Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

21 April 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AREA PLANNING MANAGERS

ON APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY

THE PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

Page 1 of 19

APPLICATION NUMBER: 07/01356/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr Paul Jones SITE ADDRESS: Great Porthamel Talgarth Brecon Powys LD3 0DL GRID REF: E: 315934 N:235203 COMMUNITY: Talgarth DATE VALIDATED: 28 January 2008 DECISION DUE DATE: 24 March 2008 CASE OFFICER:

PROPOSAL Proposed anaerobic digester plant. ADDRESS Great Porthamel, Talgarth, Brecon

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Talgarth Town 15th Apr 2008 Refer to need to consult neighbouring Community Council Councils affected by development.

Page 2 of 19

Countryside Council 10th Mar 2008 CCW object to the application as there is not For Wales enough information to assess possible effects on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

CCW consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the landscape. Recommend landscaping scheme is agreed to reduce visual impact.

CCW have records of significant lesser horseshoe bat roost at site address and it is likely that other species of bat may also be present. While this application will be not directly impact on this roost, the operational phase of the plant has the potential to impact on the behaviour of the bats through possible light and noise pollution as the proposed plant is sited so close to the roosting site. This emphasises the need for the screening provided by the trees.

NP Ecologist 23rd Jul 2008 Conservation officer is satisfied with illustrative drawings supported by planting details submitted on 1st July. Conservation officer considers development plant can be effectively screened to mitigate the likely significant impact on the Brecon Beacons National Park, the Middle Wye Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and the settings of the listed buildings of Great Porthamel Farm.

NP Head Of Strategy 10th Sep 2008 Following previous consultation response and And Policy further consideration of the views of the Building Conservation Officer and Conservation Officer. It is apparent that after detailed discussions with the Conservation Officer and Building Conservation Officer the applicants have modified the application and have proposed a bund with a much increased level of planting in and around the principal storage tanks. Both the Conservation Officer and Building Conservation Officer are content that over time the planting will effectively limit the visual impact of the development on the landscape of the National Park and on the setting of the listed building. It is also clear from the file that CADW are not unduly concerned with the effect on the historic landscape

Page 3 of 19 nor are the Environment Agency with the effect on surface water or ground water. Therefore I am comfortable that my objections in terms of the Q policies (Q8, Q16 specifically, G3 criteria i) and iv), G6 criterion ii) and ES12 criteria ii), iii), iv), have been overcome. in terms of my concerns regarding criterion G3vii)- the main road is an A road and the highway authority is content with the likely level and type of traffic. I also understand that delivery lorries are likely to access the site via Three Cocks rather than through Talgarth itself. Given these facts I am prepared to withdraw my concerns. In terms of policy ES17 and ES7, to overcome my concerns it is important that the proposed use is controlled for agricultural purposes and for the purposes of that agricultural holding . Furthermore, it is important that the proposed use remains ancillary to the main use of the land for agriculture. Measures need to be put in place to ensure that the use of the digester does not become a commercial use in its own right. In this way the proposal is then farm diversification under policy ES17 and needs to be in the proposed location to service the farm as required under policy ES7.

Talgarth Town 18th Mar 2008 Recommend refusal pending further information. Council Town Council concerned that due to location and impact on immediate area and also on neighbouring Councils and communities namely Bronllys and Gwernyfed/Three Cocks, a full consultation must be carried out, although they are not in the National Park, they border the proposed site.

Concern expressed regarding two years of chronic odours from proposed and similar materials used in this process. Consider odour will be continuous (7 days, 52 weeks a year). Concern that odour problem will be similar to garlic factory in Brecon.

Request that PAROW consider application rather than delegate to an officer due to its size and sensitive nature. Request that Members visit an equivalent plant of this type to obtain a first hand and well-balanced experience of the impact and effects it may have on the community and

Page 4 of 19 surrounding area. Also state that a full independent environmental impact assessment be carried out before a decision is made on the application.

The Town Council raise 17 points requiring clarification.

Environment Agency 3rd Mar 2008 The site currently operates a land spreading activity Wales under Paragraph 7A Exemption from the Waste Management Licensing Regulation 1991. This exemption authorises the treatment of Agricultural Land with Abattoir Waste. However, the treatment activity outlined in the planning consultation will require a full Waste Management Licence and associated infrastructure. The application may also require PPC Permit.

Rambler s Association 17th Mar 2008 It is noted that Public Footpath 11 runs adjacent to Powys the farm building complex. Further public footpaths run through the fields belonging to the farm. Whilst the farm is providing a very useful service in disposing of waste products and putting the resultant output to good use, it is to be hoped that the odours from the process will be kept to an acceptable level.

CADW Ancient 15th Feb 2008 Development lies within Historic La ndscape of the Monuments Middle Wye Valley. No comment is made in relation Administration to listed buildings. The farm complex contains a late medieval gatehouse which is a sheduled ancient monument known as Porthamel Tower (BR047) and which is also grade I listed. The farmhouse itself is grade II_ listed and there is also a grade II barn in the group.

The new anaerobic digester forms part of a large scale development comprising storage tanks, several buildings on ramps and platforms and access tracks and steps. Although on the opposite side of the farmyard from the scheduled monument, a development of this size would have a considerable impact on its setting and that of the complex of listed buildings. The demands of the development requiring building and structures on several levels will also make an additional impact due to different

Page 5 of 19 heights of building and tanks as required.

Whilst it would appear that the plant could be constructed without any direct, physical impact on the scheduled ancient monument, it would seem clear that the development would have a significant impact upon the historic character of the complex. Advised to seek the view of BBNP Conservation Officer and CPAT.

Gwernyfed No response Community Council

Glasbury Community No response Council

Countryside Council 7th Apr 2008 Countryside Council for Wales (4.4.2008) For Wales Following further information from the applicant liaison with Environment Agency, following which CCW have been made aware of the following points:-

The source of much of the organic material to be used in the digester will be abattoir waste and changes to the crops grown in the Afon Llynfi catchment will only have a negligible impact on the River Wye SAC.

Some of the digestates to be produced from the plant will be applied to land within the Afon Llynfi catchment but the composition and spreading of digestates will need to be monitored to satisfy the farms registered agricultural waste exemptions. Therefore, the impact of this spreading is unlikely to have a greater impact than the activities that are currently being undertaken on the farm.

To conclude, in CCWs opinion, the development as proposed, is not likely to have an adverse effect on the River Wye SAC and CCW no longer objects to the above proposal. However, CCWs advice regarding landscape issues in previous consultation response remains relevant.

CCW letter to applicant (9.11.2007)

Page 6 of 19

Letter confirms that CCW do not consider that Anaerobic digester would be harmful to bats on the site especially as the applicant confirmed that no lighting would be used after dark.

Suggest that further survey work on site to better understand the status of the lesser horseshoe bat on the farm and target any habitat enhancements and retention of essential landscape features used by the bats.

Powys County 18th Jun 2008 The problem with odour experienced in the past will Council be eliminated with this system. No problems with Environmental Health odour forseen if all procedures as discussed with applicants are followed.

NP Building 9th Apr 2009 The proposed Anaerobic Plant does not have a Conservation Officer direct physical impact on the listed buildings at Porthamel. The proposed site is well integrated into the sloping ground and separated from the listed buildings by modern agricultural buildings of portal frame construction. The present proposal presents an opportunity to both better landscape the existing structures and create an effective landscaping scheme for the new development. The potential is there to improve the setting of the historic building complex comprising of the Grade I listed Gatehouse, the Grade II* listed Medieval Hall House and the Grade II listed Stable range. All three of these listed buildings are in need of attention and some repair.

Any archaeological remains of early gardens on the proposed site will have been lost to earlier agricultural operations. Consequently, this area is the best site for an archaeological point of view.

In summary, to permit the proposed development without taking the opportunity to secure funding to rescue and conserve this part of the National Park and Nation's Heritage that is AT RISK would be a wasted opportunity.

Page 7 of 19

Talgarth Town 14th May 2008 Request full consultation with neighbouring Council Councils.

Bronllys Community 11th Jul 2008 More time requested to comment Council

Bronllys Community 10th Jun 2008 Object due to lack of public consultation, odour at Council Honey cafe at Bronllys being unable to sit out, as applies to members of the public, seepage of waste products to water courses which could affect villages down Llynfi valley, visual intrusion of countryside, risk to public health and anxiety this causes, plant will affect character and appearance of countryside having an adverse effect on the amenity of the area.

Talgarth Town 18th Jul 2008 Object - site will change from greenfield to Council brownfield, B2 industrial activities next to listed buildings, material will mainly come from outside National Park, products of fertilizer may be toxic and gas for renewable energy may be hazardous, gas and fertilizer will leave site to be used elsewhere, odour complaints from spreading already, full assessment of risks has not been considered, impact on rights of way, consider development is contrary to policies S1, S11, S13, S14, ES17, G2, G3,G6 and Q16.

In conclusion the Town Council find this proposal inappropriate in terms of sustainability, landscape impact, traffic conflict, amenity impact and harmful to the purpose of the quiet enjoyment of the National Park.

Powys County 29th Feb 2008 The County Council as Highway Authority for the Council Highways County Highway Class I A4078 does not wish to comment on the application.

British Horse Society No response

Open Spaces Society No response

Clwyd Powys 13th Feb 2008 Site lies within area of archaeological significance - it Archaeological Trust appears no known features will be affected by

Page 8 of 19 intended work.

NP Ecologist 4th Jul 2008 Commenting on landscape proposals submitted. Requesting further clarification/information from applicant/agent.

NP Building comments referred to later in report Conservation Officer

Talgarth Town 19th Feb 2008 Extension of time requested for r esponse Council

CADW Ancient 31st Mar 2008 'The new anaerobic digester forms part of a large Monuments scale development comprising storage tanks, several Administration buidings on ramps and platforms and access tracks and steps. Although on the opposite side of the farmyard from the scheduled monument, a development of this would have a considerable impact on its setting and that of the complex of listed buildings. The demands of the development requiring building and structures on several levels will also make an additional impact due to the different heights of building and tanks required.

Whilst it would appear that the plant could be constructed without any direct, physical impact on the scheduled ancient monument, it would seem clear that the development would have a significant impact upon the historic character of the complex.'

Recommend seeking advice from Conservation Officer (BBNP) and Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust.

Gwernyfed 5th Jun 2008 Object due to odour from site and in relation to Community Council lorries carrying waste on roads leading to site.

Glasbury Community No response Council

Powys County No response Council Waste Regs

NP Ecologist 5th Jun 2008 Landscape details inadequate, further information sought regarding impact on bats and River Wye SAC.

Page 9 of 19

Animal Health Office, 29th Sep 2008 The concerns on any development of a plant to Cardiff Division handle and process animal by-products is the risk from such to public and animal health that are inherent in the raw material. The Animal By Products (Wales) Regulations 2006 aim to reduce/avoid the risk so as to allow safe handling and processing.

Protection of health and disease status of livestock is controlled by an adequate distance between the plant and where animals are kept and there must be a physical separation between that plant and animals, their feed supplies and bedding with fencing if necessary.

In the case of Great Porthamel the proposed Biogas plant would be built at one edge of the farm and the roadways adjusted to gain maximum separation from the Biogas plant and the adjacent livestock farm to include a secure boundary separation.

The intention is to process digestive tract contents and blood from slaughterhouses. Both materials pose a risk to livestock in the raw form. Similar risk exists when catering waste is the raw material to be handled. An application for approval under the Animal By Products legislation is considered by the Animal Health Office of the Welsh Assembly Government. This does not preclude the operator from relevant approval from the EA/Local Authority in relation to Environmental Protection Legislation.

Powys County 10th Mar 2008 Due to complaints being received by this Council department in the past, suggest the following Environmental Health condition be attached if planning is approved

The proposed development has the potential to create odour, which could be detrimental to the area. The applicant should be requested to submit a scheme of works for removal/control of odours to be approved by the Planning Authority before

Page 10 of 19 development takes place. The scheme approved by the Planning Authority shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. Works and scheme shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with approved details.

Powys County No response Council Waste Regs

Talgarth Town 12th Aug 2008 Object to landscape screening as being inadequate Council solution to overall concerns. Further object in relation to G3(v) amenity of area impact- due to residential property using same access. Reiterate odour concern. proposal is waste development and should be assessed in line with S11, S13 and S14. Reiterate existing spreading activities.

Bronllys Community No response to reconsultation Council

Glasbury Community No response to reconsultation Council

Countryside Council 11th Aug 2008 CCW accept landscape plans offer sufficient For Wales screening.Recommend planning condition regarding external lighting due to effect on bats and agreed management of selected hedgerows for benefit of lesser horseshoe bats as secure and improved flightlines.

NP Building 26th Mar 2009 In summary 'The historic building complex that Conservation Officer forms the former Medieval manor of Porthaml comprises of the Grade I Listed gatehouse, Grade II* listed medieval hall house and the Grade II listed stable range. There are two further ranges of traditional buildings which are listed by virtue of being within the curtilage of the listed structures. The gatehouse is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

The Manor of Porthaml was the seat of the Vaughan family and described by John Leland in the time of Henry VIII. Formerly associated with a fortified wall, the gatehouse is a rare survival of a medieval domestic gatehouse, one of only three in Powys,

Page 11 of 19 with stonemasonry of the highest quality. All three of these listed buildings, and the curtilage buildings are in great need of repair and classified as being "At Risk".The anticipated income from the projected development is considerable and could generate a complete restoration of these neglected nationally important buildings. Such a scheme of repair and conservation should be essential as a planning obligation and could be the only justification to mitigate the detriment to their setting, however well landscaped.The present proposal does present an opportunity to both better the landscape and restore the nationally important historic buildings. In summary, there is a great opportunity here to harness a source of funding by planning obligation that could repair and restore this nationally important complex of historic buildings, directed by a well researched conservation plan and in liaison with the Authority and Cadw.

In my view, the establishment of an Anaerobic Digester Plant here, next to one of the "more remarkable Medieval Houses of Wales" without the obligation of a mitigating scheme to rescue and conserve this key part of the National Park and Nation's Heritage that is At Risk, is unjustifiable and unsustainable.'

NP Head Of Strategy 1st Aug 2008 The Q police s are self explanatory and we are And Policy concerned rightly about the effect on the SAC, the historic landscape and the listed building. I think the overal impact of the proposal on the historic landscape including the overall setting of the listed building in the historic landscape is a cause for concern. In terms of Policy G3, criteria i)and iv) I consider that the landscaping proposals are inadequate to integrate the proposal into the landscape. I consider that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the special qualities of the National Park, particularly the views into the area from the Bronllys bypass. In terms of criterion vii), the proposal would result in an increase in large vehicles using the road network which has implications for the amenity

Page 12 of 19 of local residents. It is my view that the proposal will not sustain or enhance the landscape in terms of its design nor screening proposals as required by Policy G6, criterion ii). The proposal and landscaping scheme is contrary to Policy ES12, criteria ii), iii) and iv. While it is located adjacent to existing buildings it does not satisfy the remaining criteria. Critertion vi) may also be a concern. In Policy ES17 - concerned with criterion ii). Not convinced that the scale of the proposal including the amount of gut content that will be brought to the site from elsewhere makes it appropriate in this location . The scale of the operation would suggest that this is over and above farm diversification, and is in fact a commercial operation in its own right or it could very easily become so. Policy ES7- In terms or criterion i) the new buildings proposed are not ancillary to other existing buildings which form part of the diversification scheme, since none of the existing buildings are part of the proposal. Criterion ii) it is not essential for the digester to be in this location.

Talgarth Town 12th Sep 2008 Resubmission of comments of 12 August 2008 Council

NP Building 9th Apr 2009 In summary Conservation Officer 'Cadw and Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust state in their comments that the proposed Anaerobic Plant does not have a direct physical impact on the Listing Buildings and archaeology at Porthamel. However, they concur that it would have an undeniable impact on their setting and place in the landscape. The cylindrical tanks of non weathering materials associated with the Anaerobic Digester will form an incongruous element in what is a rural landscape and have a cumulative effect with the adjoining portal framed agricultural buildings to give the site an industrial appearance....

Currently, the long views of the site from both the Bronllys - Hay road and Bronllys Castle (a key

Page 13 of 19 viewpoint for those interested in heritage) are marred by the modern agricultural buildings and large expanses of bare earth. This should not be exacerbated by the addition of cylindrical storage tanks and further tracks.

The present proposal does present an opportunity to both better the landscape and restore the nationally important historic buildings. The landscaping of the existing modern agricultural structures could be improved as well as thoroughly integrating any new development. The proposed site should be well integrated into the sloping ground and sufficient well planted landscaping provided to reflect the agricultural nature of the site and minimize its impact. . The transition from modern agricultural buildings (existing) to traditional buildings is currently poor and this should also be looked at.

In summary, there is a great opportunity here to harness a source of funding to repair and restore this nationally important complex of historic buildings, directed by a well researched conservation plan and in liaison with the Authority and Cadw. In my view to permit the proposed development without taking the opportunity to secure funding to rescue and conserve this part of the National Park and Nation's Heritage that is At Risk would be a wasted opportunity.'

Gwernyfed No response Community Council

NP Ecologist 31st Oct 2008 Advised agent/applicant regarding expectaion of landscape maintence schedule.

NP Ecologist 20th Nov 2008 Refers to agreeing best materials for plant and buildings whilst landscape screening is developing.

NP Rights Of Way 15th Feb 2008 I have overlaid a GIS Map onto this and the footpath Officer appears to affect both the small diameter holding tanks and the rectangular building that lies adjacent to them. I believe that this is the delivery area for waste products.

Page 14 of 19 On that basis, the development wil l clearly affect the footpath. Recommend several matters for applicant to consider including - the granting of planning permission does not entitle the applicant/developer to interfere with, obstruct or move a right of way. A criminal offence may be committed if development commences without the necessary arrangements having been made to divert or extinguish the right of way.

I would also recommend that, unless the footpath can be incorporated within the site that an application for a diversion is submitted as soon as possible

NP Ecologist 21st Jul 2008 Further information/clarification regarding landscaping details provided.

Recommend use of S106 for conservation of and enhancement of roost for lesser horeshoe bats.

NP Ecologist 8th Aug 2008 The letter covers the scope of the matters I have discussed with Mr Tomlinson and applicant with regards resolving the landscaping of the proposed development.

I would have welcomed a stronger and clearer statement acknowledging the landscape and visual impact of the proposed AD plant on the setting of the National Park and the Middle Wye Landscape of Outstanding Historic Importance. In addition I would query the height of the soil bunds at 2.4m as this does not accord with the scale of the bunds on the drawings referred to in Mr Tomlinsons letter. Despite these minor shortcomings I am willing to accept that the development can be effectively screened within an acceptable timeframe.

Talgarth Town 1st Oct 2008 Town Council expressing concern rega rding errors Council in officers report, request site visit lack of EIA undertaken.

WAG Planning 22nd Dec Following a 'call in' request WAG have considered

Page 15 of 19 Department 2008 the issues associated with the application in light of the Welsh Assembly Government's policy on call-in (detailed in Planning Policy Wales) and conclude that they are not of more than local importance. In view of this, WAG do not consider that the application should be called in for determination by the Welsh Ministers.

NP Rights Of Way 15th Sep 2008 Application to divert footpath submitted and being Officer considered.

CONTRIBUTORS Mr S Fraser, Pontithel House, Pontithel P Park, Chapel House, Builth Wells Mr R Williams, 4 Watergate, Brecon A H Bull, Severn Wye Energy Agency Ltd, Entrance A Mr And Mrs Starling, The Elms, Bronllys Road E Gibbs, Brecon Beacons Park Society, Aber-y-ail Elaine Starling, The Elms, Bronllys Road Niel Bally, Wernfawr Talgarth Brecon, R Carter, Wales Environment Trust, Imperial House K Williams, 4 Watergate, Brecon Niel Bally, Wernfawr Talgarth, Mick Bates, 3 Park Street, Newtown Mr And Mrs Bevan, C/OThe Woodland Savies Solicitors, 18 Castle Street Mr Joel Durrell, Lower Porthamel, Talgarth

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

Representations/Objections to proposal

Several representations/objections including a petition have been received from members of the public raising the following issues:

• Odour concerns • Visual impact due to elevated nature in sensitive rural setting • Transporting ‘waste’ over 30 miles to be processed • Should be processed closer to source reducing environmental and haulage costs • Fuller consultation recommended and comprehensive impact assessment to satisfy numerous concerned parties. • ‘Industrial process implying land becomes a ‘brownfield’ site which needs planning permission from the Welsh Assembly Government for change of use and we suspect the byelaws of the National Park’ • Most direct route is via Talgarth within 30mph zone • Obnoxious odours due to existing spreading practices put on fields last year

Page 16 of 19 • Concern regarding impact on SSSI and River Llynfi and damage to land, road and farm buildings and high pressure gas main • Further vehicular traffic in supplying other farms with digestate • Concern regarding health implications of waste material brought to site • Other digesters are on industrial estates where a different set of Health and Safety Regulations apply • Effect on right of way • Application is contrary to planning policy

Representations in support/response to objections

Two AM National Assembly for Wales Members and an MP supports the application and in summary state:

‘This type of development is absolutely essential to promote good practice as outlined in the Materials Action Programme and is of particular importance as energy and fertilizer prices increase. This proposal is backed up by companies with many years of successful Anaerobic Digestion Operation. The business plan is realistic and will leave to the creation of available, sustainable business based on a secure supply of material for the digester. Support this application which fits into national strategies and in particular the promotion of sustainable development. This proposal demonstrates the technical expertise that exists in Welsh agricultural to develop Anaerobic Digestion schemes that are common place in other European countries.’

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q1: “Sites of European Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q2: “Sites of National Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q5: “Biodiversity and Development” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q8: “Historic Landscapes” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q16: “The Setting of Listed Buildings” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q21: “Rights of Way and Long Distance Routes” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES11: “Protection of Agricultural Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES12: “Agri and Forestry Requiring Permission” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES17: “Farm Diversification” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPAG3: “Farm diversification” (Local Plan 1999) LPAG4: “Farm diversification” (Local Plan 1999) LPAG5: “Agricultural development” (Local Plan 1999) S11: “Biomass Energy” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPCL4: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL7: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL8: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999)

Page 17 of 19 LPCL9: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCB4: “Listed buildings.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPPU3: “Energy Generation” (Local Plan 1999) LPPU4: “Energy Generation” (Local Plan 1999) LPWP1: “Policies for waste disposal.” (Local Plan 1999) LPWP2: “Policies for waste disposal.” (Local Plan 1999) S13: “Waste Development Serving the Region” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S14: “Waste Development Serving the Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q11: “Sites of Archaeological Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

P20880 Proposed change of use of barn Application 23rd Mar 2006 to dwelling Withdrawn

P20888 Proposed change of use of barn Application 13th Oct 2005 to form residential dwelling Permitted

OFFICER’S REPORT

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Conditions and/or Reasons:

Reasons:

1 Insufficient information has been provided to enable the application to be fully considered as satisfying farm diversification scheme policies in both the Local Plan and the Unitary Development Plan. Consequently the National Park Authority cannot be satisfied that the development is not a waste management facility with the potential to become a stand alone waste management facility. Such a facility would be contrary to Policies S13, S14 and G3 of the Unitary Development Plan (approved March 2007) and Policies WP1, WP2 and G3 of the Adopted Local Plan (May 1999).

Informative Notes:

Page 18 of 19

Page 19 of 19