPG2, which states that large scale development or redevelopment of land in the Green Belt (including the tipping of waste) should do just this. However, the site would have higher modified land levels. This, together with the effect of the tipping operations themselves, would clearly have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt in the shorter term and this is an important consideration which needs to be addressed.
The proposal would result in an average height increase of 1.4m across much of the site. A maximum of 4m height increase would be achieved along internal walls and new defences. Excavations of 1m below existing land levels would be created
Page 78 of 128
at the breaches. Over an area of 668 hectares of land that is currently extremely flat, this could be considered to have an impact on the openness of the area. The construction period would also take place for several years up until 2019 and the operations would have a similar appearance to that of a waste disposal site. The applicant does, however, propose to operate the site in 5 phases in order to minimise access restrictions for the general public and to allow the creation of habitat as early as possible. The operation of three bulldozers, three 30-tonne excavators, one 13-tonne excavator, twenty-four 15-tonne dump trucks, two rollers and one water bowser would clearly have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Although the construction period would be temporary and it is considered that it would result in no permanent damage to the Green Belt, it would take place for a significant number of years and could cause temporary harm during that time.
It is therefore considered that although the completed development would be an appropriate use of the Green Belt, the importation of waste, construction methods and timescales would not satisfy the requirements of PPG2. These aspects are therefore considered to be inappropriate development that should not normally be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances.
Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In this case the applicant has put forward very special circumstances for consideration in the event that the development is considered to be inappropriate. The very special circumstances put forward are:
- Flood protection and habitat protection benefits: A ‘do nothing’ approach would mean that unmanaged flooding of the land would be likely to occur within the next 10-20 years, as the Environment Agency has stated that it does not intend to maintain the sea defences on Wallasea Island. Unmanaged flooding would cause increased flow, giving way to increased erosion of the existing mudflats and saltmarshes and undercutting sea defences. Navigation and shellfishing industries would also be likely to be adversely impacted upon. The proposal therefore presents an alternative option which would reduce the risk of damage caused by flooding.
- Biodiversity and landscape benefits: The creation of several hundred hectares of habitats would contribute towards UK BAP targets for coastal saltmarsh, mudflats and saline lagoons.
- Public access benefits: Permissive rights of way would increase the current extent of public access to the site and present the opportunity to experience a coastal nature reserve.
RDRLP Policy R1 (Development within the Green Belt) reiterates the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and states that planning permission will not be granted, except in very special circumstances, for among other things, ‘other uses of land which fulfil the objectives of the Green Belt.’ It also
Page 79 of 128
states that development should preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the main purposes of including land within it. Any development permitted should be of a scale, design and siting such that the character of the countryside is not harmed and nature conservation interests are protected.
As explained above, the construction period is considered to conflict with Green Belt land use objectives and to impact on the openness of the area. However, very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to justify the development. The final use of the land as a coastal nature reserve would fulfil the objectives of the Green Belt. As discussed in previous sections of this report, the character of the countryside would not be harmed and the nature conservation value of the area would be enhanced. The above circumstances, together with the proposed phased nature of the operations, are considered to amount to very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. It is therefore considered that the development would comply with RDRLP Policy R1 (Development within the Green Belt) and WLP Policy W10E (Development Control), which requires satisfactory provision to be made in respect of the effect of the development on the purposes of the Green Belt.
D HIGHWAY/TRANSPORT IMPACT
The application proposes that all waste deliveries would be by sea, with the material being loaded onto 2,000-4,000 tonne hold capacity self-propelled ships or tug-towed lighters or barges at the excavation sites in London. The highway network would not be used for the importation of waste. This is a sustainable form of transport which is advocated by the principles of Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13). WLP Policy W4C (Access to Waste Management Sites) states that water transport of waste will be encouraged and therefore it is considered that the development would comply with this policy. In this respect the proposal is considered to comply with the sustainable movement of waste criteria stated in PPS10.
RDRLP Policy TP5 (Public Transport) requires development to be well related to existing public transport infrastructure, particularly in rural areas and states that contributions towards public transport provision will be sought where developments are not well located. WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) requires satisfactory provision to be made for the impact of road traffic generated by the development on the highway network.
Should planning permission be granted, the applicant would be required to provide a financial contribution to the Highway Authority for the upgrade of public transport facilities at the junction of Lambourne Hall Road and Creeksea Ferry Road, in accordance with RDRLP Policy TP5 (Public Transport), and also for the creation of passing places and highway improvements on the route from the bus stop at the Lambourne Hall Road/Creeksea Ferry Road junction to Wallasea Island to maintain the safety and flow of the highway network. It is considered inappropriate to require provision for works any further afield, or for the repair/maintenance of existing roads, as the traffic associated with the development itself would be limited to the arrival of heavy construction machinery at the beginning of the
Page 80 of 128
project and departure at the end, together with occasional maintenance or replacements. It is not considered that this would have a significant impact on the highway network, including Apton Hall Road, Brays Lane, Gore Road and Creeksea Ferry Road.
The application does not in itself propose a visitors’ centre or public facilities and these would be subject to a further planning application should the applicant wish to apply. It is, however, recognised that the creation of a nature reserve has the potential to increase visitor numbers, and therefore vehicle numbers to the area. The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement which predicts that this could potentially be up to 100,000 visitors per year (50,000 vehicles) based on studies carried out on three existing nature reserves run by the applicant in England. However, this is significantly greater than the expected number of visitors, which the applicant expects to be closer to 50,000. In this respect it is considered appropriate to require the provision of a comprehensive signing scheme from the existing strategic road network to the site, avoiding the minor village routes. The route and sign details would be agreed with the Highway Authority and the signs would be required to be in place prior to commencement of development should planning permission be granted.
The highway impacts have been considered in the context that visitors to the nature reserve would be unlikely to impact on peak traffic flow times on the highway routes surrounding the area, and also that visitor facilities are not proposed as part of this application. The predicted increase in traffic would not take the existing roads beyond their capacity and the Highway Authority has no concerns about highway safety. It is therefore considered unlikely that people would travel long distances to a site with no public amenities, although it is accepted that local people would be likely to use the site for recreation or exercise as many people already do.
The development is therefore considered to adhere to the requirements of WLP Policy W10E.
The EPOA Parking Standards 2001 and RDRLP Policy TP8 (Car Parking Standards) provide the parking requirements for Class D2 Assembly and Leisure uses such as those proposed. The standard for this type of development is 1 space per 22m2. The applicant has proposed the provision of 2 car parks; 1 for the designated ‘dog walking area’ and 1 main car park. It is proposed that the dog walking car park would be 0.031ha (310m2) in area and contain space for 10 cars, and the main car park would be 1.6ha (16,000m2) in area and contain space for 100 cars and 2 coaches. Details of the car parking areas would be required to be submitted and approved by condition should planning permission be granted.
Given that the application area is 677 hectares, it is considered inappropriate to allow the maximum provision of spaces in this case. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the car parking proposals but does require that the vehicular hardstandings should have minimum dimensions of 2.5m x 5.0m in accordance with the emerging Parking Standards. These standards are considered to be a material consideration and it is appropriate to require the development to accord with them.
Page 81 of 128
The applicant would also be required to provide details of cycle parking and two wheeler parking facilities and vehicle loading/unloading and manoeuvring areas should planning permission be granted.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the development is considered to accord with RDRLP Policy TP8 (Car Parking Standards).
The closest train station to the application area is located in Burnham on the opposite side of the River Crouch. It is accessed by using the Wallasea Ferry to the Essex Marina, located off of Creeksea Ferry Road. At present an hourly ferry service is run from 10:00 until 18:00 on weekends and bank holidays from Easter/Whitsun to the end of September.
The nearest bus stop is located at Loftman’s Corner Canewdon, approximately 1.6km from the island. In terms of cycle routes, the routes surrounding the proposed reserve are particularly suitable for cycling.
It is accepted that the site is not readily accessible by public transport but it can be accessed sustainably if people are willing to use multimodal transport and this would be encouraged by the applicant. It is noted that nature reserves are generally located in rural, relatively inaccessible areas and as such the application site’s accessibility is not considered to be unreasonable.
E. RIGHTS OF WAY/PUBLIC ACCESS
A temporary diversion of Footpath 21 was originally proposed as part of this project in order to negotiate around the proposed conveyor and sediment pipe. After consultation with the County Council’s Definitive Map Officer, it was decided that the proposal would be modified so that a diversion would no longer be necessary. The definitive route of Footpath 21 is now proposed to be maintained over the conveyor/sediment pipe by use of an appropriate footbridge, the design of which could be approved by planning condition should planning permission be granted. An alternative permissive route would also be provided along the line of the previously proposed diversion for people not wishing to use the footbridge.
Maintenance of the existing Footpath 21 is undertaken by the current landowner, however it is proposed that once the land has transferred into the applicant’s ownership the mowing of the path would be embedded into that agreement.
RDRLP Policy TP6 (Safeguarding and the Promotion of Walking, Cycling and Horseriding Routes) states that planning permission will not be granted for development affecting existing routes unless the proposals include the maintenance or diversion of the route. WLP Policy W10G (Rights of Way) requires the implementation of measures to safeguard and improve the rights of way network. The breaching of sea walls in cell 1 would create the need for a permanent closure of the terminal end of Footpath 21. However, more than 15km of permissive rights of way are proposed across the site and would be maintained by the applicant in perpetuity. They would be 1-2m in width and would be located on the earth banks comprising the cell boundaries. Two viewing mounds would be
Page 82 of 128
provided to give views of the site and provide refuge in times of exceptional flooding. This would be in addition to the seven viewing platforms proposed along the permissive paths. Taking into account the proposed permissive paths, it is considered acceptable for the end of Footpath 21 to be extinguished as the ethos of RDRLP Policy TP6 (Safeguarding and the Promotion of Walking, Cycling and Horseriding Routes) and WLP Policy W10G (Rights of Way) would be maintained.
No specific proposals for a new ferry/water taxi landing area have been included in the application due to the need to cross land in other ownerships to access the bulk of the application area. The most suitable landing points would necessitate crossing of the Defra site to the north and risk compromising the ability of this area to meet its bird targets and sustain biodiversity. Once the Defra targets have been met the applicant has stated that it would be possible to assess the impacts of including a landing platform and to seek further access agreement with Defra.
The applicant has committed to working with existing providers to promote the use of the existing Wallasea Marina access. The applicant would explore the possibility of a spring/summer weekend and Burnham Week mini-bus shuttle service from Wallasea Island Marina to the site. Prior to the opening of the breaches in cell 1 the applicant has proposed to produce a Ferry/Water Taxi Visitor Access Plan to examine the feasibility of providing access close to the application site’s Discovery and Adventure Zones. This would be produced in consultation with Defra, the owner of the western parcel of land adjacent to the site, the Crouch Harbour Authority and existing operators.
It is noted that permissive access rights are already provided in the application area. This is provided by Wallasea Farms as part of an existing Countryside Stewardship Agreement. The applicant has provided details of where these routes can be viewed on Natural England’s website. However, the routes do not appear to be signed on the ground and the applicant considers that they are therefore not widely known about or used extensively.
The length of the existing permissive rights of way is stated to be 1.1km on the Natural England website, and whilst the routes proposed by the applicant would not be in the same location they would be significantly longer in extent, sign posted and widely promoted. It should also be noted that the existing permissive access ends on 30 September 2012, whereas the proposed access would be maintained in perpetuity. It is therefore considered that the proposed routes would provide an overall higher quality experience for walkers.
F. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
There are no trees on the application site, which is very flat and comprises agricultural land, salt marsh and tidal estuary.
Essex County Council’s landscape advisor has stated that there may be the possibility of establishing, for example, Elm trees on the island as it is an area where there would be unlikely to be any beetle attack on them. However, he has also stated that it would be best to leave the island without trees in the main.
Page 83 of 128
It has been suggested that a landscape master plan is submitted prior to deposition of materials in the final locations indicating in further detail the manner in which features would be laid out and details of structures such as footpaths, fences, ditches, hides and planting.
The applicant has proposed quite detailed restoration drawings and is reluctant to include trees in the main areas of the site. However, the applicant would be willing to produce a landscape plan for the car park areas to include shrubs and possibly trees.
Due to the nature of the proposals (i.e. habitat creation for a nature reserve) and bearing in mind that trees would not be necessary for the creation of such habitat, trees are not considered to be appropriate for the site.
RDRLP Policy CS8 (Retaining Character of Place) requires the local planning authority to take account of the contribution to the local identity and sense of place when assessing development proposals. Likewise, RDRLP Policy NR1 (Special Landscape Areas) states that development will not be allowed unless, among other requirements, the landscaping proposals accord with the character of the area in which the development is proposed. It is considered that the introduction of trees in this area would be out of character and not conform to these policies.
Conversely, RDRLP Policy CS2 (Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural Environment) states that it is the Council’s aim to protect, sustain and enhance the district’s natural resources and cultural heritage through the application of the policies and proposals in the plan for future generations to enjoy and to ensure that new development contributes to environmental quality.
It is considered that a landscape scheme could be required by condition should planning permission be granted and that this could include landscaped areas around the car parks. The applicant has also proposed that landscape issues could be discussed at annual meetings with the Waste Planning Authority, when things such as alternative designs for hides and micromanagement could be discussed and agreed.
In addition to this, the Environmental Statement includes information about the applicant’s commitment to producing a management plan which would detail the objectives of the site, how it is intended to achieve those objectives and how progress towards that achievement would be measured. The applicant has proposed that Essex County Council’s landscape advisor would have input into the management plan. These proposals are considered to be acceptable and sensible options for the development of the site.
The above measures would ensure that the development contributes to environmental quality. The natural resources of the area, including provision for habitat creation, would be enhanced (as discussed above) and the development is therefore considered to comply with RDRLP Policy CS2 (Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural Environment).
RDRLP Policy NR8 (Other Landscape Features of Importance for Nature
Page 84 of 128
Conservation) requires the protection of existing landscape features unless it can be proven that the reasons for the development outweigh the need to retain the feature and that mitigating measures can be provided to reinstate the nature conservation value of the features.
The land is currently used for agriculture and contains few landscape features such as trees, hedgerows or marshes. However, one of the principle aims of the project is to create habitats to contribute to BAP coastal habitats and species (as discussed previously in this report). Therefore, the project would actually result in the gain of landscape features of importance for nature conservation.
It is considered that the unloading facility and the machinery associated with earth moving and placement of materials would be most visible to neighbouring properties during the construction phase of the development. However, the finished nature reserve would be totally compatible with the rural location and this, together with the proposed landscaping, is considered to ensure that the development would comply with RDRLP Policies NR1 (Special Landscape Areas) and NR8 (Other Landscape Features of Importance for Nature Conservation), and the aspect of WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) which requires satisfactory provision to be made for the effect of the development on the landscape, the countryside and areas with special landscape designations.
G. NOISE, DUST, ODOUR AND LIGHT
WLP Policy W10E (Development Control) requires the effect of noise, smell and dust on neighbouring occupiers to be satisfactorily addressed by waste management development proposals. These aspects will be considered below.
The transport of material by ship, then unloading and transfer by conveyor or pump to site is proposed to take place on a 24 hour basis 7 days a week.
This is required in order to make effective and economic use of the fleet of ships transporting material from the 24 hour, 7 day a week generation of material from the Crossrail project. It would also allow maximum use of the tides by enabling access by ships on both high tides in a 24 hour period. The 24 hour working would also help to ensure that the Crossrail project keeps to its programme.
Concerns have been raised from Maldon District Council about the potential noise impacts of the proposed workings. This is a major consideration for amenity especially considering the proposed 24 hour working over several years.
The main concerns are: The impact of night time working, whether or not the workings can be classified as ‘temporary’, proposed mitigation measures and clarification of activities proposed during daytime hours.
A Noise Assessment has been submitted as part of the Environmental Statement, however in addition to this the applicant has submitted three supplementary documents in response to the concerns raised over working hours and noise generation.
Page 85 of 128
It is proposed that normal working hours would be 07:00-19:00 hours Monday- Friday and 07:00-13:00 hours on Saturdays. On Sundays, only non-disturbing preparatory works, repairs and maintenance would be carried out and only between 08:00-16:00 hours.
The transport of materials by ship, unloading and transfer to stockpile by conveyor or pump would be required on a 24 hour, 7 day basis.
It is proposed that approval for longer working hours required for breaching works on a temporary basis (in order to make use of tidal cycles within lower spring tides) would be sought from the Waste Planning Authority three months prior to the planned start dates.
An appropriately worded condition could be imposed, as advocated by WLP Policy W10F (Hours of Operation), should planning permission be granted.
Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England – Annex 2: Noise provides national guidance on the topic of noise. Although it is recognised that the development proposed relates to waste and not minerals, MPS2 is the most relevant guidance as opposed to the Industrial (BS5228) Noise Standards previously used by the applicant.
The applicant is confident that noise control measures to the engines and thrusters and the design of the winches taking into account BAT would mean that no additional noise control measures would be required for vessel movements and anchoring, ship based crane excavators and mobile plant excavators during night time hours (19:00-07:00 hours). Measures to control noise from unloading material to the conveyor/hopper have been proposed, as have measures to control the conveyor operation and the sediment pumps.
It is predicted that evening noise limits of 42-44dBLAeq (Background plus 10dB) and night time noise limits of 42dBLAeq would be achieved at the nearest noise sensitive properties in Burnham as required by MPS2. The impact at all other receptor sites, including the farmhouse and cottages on Creeksea Ferry Road, are considered to be minor.
Nevertheless, it is proposed that a condition requiring regular monitoring of noise levels at suitable locations could be imposed should planning permission be granted.
In terms of the temporary working proposed, MPS2 does allow increased daytime noise limits of up to 70dBLAeq1h for periods of up to eight weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work. The breaching works are proposed to take place for three two- four week periods over the lifetime of the build process, so at maximum proposed duration the works would last for 12 weeks, taking it over the definition of a temporary activity as defined by MPS2. However, the proposal for the applicant to seek approval for such working would allow the Waste Planning Authority to control the duration and impacts.
Page 86 of 128
All of these proposals and mitigation measures mean that the development is considered to comply with RDRLP Policy PN5 (Noise Generating Development), which requires development to be designed and operated in such a way that it minimises the impact of noise nuisance on the environment.
Dust
Wallasea Island does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area. An assessment has been made of the potential impacts on air quality for people and residential areas as a result of emissions from vehicles associated with the proposed development. The assessment concluded that the impact of the scheme on air quality in relation to road traffic emissions would be negligible.
The nearest properties lie on Creeksea Ferry Road, at Burnham-on-Crouch and on Foulness Island but all are located 1.5km-2km distant from the main areas of proposed earthworks. At least one existing or proposed wall would be located between the areas of activity and the residences.
Most of the proposed works would take place below the heights of the surrounding wall, thereby minimising dust emissions. The height of the proposed temporary store for imported material would not exceed the height of the existing sea wall or the dividing cell walls and vehicle speeds would be limited. In dry and windy conditions mitigation measures would be employed to keep dust at a minimum including the use of water bowsers on storage areas and haul routes and regular compaction of haul routes. A dust assessment report has been provided which includes these mitigation measures.
Odour
Due to the inert nature of the waste material proposed to be imported to the site it is not considered that odour would create a nuisance for neighbouring residents.
Light
Lighting would include navigational marking of two vertical red lights at either end of the unloading facility and marker buoys as appropriate. Measures would be taken to minimise light spillage onto the water surface.
Lighting would be placed at waist height along the length of the conveyor. Night- time down-lit flood lighting would be required at the unloading location throughout the development.
It is further suggested that a condition requiring details of the type and location of lighting to be used could be required should planning permission be granted.
It is therefore considered that the development would comply with the requirements of WLP Policy W10E (Development Control).
H FLOODING
Page 87 of 128
Wallasea Island was claimed as land from the estuary in the 13th or 14th Century, having formerly been a network of islands and intertidal habitats. Man-made interventions and agricultural activities since then have led to flat topography with straight field/ditch alignments. Many years of settlement have led to the island sitting 2.5m lower than the surrounding costal marshes. The application area is effectively a basin of land containing no built infrastructure which is situated entirely within the tidal floodplain and flood risk area.
Creeksea Ferry Road is the route used to access Wallasea Island and parts of this access is inundated for a short period on spring tides.
Existing coastal defences surround the site and are just over 3m higher than the land. They are in a deteriorating condition and the Environment Agency has made a judgement that they will not be maintained in future.
If a breach were to occur approximately 11 million cubic metres of sea water would inundate the island on each tide, most likely through the middle of the south side of the island where the defences are lowest and weakest. This area is the prime location for shellfish activities and includes the area covered by the 1992 River Roach Oyster Fishery Order Roach Estuary. The flow on each tide would be increased by almost 70% and would increase erosion on the coast.
The Environment Agency’s Flood Management Strategy recommends managed realignment as the long-term flood management policy for the majority of Wallasea Island, subject to economic viability and further assessment.
The Strategy shows that natural breaching of the flood defences could lead to significant flooding of the Island, impacts on the hydrodynamics of the estuary and stress on the existing estuary defences. Around 5% of the seawalls around the proposal site have less than 10 years life left and most of the island’s clay embankments are in relatively poor condition. The height of existing defences is such that the lower ones may be overtopped by a 1 in 5 year storm surge. This sort of unmanaged overtopping would affect the whole island as it is so flat and could lead to a similar situation as the flooding in the 1953 floods. 11Mm3 of additional water would be introduced into the Roach/Crouch estuary system which could, among other detrimental impacts, affect the oyster lays in Paglesham Creek to the west of Wallasea Island. Breaches have not been proposed in Paglesham Creek in order to ensure no significant flow changes in this area.
Modelling has shown that a volume of 3Mm3 could be accommodated by the estuary without adverse effects, hence this proposal for 2Mm3 to enter and leave the site on spring tides. This amount of water would replicate natural tidal cycles and help in the creation of wetland.
A new counterwall on the border of cells 3 and 5 is proposed to defend the buildings on the west of the island. This would be built to higher protection levels and would reduce the line of defence, and thus the cost of long-term seawall maintenance. The maintenance of this wall would be funded by the applicant/landowner.
Page 88 of 128
Additionally, cell 3 of the scheme has the potential to act as a flood storage area and help to reduce flood risk across the estuary.
The application site lies within the Coastal Protection Belt. RSP Policy CC1 (The Undeveloped Coast – Coastal Protection Belt) and RDRLP Policy NR10 (Coastal Protection Belt) require stringent restrictions on development in such areas and states that any development which is exceptionally permitted in this area shall not adversely affect the open and rural character, historic features or wildlife. The open nature of the site and impact on ecology, wildlife and historic features has been discussed in the previous sections of this report. The impact on these aspects has been considered bearing in mind the negative impacts that are likely to occur if the development does not go ahead and an unmanaged breach takes place. The development is considered to have significant benefits for wildlife which outweigh the impact on historic features, as these features would be destroyed by flooding in the medium term in any case. The development is therefore considered to comply with RSP Policy CC1 (The Undeveloped Coast – Coastal Protection Belt) and RDRLP Policy NR10 (Coastal Protection Belt).
The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as required by RDRLP Policy NR11 (Development within Flood Risk Areas). The FRA concludes that wetland creation is a water compatible development under Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and a suitable use for Wallasea Island. The following mitigation measures against flooding are proposed:
- The addition of a 5.0mAOD sea wall - 6.0mAOD safe refuges, - the ability to close the site to visitors, - appropriate signage warning , - the provision of an evacuation plan, - a full time warden to patrol the site and evacuate when necessary, - sign up to the Environment Agency’s flood warning system, typically providing 12 hours warning of extreme events.
The Environment Agency and Emergency Planning team raise no concerns about flooding in their consultation responses, simply requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the FRA and that new sea walls have a minimum crest level of 5m AOD, as proposed.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with WLP Policy W4A (Flood Control) as the risk of flooding, surface water runoff and the protection of existing and proposed flood defences have been adequately considered and addressed.
I. WATER QUALITY
WLP Policy W4B (Water Pollution) states that waste management development will only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters or of impediment to groundwater flow.
Page 89 of 128
The applicant has provided a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of the development on water and sediment quality through the mobilisation of sediments and any associated contaminants, either from material being released through the breach locations or from spillages/accidents during construction.
The assessment concludes that the widths of the proposed breaches have been designed to be wider than needed to ensure that the channels through the breaches would have a stable configuration and would not be subject to significant erosion. The flow speeds after the proposed realignment should also not cause erosion of the intertidal habitats, thereby ensuring that the suspended sediments in the estuary would not rise significantly. This is confirmed by monitoring of the existing Defra site which has similar breaches and breach channels to the proposed scheme and has remained stable.
The risk from accidental release of pollutants has been assessed as negligible due to the applicant’s intention to gain advance agreement for the construction methods and scheme designs.
The scheme has been designed to be a net importer of sediment with little opportunity for sediment to be transported out of the site once in. It is noted that land currently used as agriculture may contain pollutants. This would be mitigated against by ensuring that areas to be inundated would be set aside for at least a year prior to tidal inundation, ensuring that any residues would be naturally diluted by rainwater.
All of the above is noted in the knowledge that an uncontrolled breach (which could happen in the relatively near future without the proposed realignment scheme) would cause a substantial risk of contamination in the estuary from the release of land-borne contaminants.
It is further acknowledged that the creation of intertidal habitat and the use of Regulated Tidal Exchange in cell 3 would be likely to increase oxygen levels in the Roach and trap carbon, thus leading to overall benefits.
Therefore it is considered that there would be no significant risk to surface water quality, the development could even improve the status of the Crouch and Roach and is considered to comply with WLP Policy W4B (Water Pollution). J. IMPACT ON SAILING
Concern has been raised by consultees that unforeseen adverse hydrodynamic consequences of the development could occur and that remedial works would have to be undertaken by the Crouch Harbour Authority (CHA) as the statutory harbour and navigation authority for the Rivers Crouch and Roach. Much interest has been shown by consultees in the requirement for a scheme of insurance or indemnity to ensure that the applicant would pay for any unforeseen adverse consequences or decaying flood walls.
It is understood that the CHA’s concerns over erosion of sea walls arises from the Defra scheme. In order to mitigate against an unmanaged breach or wall collapse two distinct measures are proposed for this project which were not pursued for the
Page 90 of 128
Defra scheme. The first would be infilling inside the existing sea wall to fix the wall alignments. This landraising would extend from the existing wall heights (approx 4.5mAOD) to the existing land elevations (1mAOD) over distances of 50-300m. This would be carried out on all estuary-facing parts of the island (i.e. cells 1, 2 and 4). Secondly, the fronting rock revetment would be stripped away for a distance of 60-100m either side of the breaches and then reused within the site. This would avoid collapse into navigable sections of the channel near the breaches.
Although there has been no commitment from the applicant for the long term maintenance of the existing sea walls, it is recognised that they would continue to collapse and breach in uncontrolled ways without the proposed realignment. Considering that the walls would no longer serve a flood defence purpose post- breaching, the above mitigation methods against erosion are considered acceptable.
It is not considered acceptable or reasonable in planning terms to require the applicant to provide sums of money for any unforeseen circumstances; neither would such a request meet the relevant tests for planning obligations as set out in ODPM Circular 05/2005. The Crouch Harbour Authority accepts that the applicant has used considerable resources on highly reputable consultants who have concluded that tidal streams and patterns of shoaling and siltation would be minor and within acceptable limits. The Environment Agency also does not foresee any significant negative impacts on coastal processes. There have also been a variety of requests put forward for a restriction of hours of use of the river for shipping associated with the proposed project. The applicant has stated that a plan to manage shipping movements would be devised with the Crouch Harbour Authority. This would enable the use of the river to be shared without significant adverse effects on sailing clubs, with shipping movements timed around Burnham Week (the regatta held in the last week of August) and other important times. This ‘shipping management plan’ could be required by condition should planning permission be granted and the Crouch Harbour Authority would be consulted on the submission. Such a plan could include:
- Identification of critical and important sailing times including Burnham Week, some weekends, bank holidays and Wednesday evenings - Further assessment of potential conflicts - Physical changes to racing course layouts - Provision of handheld radios to enable communication between ship movements and sailing race managers - Making AIS (Automated Identification System) data available to the Crouch harbour Authority for their website - Periodic updates of shipping movement frequency to the Crouch Harbour Authority - Promotion of the project and visiting arrangements by water. - Creation of an area for safe youth training and sailing if this can be achieved through relocation of current mooring buoys or development of a suitable area.
The applicant has also confirmed that the overall project timescale (completion by 2019) would not be affected by these shipping management measures.
Page 91 of 128
The applicant has indicated that the exact design of the unloading facility (currently proposed as 250m long and 25m wide) would not be known until a later date and until a Works Licence has been obtained from the Harbour Authority. The details submitted have been proposed as a worst case scenario. Although it is acknowledged that the current application is for detailed planning permission it is also suggested that a condition could be imposed to require full details of the construction and design of the unloading facility in acknowledgement of the applicant’s likely need to change the current proposals and in order to allow full consultation with the Crouch Harbour Authority. This would allow the concerns over the size of the facility to be addressed at a later date.
It is further suggested that a condition could be imposed requiring signs to be erected to indicate the extent of public access rights across the proposed intertidal creeks and the fact that the CHA would not have responsibility for users of those creeks. Also, conditions could be imposed requiring signage and navigational marking of breaches and associated hazards or obstructions (this has been agreed with the applicant), provision for public access by river via ferry/excursion vessel and dinghy/tender (which the applicant has already committed to, subject to further feasibility work), and construction and operation of the jetty to take place with regard to navigational safety and avoidance of conflict with sailing and yacht racing activities.
With regard to access for other boats on the southern application boundary, the applicant has proposed access for kayaks in cell 4. Consideration of extending this to other types of boats would be made as part of the overall feasibility for access provision from Burnham.
K. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
The application area consists entirely of agricultural land. An unmanaged breach of the existing sea defences would adversely and permanently affect the agricultural value of the land as well as destroying habitat for species such as the brown hare and water vole.
RDRLP Policy NR13 (Creation of Intertidal Habitats) states that the creation of such habitats will be permitted provided it can be demonstrated through consultation with appropriate bodies that the benefits of the proposed new habitats clearly outweigh the loss of other natural habitats, or (in this case) agricultural land.
The appropriate body in this case is Natural England, which has no objection to the proposals. Although Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states that the use of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) should be avoided, it is noted that the majority of the agricultural land which would be lost is not Best and Most Versatile land (and therefore not vital for food production). The quality of the land in general was degraded in the 1960s or 1970s due to the bulldozing of topsoil into creeks to level the land when converting it from coastal habitat to arable cropping.
It is also worth considering the fact that current drainage problems mean that
Page 92 of 128
considerable investment would be required if the land were to be farmed profitably in arable rotation.
The existing sea defences are not in good repair and the Environment Agency has stated that future public investment for their maintenance would be unlikely to be forthcoming. This means that without private investment an unmanaged breach would be very likely within the near future.
It is therefore considered that the benefits for habitat creation and protection from flooding already discussed in this report, have been shown to outweigh the proposed loss of agricultural land. This opinion is formed in the knowledge that an unmanaged breach would destroy the agricultural land and habitats in any case. The application is considered to comply with the requirements of RDRLP Policy NR13 (Creation of Intertidal Habitats).
It is, however, considered to be important that the existing topsoil is used sustainably as it is a finite resource. Therefore stripping of cells 1-4 should take place in accordance with best practice methods and the Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF, 2000). The presence of Agney Association and Wallasea 2 Association soils, mostly in Cell 1, should be confirmed by a competent soil scientist and the information used in the drawing up of soil stripping plans. The best soils should be used in the creation of grassland areas. All of this could be required through a suitably worded planning condition should planning permission be granted.
RSS Policy ENV4 (Agriculture, Land and Soils) requires planning authorities to encourage the sustainable use of soil resources and, where land has been degraded, to maximise opportunities for restoration to beneficial afteruses including amenity and habitat creation schemes. Taking the above factors into consideration the development is considered to comply with RSS Policy ENV4.
L. ARCHAEOLOGY
An archaeological assessment has been completed and submitted with the application.
There has been activity on the site since at least the Roman period, when a number of red hills (salt production sites) may have been situated on the island. Three of these are recorded in specific locations in the southern and eastern parts of the island but two others are only known to be roughly in the eastern area. None are visible in aerial photographs. In the 13th or 14th centuries the island was embanked and separated into a number of marsh areas enclosed by their own embankment, similar to that proposed as part of this application.
Flooding of the island has occurred on many occasions in the past, notably in 1953 when it was flooded to a depth of 5-6ft after the walls were overtopped and subsequent tides breached the northern sea walls.
Following this period, extensive re-drainage and levelling work took place in the
Page 93 of 128
1950s and 1970s.
RSS Policy ENV6 (The Historic Environment) requires the protection, conservation and, where appropriate, enhancement of the historic environment and cites ‘the highly distinctive environment of the coastal zone including….ancient salt manufacturing and fishing facilities, relict sea walls….’ as especially significant.
RDRLP Policy CS7 (Conserving and Enhancing Heritage) states that areas of architectural and historic significance should be taken account of when assessing development proposals and that new development should be encouraged to be of a high quality design that respects and enhances the environmental quality and character of the district’s urban and rural heritage.
Although it is noted that the site has had a varied history and that archaeological remains may be present, it is also apparent that the modern field system bears little relationship to the historic one. The ‘red hills’ are not visible at present and LiDAR data does not appear to show features that could be red hills, suggesting that any such remains still present in the 1920s would have been destroyed through re-drainage, levelling and ploughing. An unmanaged breach of the site would cover the remains in water in any case.
Archaeological monitoring is proposed to be undertaken throughout the works and a condition could be imposed to ensure this would be done to required standards should planning permission be granted. This would allow the recording and, if necessary, salvation of archaeological remains in accordance with the guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning and RSS Policy ENV 6 (The Historic Environment) and RDRLP Policy CS7 (Conserving and Enhancing Heritage).
M. AIRPORT SAFEGUARDING
The application site lies within the safeguarding zone for London Southend Airport. WLP Policy W10H (Airport Safeguarding) states that proposals for waste management facilities within safeguarding areas will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the development and the nature of the waste materials involved would not constitute a hazard to air traffic. Bearing in mind that the proposal is for a nature reserve which would attract birds, and that this could potentially increase the risk of bird strike, the applicant has included an assessment of aviation safety in the Environmental Statement.
The applicant has used monitoring of the existing Defra site to give an indication of the types of species and number of birds which might be attracted by the proposed project. The proposed habitat creation scheme is not expected to cause a significant increase in the abundances of birds that are seen as being a risk to aircraft. It is also noted that any increases in bird population would be unlikely to have an effect on bird strike as the majority of day-to-day bird movements occur between 30 and 300ft above ground level but little regular activity occurs above 1000ft. Aircraft using the most used runway at the airport would be expected to be flying at an altitude of between 1500 and 2000ft when passing the western end of the application site, thus they would miss the majority of bird flights in any case.
Page 94 of 128
The applicant has agreed to an aviation/bird management plan in consultation with airport safety personnel and overall the Environmental Impact Assessment considers the increased risk of bird strike to be negligible.
It is also noted that London Southend Airport has no objection to the proposed scheme.
Taking all of the above into consideration the application is considered to comply with WLP Policy W10H (Airport Safeguarding).
47. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is considered that all aspects of the development have been thoroughly addressed in light of planning policy.
It has been shown that the development would have considerable benefits in terms of habitat creation and protection and in the reduction of flood risk.
Although the site is currently used as arable farmland, the majority of the land is not Best and Most Versatile. The existing flood defences are deteriorating but the Environment Agency cannot commit to their upkeep in the future. Therefore without private investment in the sea walls the farmland would most likely be lost to the sea through an unmanaged breach of the flood defences in the relatively near future.
Public access to the site would be increased through the provision of permissive rights of way of far greater length than that which already exists.
Conditions could be imposed to ensure that the development would be acceptable in landscape and archaeological terms and in order to control impacts of noise, dust, and light so that they remain within acceptable limits.
Although the application is situated within an airport safeguarding area, the proposed development is not considered to be a hazard to air traffic and London Southend Airport has no objection.
The applicant has provided a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of the development on water and sediment quality and it is noted that the Environment Agency has no objection to any aspect of the development.
Sailing interests would be protected through the use of appropriate conditions and through the applicant’s commitment to work with the Crouch Harbour Authority as the development progresses. The method of transporting waste would be via sea, which is advocated by planning policy such as PPG13:Transport as a sustainable option that is preferable to road transport. The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with the principles of Planning Policy Statement 10.
Aspects of the development are considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt.
Page 95 of 128
However, very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to demonstrate that the harm caused by inappropriateness would be outweighed and it is considered that in this respect planning permission should be granted.
Taking all of this into account and considering the potentially disastrous effects that could be caused by an unmanaged breach, it is considered that the development would achieve benefits that would outweigh any harm caused through accepting waste sourced from outside of the County, as required by WLP Policy W3C. Therefore the need for the development is considered to have been adequately demonstrated and, subject to the conditions and agreements below, planning permission should be granted.
RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to:
the Secretary of State not calling in the application for her own determination, and
the completion within 12 months of a legal agreement relating to planning obligations/contributions for the provision and implementation of:
a. A developer covenant to ensure that the majority of the imported waste would be derived from the Crossrail project.
b. A financial contribution towards the upgrade of public transport facilities at the junction of Lambourne Hall Road and Creeksea Ferry Road.
c. A financial contribution towards the creation of passing places and highway improvements on Wallasea Island.
d. A S278 Agreement for the provision of a comprehensive signing scheme from the existing strategic road network to the site.
conditions covering the following matters:
1. C1 – Commencement within 3 years
2. C2 – Development in accordance with plans and details
3. GPDO1 – Removal of PD rights
4. Details of lighting and security to be submitted for approval
5. Dust suppression to accord with submitted details
6. AN1 – Noise limits (except for temporary breaching works approved under Condition 12), which shall not exceed background levels plus 10dB in the evening, 42dB LAeq at night and background plus 10dB during day at the nearest noise sensitive locations.
Page 96 of 128
7. AN2 – Monitoring noise levels, including night time surveying of background levels at Burnham Wick
8. AN3 – Sound insulation to be established
9. AN4 - White noise alarms
10. AN5 – Silencing of plant and machinery
11. C3 – Hours of use – Construction only permitted outside of overwintering period, normal working hours 07:00-19:00 Monday-Friday, 07:00-13:00 Saturdays, with only non-disturbing preparatory works permitted on Sundays between the hours of 08:00-16:00. Unloading and conveyor/pump transfer permitted 24 hours a day.
12. Approval to be sought for longer working hours for temporary activities three months prior to start of such activities.
13. LS2 - Soil movement scheme to ensure the use of the best soils in the proposed grassland area.
14. LS3 – Machine movement scheme.
15. LS4 – Stripping of top and sub soil.
16. LS8 – Soil handled in dry and friable condition.
17. Ag2 – Stockpile heights not to exceed height of existing sea wall or proposed cell dividing walls.
18. E1 – Wildlife habitat provision.
19. A scheme for the creation of barriers/ditches to discourage badgers from areas containing ground nesting birds to be submitted for approval.
20. Prior to commencement of development, details of a ‘shipping management plan’ to be submitted for approval.
21. Prior to commencement of development, details of cycle parking facilities to be submitted for approval.
22. Prior to commencement of development, details of powered two wheeler parking facilities to be submitted for approval.
23. Prior to commencement of development, areas within the site for vehicle loading/unloading and manoeuvring to be submitted for approval.
24. Prior to commencement of development, a Traffic Management Plan for control of construction vehicles to be submitted for approval.
Page 97 of 128
25. Details of car parking and surfacing materials to be submitted and approved.
26. H9 – Parking areas to be marked.
27. Dimensions of parking bays to be 2.5m x 5.0m minimum.
28. Ra2 – Aftercare scheme to be approved.
29. Rights of way/permissive routes to be maintained in perpetuity.
30. Details of unloading facility, including noise barrier if necessary to meet requirements of condition 6, to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of such facility.
31. Prior to conveyor/pipeline construction, details of footbridge to be submitted for approval.
32. Details of dewatering basin to be submitted for approval.
33. L1 – Soft and hard landscaping scheme (prior to breach of cell 1).
34. L2 – Replacement landscaping.
35. Details of proposed cell walls and flood defence wall, including cross sections, to be submitted and approved.
36. A feasibility study shall be carried out for the provision of public access by river. Access to be provided in accordance with approved details.
37. Ar1 – Archaeological survey(evaluation for creeks prior to breaching of cell 1).
38. Archaeological monitoring.
39. Details of site offices to be submitted for approval.
40. Development to be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment by Faber Mansell dated November 2008 and sea wall to be constructed with a minimum crest level of 5.0m AOD.
41. Details to be submitted for signage to show the status of the water areas to be created in terms of public access rights across intertidal creeks and to mark the breaches for navigational safety.
42. Cess1 – Expiration of planning permission 31 December 2019.
43. Cess3 – Equipment removed when not required (within 12 months of completion of final phase - including unloading facility).
44. No waste material shall be imported by road.
Page 98 of 128
45. LS12 – Phase commencement notification.
46. Aviation bird management plan to be submitted and approved.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DC/Shelley Birch/ESS/54/08/ROC
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
ROCHFORD – Southminster ROCHFORD – Rochford North ROCHFORD – Rochford South
Page 99 of 128
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR: WALLASEA ISLAND (Application ref: ESS/54/08/ROC)
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application and examines the main potential impacts associated with the development.
The eleven key subject areas identified are:
Physical/Hydrodynamic Environment Water and Sediment Quality Nature Conservation and Ecology Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Archaeology Navigation and Marine Recreation Road Transport Noise Air Quality Aviation Safety Agriculture
The significance of each key subject area has been identified as either negligible, minor adverse significance, moderate adverse significance or major adverse significance.
As a separate element not part of the EIA, a note was also provided on the expected socio-economic effects.
Physical/Hydrodynamic Environment
Six breaches are proposed to be created in the existing sea wall surrounding the eastern and southern boundaries of Wallasea Island. These breaches would allow tidal exchange and the creation of intertidal habitats.
Computer modelling and survey work has been carried out to show that the breaches would have a negligible impact on the shoreline as the flows through the breaches would not be sufficient to cause erosion of coastal sediments. However, in order to minimise the risk of an unmanaged breach the existing walls would be infilled on the landward side and the rock revetment would be stripped 60-100m either side of each breach.
Following realignment, flow speeds and water levels would change on a small scale but overall the short-term effects on the physical condition of the estuary would be minor. The maximum flow speed into and out of the breaches would be less than 1m/s and overall effects on hydrodynamics would be expected to be negligible.
Over hundreds of years the estuary would widen and deepen in its outer areas but the change has been assessed as minor as it should be considered in the context of the future of the estuary which would have a better ability to cope with sea level rise following realignment. Page 100 of 128
No export of sediment from the site is predicted and there are not expected to be any impacts on water quality or sediment accretion/erosion, resulting in a negligible impact.
Overall the effects on the physical environment are considered to be minor adverse.
Water and Sediment Quality
The sediments sampled in seven areas in front of the proposed breach locations on Wallasea Island have been assessed as having low levels of contamination when compared against UK Cefas guidelines, Dutch standards and Canadian guidelines. The proposed breaches are expected to be stable. Modelling has shown there would be no significant increase in suspended sediment in the estuary and the effects on water or sediment contamination are expected to be negligible.
Accidental pollutant releases would be controlled through consultation with the Environment Agency and the impact has been assessed as negligible with mitigation.
The existing farmland would be put into set aside for at least one year prior to breaching, thereby diluting any existing pollutants. Wet material would be carefully placed and contained and the release of land-borne contaminants into the estuary has therefore been assessed as negligible with mitigation.
The Regulated Tidal Exchange aspect of the development is expected to enrich the estuary with oxygen. This, together with the carbon sink properties of intertidal habitats, means that the overall impact of the development is considered to be minor beneficial.
Nature Conservation and Ecology
The Crouch and Roach estuaries are of high conservation value and are designated under national and international nature conservation legislation. These sites extend into the application area but the majority of the site is not designated. The Defra realignment scheme lies on the north shore of Wallasea Island and was created to provide habitat for overwintering birds, thereby contributing to the network of Natura 2000 designated sites.
The flooding of the application site would result in the loss of internationally important plant species and invertebrate communities on the seawall, in the borrow dyke and on the grassland berm immediately behind the existing seawall. However, the proposed creation of comparable habitat in cell 5 would offset these losses.
Minor loss of internationally protected saltmarsh and mudflat would occur in front of the proposed breaches, however the development would itself create this type of habitat and ultimately the site’s value for plants and invertebrate species is considered to be of moderate beneficial significance.
To avoid disturbance to nesting birds the affected areas would be cleared of vegetation prior to the spring months. In order to provide the best chance for Corn Bunting, two mitigation measures have been proposed. The first is the creation of a 15ha section in cell 5 to be managed as wild bird cover and the second is the intention to employ a
Page 101 of 128
farmland advisor for five years to encourage local farmers to enter into High Level Stewardship schemes. The effect on ground nesting birds is considered to be of moderate beneficial significance in the long term.
With respect to overwintering birds, the scheme proposes new habitats which would be managed to enhance bird value, and overall the site is considered to have major beneficial impacts for shorebirds.
Protected species have been identified, as have Essex BAP species, notably Brown Hare, Water Vole, Otter, Adder and Common Lizard, Badger and Invertebrates. Some invertebrates have been identified as being endangered under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red Data Book List.
Water voles use the borrow dykes and a remnant saltmarsh creek on the site. They would be encouraged to migrate naturally to mitigation habitat in cell 5 by draining down water levels.
Three badger setts have been found on site. One would not be affected and two would be closed.
The Adder and Common Lizard species would be removed from affected sea wall areas before breaching and relocated to a suitable place within the site.
Overall the impact on protected species is assessed as negligible to minor adverse effects with mitigation. Of course it is always borne in mind that the risk of unmanaged flooding (and damaging impacts to existing habitat) would be removed with the proposed development.
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Potential impacts on shellfisheries are considered to be negligible due to negligible changes being found in the water quality assessment. Modelling from existing realignment sites shows that the scheme would provide valuable feeding and nursery habitat for fin fish species (e.g. bass). Overall the impacts would be moderately beneficial.
Archaeology
Archaeological studies were carried out in 2002 and 2004 prior to the construction of the northern sea wall which forms part of the Defra sea wall. An additional walkover survey was carried out in July 2008.
From 4000BC-700BC the island was likely to have been an area of tidal flats, developing into marshland and possibly used as pasture.
From 100BC-400AD the island was the site of a number of red hills (salt production sites). Three were recorded on the Essex Historic Environment Record but none are visible on aerial photographs and their location remains unconfirmed.
Page 102 of 128
After the division of the marshland in 1086AD, as recorded in the Doomsday Book, the island was embanked in small sections in the 13th or 14th centuries.
The island has flooded many times, notably in 1953.
In the 1970s the land was levelled by a team of bulldozers over a period of 6 years and deep drainage was installed.
The archaeological assessment states that there is potential for red hills, seawalls, internal walls/ditches, loadings, farmsteads, wrecks/hulks, oyster pits and earthworks on the site; however the survival of such remains is unlikely due to the changes in the landscape during the late 20th century. A watching brief is proposed to be kept during excavation works and archaeological monitoring would take place during construction. Overall, the impacts on archaeology are considered to be negligible with mitigation.
Note: ECC’s Historic Environment Team recommend an archaeological evaluation of the relict creeks, which should be undertaken post determination and prior to the breeching of the sea wall.
Navigation and Marine Recreation
Commercial shipping has reduced in recent years and recreational craft are still the main users of the estuaries. The River Crouch has approximately 85 ship calls per year, all of which berth at the Baltic Wharf. The River Roach does not have any commercial traffic.
The Crouch and Roach are one of the leading sailing and power boating centres in the UK and Burnham-on-Crouch is a key centre. A number of established clubs, marinas, boatyards and organisations have a base of operation on the Estuary.
The rivers are also used for water skiing, power boating, canoeing, kayaking, windsurfing and charter angling boats.
The risk of collision with the unloading facility or ships has been assessed as negligible with mitigation (notices, active communication and appropriate markings/lighting).
Transient minor changes in flow and water levels are expected at the breach points but with notices to mariners and markings the impact has been assessed as negligible with mitigation.
The impact on other recreational activities, including wildfowling, would be moderately beneficial, as although the continuation of the wildfowling activity will need to be reviewed on completion of the project, a number of new or improved amenity opportunities would be provided or have the potential to be provided, for example new locations for angling, extensive permissive paths and an improved bird watching experience.
Overall the scheme is considered as moderately beneficial.
Road Transport
Page 103 of 128
A Traffic Assessment Report was submitted with the Environmental Impact Assessment. Three existing RSPB sites on the east coast were used to provide trip data but it is noted that none is directly comparable to the proposed site.
It was found that a reserve close to a large urban population is more likely to be used by the local community than more remote sites which attract greater numbers during the holidays. Reserves which can be visited in one day are less likely to experience seasonal peaks.
Two scenarios were assessed: 50,000 visitors per year or 25,000 vehicles (considered most likely) and 100,000 visitors per year or 50,000 vehicles (worst case scenario).
April was found to be the peak month. The worst case weekday vehicle trips would be one trip in the AM peak hour and 14 trips in the PM peak hour. At the weekend, the worst case peak hour would attract 40 trips.
Neither would attract a significant amount of additional traffic in the busiest weekday hours, resulting in an overall impact of negligible.
Note: A legal agreement has been requested by the Highway Authority for the provision of passing bays and highway improvements, the upgrade of public transport facilities at the junction of Lambourne Hall Road and Creeksea Ferry Road, and a comprehensive signing scheme to direct drivers along principle routes.
Noise
A Noise Assessment has been included in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The nearest noise sensitive properties would be the farmhouse and cottages on Creeksea Ferry Road. Baseline noise level data was also collected at Burnham-on-Crouch, located 1.2km from the proposed development across the River Crouch.
Originally, night time levels were assumed levels and the noise impacts were considered against BS5228: 1997 Guidance on Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. Daytime was deemed to be between 07:00 and 23:00 hours and night time 23:00 and 07:00 hours.
The biggest impact was found to be at Burnham-on-Crouch at night, where the impact could be moderate. Therefore, mitigating measures such as acoustic barriers on the platform were proposed.
Following consultation with the County Council’s noise consultant, the applicant submitted supplementary information that considered the noise impacts against MPS2 and the period from 19:00-07:00 hours. In order to control noise it is suggested that equipment could be designed to ensure noise levels of background plus 10dB in the evenings and noise levels of 42dBLAeq, 1h at night would not be exceeded, as follows:
Vessel movements and anchoring would be designed so that engines, thrusters and winches would take into account Best Available Techniques to control noise.
Page 104 of 128
Ship-based crane excavators and mobile plant excavators would be designed using appropriate silencing and engine enclosures. Unloading of material from the conveyor/hopper would be placed from the lowest height possible and hoppers could be lined. Grab buckets could be fitted with rubber. The conveyors would be electric powered using noise suppressed generators. Pumping of sediment is not expected to cause noise issues.
Overall the noise impacts during construction are predicted to be minor with mitigation.
Note: Noise monitoring would still be required by condition to ensure acceptable noise limits. Air Quality
Air quality and dust assessment reports have been submitted with the Environmental Impact Assessment.
The topsoil and subsoil stripping, excavations, transportation, movement and stockpiling of materials on site associated with the earthworks and construction of the cells have the potential to create dust.
Considering the distance of receptors to the main areas of earthworks (a minimum of 1.5km) and dust minimising factors such as:- work to be undertaken mainly below the heights of the surrounding wall; high clay content or wet nature of imported material; height of stockpile not to exceed height of sea walls or proposed dividing wall; limited vehicle speeds on site; and minimal need for plant to leave the site for the duration of the project, there is only expected to be potential for dust in certain dry, windy conditions.
Overall the impacts are considered to be negligible with mitigation.
Aviation Safety
The application site lies within the airport safeguarding area for London Southend Airport, and therefore the potential impacts on aviation have been assessed.
The project is to create a reserve which would attract birds. The existing Defra site has been monitored to give an indication of the types of species and number of birds which might be attracted by the proposed project. The proposed habitat creation scheme is not expected to cause a significant increase in the abundances of birds that are seen as being a risk to aircraft. It is also noted that any increases in bird population would be unlikely to have an effect on bird strike as the majority of day-to-day bird movements occur between 30 and 300ft above ground level but little regular activity occurs above 1000ft. Aircraft using the most used runway at the airport would be expected to be flying at an altitude of between 1500 and 2000ft when passing the western end of the application site, thus they would miss the majority of bird flights in any case.
The applicant has agreed to an aviation/bird management plan in consultation with airport safety personnel and overall the increased risk of bird strike is considered to be negligible. Page 105 of 128
Agriculture
The site at Wallasea Island is currently used for arable agriculture. The land is not of the highest quality and significant investment in the sea walls and drainage system would be required in order for the land to continue to be farmed.
The Environment Agency has indicated that funding for the future maintenance of the sea walls will not be forthcoming. The topsoil in cells 1-4 would be stripped according to best practice guidance and reused in the proposed grassland areas.
Overall, considering the risk of an unmanaged breach and the damage to the farmland that would cause, the effects of the loss of the land are considered to be negligible.
Page 106 of 128
AGENDA ITEM 6a
DR/15/14
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 April 2014
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL Unauthorised Development: A material change of use of the land from agricultural land to land used for the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials, substantially raising the land levels Location: Land at Michelins Farm, Southend Arterial Road, Rayleigh, Essex SS6 7NG Ref: ENF/0614
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong Tel: 03330 136823
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford LicencePage L000107 19602 of 128
1. BACKGROUND AND SITE
The unauthorised importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials, has taken place on the land known as Michelins Farm in Rayleigh Essex.
Michelins farm is a parcel of land situated within the District of Rochford .The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined within the Rochford District Council Local Plan Proposals Map and is highly visible from the A130/A127. The permitted use of the land is for agriculture. This site has a complex history and there have been numerous breaches of planning control over many years resulting in continued investigation by Rochford District Council (RDC) and the Environment Agency (EA).
In 2002 Rochford District Council issued 3 enforcement notices on the land.
The breach of planning control alleged by Rochford District Council was, in summary, for the unauthorised:
Storage of tyres Parking and storage of vehicles Storage of waste materials, including builders rubble, scrap metal, timber, disused fencing panels, vehicle parts including engines, disused plant, tanks and machinery, oil drums, wooden pallets, plastic containers/bottles, gas bottles, telegraph poles, plastic pipes, discarded window frames; and parking of caravans on the site and the erection of three mobile buildings.
The enforcement notices were appealed by the landowner. After the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision dated the 20 November 2002, the landowner appeared to have understood that all 3 enforcement notices had been quashed. However, only one had been quashed. The landowner believed that all 3 notices had been quashed because a letter sent to him by the Planning Inspectorate, dated 5 December 2002 appeared to have led him to this conclusion. Such was the confusion that Rochford District Council withdrew its legal case at a Court hearing (22 April 2004) for non-compliance with the two extant enforcement notices.
More recently further unauthorised activities taking place on the site included the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials. These activities were considered to fall outside of the activities required to cease by the District Council enforcement notices. Accordingly, the unauthorised deposit of waste was considered to be a ‘County Matter’ and the Waste Planning Authority issued a Temporary Stop Notice on the 13 June 2011 and the activities subsequently ceased.
The Waste Planning Authority (WPA) considered it expedient to take enforcement action to remove all waste and restore the land to its former agricultural use and on 29 June 2011 an enforcement notice was served.
The requirements of the enforcement notice were:
Page 108 of 128
1. Cease and do not resume, the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land 2. Remove from the land all the waste materials including imported soils rubble wood and other waste materials. 3. Remove from the land all machinery, plant and equipment used in connection with the unauthorised development. 4. Restore the land to its condition prior to commencement of the unauthorised development.
An appeal was lodged by the landowner against the enforcement notice and a Planning Inspector was appointed to consider the appeal by way of written representations.
The appeal decision, dated 22 May 2012, upheld the WPA’s enforcement notice subject varying the time for removal of the waste from 6 months to 12 months from the date of decision (22 May 2012) and from 7 months to 14 months for restoration of the land.
Compliance with the enforcement notice should therefore have been achieved by 22 May 2013 (removal of waste) and by 22 July 2013 for the restoration of the land.
In January 2013 the WPA was made aware that Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency were prosecuting the land owner for non-compliance with the outstanding enforcement notices issued by those bodies. The outcome was an Order pursuant to Regulation 44 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
It was apparent from this Order that there were a number of requirements not dissimilar to the requirements of the WPAs enforcement notice.
Joint visits were carried out by Rochford District Council, WPA and the Environment Agency, to continue to check any compliance with the court order and outstanding enforcement notices. These site visits confirmed that there remained a breach of planning control and there was no evidence to suggest that the landowner had carried out any works to attempt to comply with the WPAs enforcement notice.
On the 31 July 2013 the site, known as Michelins Farm, was again visited to check compliance with the requirements of the WPA’s enforcement notice.
On inspecting the site it was noted that the waste materials, including imported soils, wood and other waste materials remained on the site. The enforcement notice had not been complied with.
2. CURRENT POSITION
Legal advice has been sought on initiating a prosecution in the courts for non- compliance with WPA’s enforcement notice.
Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency have been before the
Page 109 of 128
Crown Court seeking an order from the judge to deal with the same issues (i.e. removal of waste) as the WPAs enforcement notice.
Essex County Council as WPA, Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency continue joint visits to Michelins Farm, to ensure land is cleared in accordance with High Court Reg 44 Order. Full compliance with this court order was required by 31 January 2014. Further visits confirmed that the court order had not been complied with and the case was returned to the Crown court, an extension of time was given and the new compliance date is July 2014.
3. LEGAL ADVICE
If the WPA chose to prosecute for non-compliance of its enforcement notice, the landowner could raise an argument that there is an abuse of process argument as he is being prosecuted for the same ‘offences’ twice. Given the similar nature of the WPAs notice and the Order, the land owner would have a persuasive argument.
The prosecutor is bound by the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors. In bringing prosecutions on behalf of ECC they must satisfy that the test for bringing a prosecution has been reached.
The primary considerations in determining this are;
1. Whether the prosecution has a realistic prospect of success, and; 2. That it is within the public interest for the matter to be prosecuted.
Applying the above test, legal advice has concluded that the landowner would be entitled to argue the statutory defence. Based on the evidence, taking into account the facts of the Environment Agency’s prosecution, it was determined that the prospect of success was not sufficient to support a second prosecution.
The public interest test requires that matters are dealt with in an appropriate and proportionate manner and, as such, given that the Environment Agency has already commenced proceedings public resource should not be duplicated when the same aim is already being achieved by another agency.
In applying the public interest test, it is clear that there is a real likelihood that an abuse of process argument would be successful, given the similar nature of the WPAs notice and the Order.
Accordingly, legal advice indication that whilst ECC as Waste Planning Authority should continue to support the Environment Agency and Rochford District Council, it should not pursue a second prosecution at this time.
4. RECOMMENDED
That subject to Court Order (issued under the Environment Agency’s powers) being enforced or complied with, no further action is taken by the County Council
Page 110 of 128
as Waste Planning Authority in respect of the breach of the enforcement notice issued in June 2011.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
ROCHFORD – Rayleigh North ROCHFORD – Rayleigh South
Page 111 of 128
Page 112 of 128 AGENDA ITEM 7a
DR/16/14 committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 April 2014
ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL – INFORMATION
ITEM Enforcement update.
Report by Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth Enquiries to Suzanne Armstrong – Tel: 03330 136 823
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To update members of enforcement matters for the period 01 January to 31 March 2014 (Quarterly Period 1).
2. DISCUSSION
A. Outstanding Cases
As at 31 March 2014 there are 26 outstanding cases. Appendix 1 shows the details of sites (16) where, after investigation, a breach of planning control is considered to have occurred.
B. Closed Cases
9 cases were resolved during the period 01 January to 31 March 2014.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Count ywide
Page 113 of 128
Page 114 of 128 Enforcement Committee Report Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks Basildon Borough Marsh House, Vange Skips full of waste Ongoing monitoring SuzanneArmstrong 07- By-pass, Basildon, apr-14 SS164QG 10:31:18
The site was being used for unlawful importation of waste, associated activities and skip storage. Operations have ceased and the land is required to be cleared of waste materials and skips. The landowner is currently working with the Waste Planning Authority to resolve the breach of planning control. The skips and a large quantity of waste has been removed from the land. A timescale has been agreed for the land to be cleared of the remaining waste materials. Ongoing monitoring
Michelins Farm, Unathorised SuzanneArmstrong 07- Arterial Road, Development apr-14 Rayleigh, SS6 7NG 15:12:19
Information report to Development and Regulation committee
Braintree District Batemans Farm, Great Lorry movements SuzanneArmstrong 08- Leighs, Chelmsford, and activity on site apr-14 CM3 1PU 12:10:15
New permission implemented. Ongoing monitoring to check compliance with new conditions.
Little Warley Hall Farm, Dirty water (waste) SuzanneArmstrong 08- Ranks Green, from abattoir and apr-14 Fairstead, Chelmsford, storage tank 14:46:03 Essex, CM3 2BG Erection of a storage tank for abbatoir wash water, used as an agricultural soil fertiliser. An application Page 115 of 128
08/04/2014 to retain the tank was An served for the removal submitted and Enforcement of the tank, as permission refused. Notice will be requested by Members
Castle Point Borough Michelins Unathorised SuzanneArmstrong 07- Farm, Arterial Road, Development apr-14 Rayleigh, SS6 7NG 15:12:19
Information report to Development and Regulation committee
Chelmsford City Land to the rear of Skips full of waste, SuzanneArmstrong 04- Rettendon possible Waste apr-14 Service Station, Transfer Station 13:45:59 Rettendon Without the benefit of planning permission the importation of waste.
Page 116 of 128
08/04/2014 Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
Chelmsfor d City The land was being used as a waste transfer site. The operators have ceased activities and are no longer operating on the land. The owner is currently removing waste from the land in accordance with the timescales set by the Waste Planning Authority. Ongoing site monitoring.
Batemans Farm, Great Lorry movements SuzanneArmstrong 08- Leighs, Chelmsford, and activity on site apr-14 CM3 1PU 12:10:15
New permission implemented. Ongoing monitoring to check compliance with new conditions.
Land adjacent Importation of Waste SuzanneArmstrong 08- A132, Burnham apr-14 Road, Rettendon, 14:17:51 Essex, SS1 7QT Joint Site visit with the Environment Agency. The only entrance to this piece of land is via a gate off the A132 Burnham Road. the entrance to the land was very muddy and it would not be possible for vehicles to enter the site.The land had waste materials mainly inerts, general construction, builders rubble, bricks, hardcore concrete and some householder items. It would seem that these waste materials have been on the land for a number of months. There was no machinery, no evidence of activity and no sign of any landowner. This may be a case of fly tipping, however due to the scale of the materials on the land, PCN's have been served on all land owners for further information. Ongoing investigations Page 117 of 128
08/04/2014
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
Land adjacent The Unauthorised SuzanneArmstrong 08- Cock Inn, Main Road, demolition waste apr-14 Boreham, recycling. Exesive 12:06:16 Chelmsford, Essex stockpile heights & mud on the Ongoing negotiation to remove materials from the land outside of the CLUED, issued by Chelmsford City Council. Further progress has been made, however some materials remain on the land outside of the CLUED. Therefore the Waste Planning Authority has given the land owner and operator a final deadline of 31st May 2014 to comply.
Colchester Borough Gean Importation of waste SuzanneArmstrong 08- Trees, The apr-14 Causeway, Great 14:41:34 Horkesley, Colchester, CO6 4EJ SuzanneArmstrong 08- apr-14
Page 118 of 128
08/04/2014 Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
Colchester Borough 08:56:33
Unauthorised importation deposition and spreading of waste materials resulting in land raising. Part of a joint investigation with the Environment Agency. A Planning Contravention Notice has been served. No further waste has been imported and it is the owners intentions to work with the two authorities to remedy the breach of planning control. A schedule of works will be submitted to the authorities, to include timescales for the materials to be removed. Ongoing site monitoring and negotiation.
Epping Forest District Harvey Not working in SuzanneArmstrong 08- Automobile accordance with apr-14 Engineering, Paynes permission 14:39:55 Lane, Nazeing, Waltham Abbey, Workiing outside of the EN9 2EX permitted area. There are some soil materials stockpiled outside of the area covered by the CLUED, the materialsare located to the North West of the site. The landowner agreed that they were outside of the permitted area, due to the excessive water on site they are trying to drain the site. There were no operations at the time of my visit. the site was completely covered in water. A timescale has been agreed with the land owner to move the materials back within the area as approved by the CLUED when the site drys out. Revisit scheduled for the end of April. Ongoing Page 119 of 128
08/04/2014
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
monitoring
Brickfields, Old Importation of waste SuzanneArmstrong 04- House Lane, and land raising apr-14 Roydon, Harlow, 13:51:00 CM195DL Importation of waste, subsequently raising the level of the land. No further importation of materials onto the land. Joint investigation with the Environment Agency. A Section 59 Notice has been served on the operator to clear the land. The EA are leading on this particular case. Land required to be cleared. Ongoing visits to ensure compliance.
Land at Perry Hill, Deposition of SuzanneArmstrong 08- Nazeing, Essex vegtable waste apr-14 15:35:26
Deposition of waste vegtables as a soil improver. Ongoing investigations and negotiation.
Page 120 of 128
08/04/2014 Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
Maldon District Cobbs Farm, Breach of Condition SuzanneArmstrong 08- Maldon Road, 26 attached to apr-14 Goldhanger, application 09:05:42 Maldon, CM9 ESS/37/11/MAL 8BQ Without the benefit of planning permission the extraction of sand and gravel outside of the area permitted under Reference ESS/37/11/MAL. Phased working of the site is not in accordance with the approved details. The Wash Lane access position is not in accordance with the approved plans. Planning Contravention Notice served on the 20th December 2013 requiring information to be provided in relation to the activities on the land. A planning application has been submitted to the Waste Planning Authority. Await outcome.
Rochford District Lovedown Farm, Hockley Deposit of SuzanneArmstrong 07- waste for apr-14 sea wall 15:09:27 development No current site activity, waste importation has ceased. continued consultation with the EA and Natural England.
Michelins Farm, Unathorised SuzanneArmstrong 07- Arterial Road, Development apr-14 Rayleigh, SS6 7NG 15:12:19
Information report to Development and Regulation committee
Tendring District Allens Farm, Tye Extraction of sand SuzanneArmstrong 08- Road, Elmstead, and gravel apr-14 Colchester, Essex, 09:02:17 CO7 7BB Without the benefit of planning permission the unauthorised extraction Page 121 of 128
08/04/2014
Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
of sand and gravel 2013. Since this information relating to with associated date activities the unauthorised infilling of the void ceased on the activities on the site. space with inert land. The land waste materials. A A Planning owner/operator has Temporary Stop Contravention submitted a planning Notice served on the Notice was also application in order to 2nd October 2013. served on the regularise the current This expired 2nd October situation. on the 30th October 2013 for further
DOE Metal Noise SuzanneArmstrong 08- Recycling apr-14 (Clacton) 09:34:33 Limited, Valleybridge Noise complaints have Road, been Clacton-on- Sea
Page 122 of 128
08/04/2014 Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks
Tendring District received. The operator has arranged a noise assessment to be carried out which on completion will be sent to the Waste Planning Authority for consultation in accordance with their planning conditions. Ongoing investigation and monitoring.
Uttlesford District Land at Importation of Waste SuzanneArmstrong 08- Intersection apr-14 A120/B1256, 12:18:51 Stortford Road, Braintree, Essex On the 5th June 2009, Under Section 172 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an enforcement notice was issued; the extant enforcement notice prevents the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land. On the 14th August 2013 officers witnessed importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land. Therefore the current activities are in breach of the extant notice. A Temporary Stop Notice was served in the first instance. Activities have ceased on site although the waste remains. A witness statement has been prepared and the case has been referred to the Countys Legal department for consideration of a formal prosecution, if considered to be in the wider public interest. Further updates to follow.
Page 123 of 128
08/04/2014
Page 124 of 128 AGENDA ITEM 7b
DR/17/14
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 7th April 2014
INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to Robyn Chad – tel: 03330 136 811 or email: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None.
Ref: P/DM/Robyn Chad/
MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Countywide.
SCHEDULE Minerals and Waste Planning Applications
No. Pending at the end of previous month 17
No. Decisions issued in the month 3
No. Decisions issued this financial year 47
Overall % in 13 weeks this financial year 66%
Page 125 of 128 % on target this financial year (CPS returns count) 55%
Nº Delegated Decisions issued in the month 1
Nº Section 106 Agreements Pending 1
County Council Applications
Nº. Pending at the end of previous month 14
Nº. Decisions issued in the month 12
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 57
Nº of Major Applications determined (13 weeks allowed) 0
Nº of Major Applications determined within the 13 weeks allowed 0
Nº Delegated Decisions issued in the month 10
% age in 8 weeks this financial year (Target 70%) 79%
All Applications
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued last month 11
Nº. Committee determined applications issued last month 3
Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 167
Nº. of Submission of Details Pending 85
Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers 1
Appeals
Nº. of appeals outstanding at end of last month 0
Enforcement
Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 29
Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 9
Page 126 of 128 Nº. of enforcement notices issued last month 0
Nº. of breach of condition notices issued last month 0
Nº. of planning contravention notices issued last month 0
Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices Issued last month 0
Nº. of Stop Notices Issued last month 0
Page 127 of 128
Page 128 of 128