DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Item C2 Retrospective application for the use of land for screening, crushing and processing of aggregates, construction and demolition waste and concrete together with open storage of these materials, F M Conway Works, Rochester Way, Dartford – DA/04/787
A report by Head of Planning Applications Unit to Planning Applications Committee on 22 nd March 2005.
Application by F M Conway Limited to seek retrospective planning permission for the use of land for screening, crushing and processing of aggregates, construction and demolition waste and concrete together with open storage of these materials, Rochester Way, Dartford
Recommendation: REFUSE
Local Member: Mr B Wood Unrestricted
1. This is the second of two retrospective planning applications (DA/04/770 and DA/04/787) submitted by F M Conway Limited for waste management development on the FM Conway site off Rochester Way, Dartford. Members of the Planning Applications Committee visited the site on the 20 th September 2004 and again on 18 th January 2005. The visits also included viewing the site from the adjoining housing development and from the top of the earth bund between the site and the housing. Notes of the site visits are attached as Appendix 1.
Site description and background
2. The site lies on a long established industrial estate within the Metropolitan Green Belt and whilst falling totally within the Dartford Borough Council area, is on the boundary with the London Borough of Bexley. Prior to the development taking place, the land formed part of F M Conway’s civil engineering yard. The neighbouring land-uses to the south and west are waste related and include the County Council’s civic amenity site. To the north lies a recently constructed housing development (Braeburn Park), which is separated from the industrial estate by an earth bund. This bund was constructed as part of the housing development. A section 106 legal agreement signed in October 2000 tied to the residential planning permission requires that this bund is planted and transferred to London Wildlife Trust for use as a nature conservation site. To date the planting has not been carried out. The nearest housing on the Braeburn Park estate is located some 100m from the Conway site boundary. The site extends to 1.14 ha. Details are shown on attached figures 1 and 2.
3. Land to the west of the site within Bexley forms part of the Old Orchard (The Gun Club) Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation. The extent of this site is currently being reviewed and consultations are to take place with a view to extending the area to include all the open land around the Braeburn Park housing. This would include the bund immediately adjacent to the application site.
C2. 1 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Figure 1 - Site Location
C2. 2 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Figure 2 – Site Layout
C2. 3 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
4. This application along with application DA/04/770 referred to above are both of a retrospective nature. The development appears to have taken place in advance of the necessary planning permission as a result of the history on the site.
5. The application on the site arises from investigation into complaints that were received about activities on the site. Investigation established that an aggregate crushing operation was on site. This has the benefit of a permit under the Environmental Protection Act from Dartford BC, but in my view does not have planning permission. F M Conway and its advisors disagree and consider that this use does not require planning permission as in its view the activity falls within the use class B2/B8 (industrial /storage) which it considers is already permitted on the site.
6. In an attempt to resolve the matter F M Conway Limited submitted this planning application for the aggregate crushing operation to Kent CC (DA/04/787) on a without prejudice basis. At the same time the Company submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development (a CLUED) to Dartford BC. This latter application has been appealed against Dartford Borough Council’s failure to determine the application within the required timescale. A date for a public inquiry is awaited. In the meantime, a further CLUED application has been submitted to Dartford Borough Council and is currently being processed. Members should note that the Company needs either planning permission or a Certificate of Lawful Use to regularise the crushing activity and associated storage on the site.
Retrospective Development 7. In accordance with Government advice on planning enforcement and the County Council’s own Enforcement Protocol, the County Council’s Regulation Committee agreed that an appropriate way to deal with this breach of planning control was to invite a retrospective planning application. This would enable any merits of the proposal to be considered. As Members are aware, retrospective applications are determined on the basis that the development had not been implemented.
The Proposal 8. Application reference DA/04/787 seeks permission to stockpile construction and demolition waste, to screen and crush the material and to store it prior to its use as a feedstock to the aggregate washing plant (application DA/04/770). The site extends to 1.14ha and would have an average annual capacity of 170,000 tonnes. The application defines the site operation as:
• ‘Importation of authorised waste and visual selection of waste suitable for re-use or recycling, with strict controls to eliminate contaminated materials. • Selection and storage of construction waste which are from a known source and have been put to a known use; • Loading of the combined crusher and screener by mechanical excavator • Separation of materials smaller than 14mm from the larger aggregate for separate storage and use as fines; • The production of aggregates after crushing of less than 75mm and the automatic return of oversized material to the crusher. The crusher is fully enclosed with dust guards/suppression over the vibrating feeder deck and screens to prevent dust generation; and • Transfer of sized aggregates from the crusher to either a stockpile or to the aggregate washing plant by wheeled loader.’
9. The application is accompanied by a quality control protocol, which has been prepared by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) in conjunction with the Quarry
C2. 4 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Products Association and the Highways Agency. This sets out a formalised quality control procedure for the production of aggregates from recycled inert waste. The protocol would be adopted as part of the development.
10. Hours of working would be 0700 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays and from 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays. Vehicles would have 24 access 7 days per week. The application is clear that waste management operations would not take place outside the stated hours. The application advises that the applicant has contracts that can require weekend and night- time working. These are however planned and except in emergencies (ie emergency road re-surfacing following an accident) the applicant advises that the work can be scheduled so that there is no requirement to load or unload outside the ‘normal’ hours.
Access 11. Access would be via Rochester Way and then to the strategic road network – A2 and M25. Wheel washing facilities are proposed to prevent debris being deposited on the highway. The application forecasts the following daily traffic movements for the Conway site :
Highway contracting 140 (LGV/HGV) Recycling highway waste arisings 130 Concrete mixing/supply 38 Cleansing operation 66 Stores 16 (various vehicles) Offices 290 (cars/vans)
580 total
12. The supporting information shows a typical daily traffic profile with 15% of traffic between 0700 and 0900 hours, 60% between 0900 and 1500 and 25% between 1500 to 1730 hours. The information draws attention to a reduction in the number of vehicles to the site as a result of the washing plant and that the use of recycled materials avoids some 50 vehicle movements a day. In conclusion, the applicant considers that the overall increase in traffic associated with the development is likely to be no more than 15-20 vehicle movements per day.
13. The application also advises that the proposals (DA/04/770 and this application) are an integrated waste management process that uses the most up to date technology that is available. The integrated process would ultimately enable F M Conway to recycle almost 100% of recovered materials arising from its highway engineering, construction and gully cleaning operations in London and North Kent. The applicant’s main markets are local authorities . It terms of construction and demolition arisings, the application identifies the source of waste as highway maintenance contracts from Dartford, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Merton, Sutton and Southwark. In addition 27,000 tonnes (16% of the total capacity) is identified from ‘London Boroughs North of the River Thames’. Further details are shown in Appendix 2.
14. The proposal is accompanied by a BPEO Assessment and information to aid consideration of the very special circumstances test for development within the Green Belt, access, noise, dust, odour and visual impact.
C2. 5 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Mitigation Measures 15. A number of measures are included to mitigate the impact of the development. These relate to dust, odour, noise and visual impact.
16. The Dust and Odour Assessment submitted with the application related to both planning applications ( DA/04/770 and DA/04/787). It identified that the principal residual source of dust at the site was the activities associated with the crushing activity. The following dust control measures are proposed in order to minimise the amount of wind blown dust that arises from activities in the recycling area:
• Water sprays at strategic locations throughout the facility to suppress dust. It is intended that this would provide coverage of all areas within the facility, where dust might be generated with fine mist sprays over all stockpiles and vehicle loading points along the upwind side of the site to local residents. • The fitting of windbreak protection to the head drums of the conveyor belts and the fitting of either water spray conditioning apparatus or chutes of rubber strip curtains to the windbreaks to control the drop of material from the conveyor belt. • Dry materials from stockpiles to be dampened down prior to loading into the aggregate washing hopper. • Stockpiles and concrete loading ramp to be dampened down during periods of strong wind or hot/dry weather; • All materials stored within sleeper walled bays to be at a height to minimise the potential for dust pick up; • Aggregate crushing operations to be suspended during any period of strong wind where a nuisance to local residents might occur. • Maintaining stockpile heights to no higher than 6m above ground level. This measure is also proposed to minimise visual intrusion. • Hard surfaces and stockpiles to be regularly dampened down and cleaned in dry weather. As and when required the whole site would be mechanically swept and pressure washed periodically. The exterior floor will be keep clean and tidy • Speed restrictions within the recycling area of 5mph • Sheeting of waste skips from the drainage treatment plant during periods of high winds; • Wheel cleaning as necessary • The orientation of bays and sleeper walls to be optimised to ensure as far as possible that the prevailing wind will not mobilise dust from stockpiles • Taking of a daily environmental log of weather and wind conditions, site activities, cleaning and dust generation
17. As originally submitted, no mitigation measures were proposed regarding noise. Details were however submitted in February 2005 following the receipt of the views of Bexley Council and Jacobs Babtie (as set out below) which indicated that complaints concerning noise and dust the development would be likely if the development were to be permitted as originally proposed. As a result the application was amended in an attempt to address these concerns.
18. The application for determination now includes details of a ‘conceptual design’ that aims to demonstrate that it is possible to achieve a noise level that is of ‘marginal significance of (ie acceptable in planning terms) when calculated against the noise assessment criteria in BS 4142. In the event that permission were granted, it is envisaged that details of the scheme would be worked up for approval as a requirement of a planning condition(s). The ‘conceptual design’ proposes a mitigation scheme in relation to the identified primary noise source, namely the crusher. The scheme proposes a degree of enclosure to the crusher whilst retaining the mobility of the plant and reducing noise at
C2. 6 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
source. The plant would be enclosed in 2 places – at the crushing and at the screening sections of the plant. The structures would be constructed of acoustic panelling supported with PVC strip ‘curtains’. The application states that this enclosure will reduce the noise by 7-10 db(A).
19. In addition, the applicant advises that further measures could be put in place to achieve additional attenuation of individual items of plant that contribute to the overall noise environment. These are not included in the application, but could include measures to reduce the noise of the loaders through the management of the exhaust systems, the dampening and or covering of the loading shovels, the inclusion of a wheel wash and the provision of acoustic fencing. The partial enclosure of the crusher would also have in the applicant’s view a positive impact upon mitigating dust. The proposal now includes a commitment to dust sprays connected to an anemometer of which trigger levels would be agreed with the County Council.
20. As part of the noise assessment, the applicant draws attention to other activities within the area, namely the adjacent waste management operator Easyload. It argues that the applications are acceptable in terms of noise and noise and that the applicant’s operations are not resulting in the majority of noise and dust that is being generated in the area. With regard to controlling odour, vehicles are to be well maintained and engines switched off when practicable.
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 21. The application has been screened in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The development is not such that it needs to be accompanied by an environmental statement as defined in the above Regulations.
Planning Policy Considerations 22. For further details see Appendix 3.
National Planning Policy – the most relevant are set out in Waste Strategy 2000, PPG10 and draft PPS10, PPG2, PPG24 and MPG6.
Regional Planning Policy the most relevant policies are set out in RPG9 and the emerging South East Regional Waste Management Strategy.
Kent Structure Plan (1996) The most relevant policies are S1 , ENV5, ENV6, ENV20, ENV21, ENV22, NR3, NR4, NR8, MGB3 and T18
Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan (September 2003) The most relevant policies are SP1, SS9, E3, E7, QL1, TP14, NR4, NR7, WM1, WM2, M1 and M2.
Kent Waste Local Plan (1998) The most relevant policies are W1, W2, W3, W4 , W6 , W7, W18, W19, W21, W22, W23, W25 and W26.
Bexley Unitary Plan The most relevant policies are G26, G27, ENV24 and G30.
C2. 7 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Consultations 23. Consultations have been undertaken on the application as made and on the supplementary information that was received in December 2004 and January 2005. A number of consultees and those making representations have provided a joint response for this application and the application for drainage treatment and aggregate washing plants (DA/04/770). As a result it is not possible to attribute comments to an individual application. Where consultee comments relate only to this application I have noted this accordingly. I have received the following comments on the application:
24. Dartford Borough Council – Comment awaited.
25. Bexley Council (as neighbouring authority) – Objects to both applications and recommends that they be refused because they
(i) do not provide sufficient information to enable the impact on the amenity of Bexley residents to be properly assessed; and (ii) have not convincingly demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (iii) in the event that KCC is minded to permit DA/04/787 (screening and crushing proposal) that it requires that it be fully enclosed, in the interests of protecting the amenities of nearby residents from the outbreak of noise and dust.
Notwithstanding the above, in the event that KCC are minded to grant planning permission it suggests conditions to be applied to any permission.
Officers have considered the additional information (February 2005) with regard to noise and dust mitigation and the addendum to the BPEO. Consultation included consideration by the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Officers advise in terms of both noise and dust, ‘ the assessment of the current impact of the activities on the site on the amenities of nearby residents is inadequate; the proposed conceptual scheme to control noise is insufficient, illegible and unquantified; no site-specific quantified dust suppression scheme has been prepared; and the BPEO assessment appears to discount a more suitable site.
In view of the above comments, and in consideration of the adverse impact the site has on local residential amenity, and taking account of the ongoing high level of complaint about activities on the site generating noise and dust, Bexley Council reiterates its recommendation previously made to Kent County Council that planning permission should be refused for these two applications’.
A copy of the officer’s comments in relation to the February 2005 details is attached at Appendix 5.
26. Kent Highways – The increase of vehicle numbers to the site is noted. There are no major highway safety concerns regarding the use of Rochester Way and no accident blackspots have been identified on any of the roads in the vicinity of the site.
27. Jacobs Babtie – KCC Advisor on Noise, Dust and Odour Emissions – In commenting upon the application as made, Jacobs Babtie raised concern that the applicant had solely used MPG11 and not BS4142 to assess noise from the proposals. It considered that the guidance in BS4142 was the more appropriate methodology to use. It also advised that without further details of the applicant’s calculations or sound power levels, it was unable to confirm the applicant’s findings. Concerns were also raised with regard to dust and odour issues. As a result of the above further noise assessment was
C2. 8 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
undertaken in accordance with BS:4142 and additional information to address noise, dust and odour concerns were submitted in January and February 2005.
28. Following consultation on the further information submitted in January 2005, Jacobs Babtie advised with regard to the application for aggregate screening and crushing application that a number of issues with regard to noise and dust still remained. In particular these related to the lack of specific mitigation measures with regards to dust emissions. It advises that dust had been witnessed by Bexley Council and local residents on various occasions from the application site and dust had been seen from the crushing operation by Jacobs Babtie when it visited the site in January 2005.
29. The applicant considers that dust emissions from the site can be contained to an acceptable level and therefore seeks the details to be addressed by way of a condition. Jacob’s Babtie does not object to this approach subject to being satisfied that the details in principle are achievable, but advises that any condition(s) would need to require the applicant to submit details of, but not limited to the installation of a hood/enclosure to the crusher and dust suppression sprays installed along the site’s boundary.
30. In response to the January data, reservations were also raised about the calculation and the conclusions of the noise assessment. Jacob Babtie advises that given that the application (January 2005 data) has demonstrated that the development would tend towards a positive indication that complaints are likely to arise within the Braeburn Park area, it is considered that some mitigation measures would have been proposed to reduce noise emissions.
31. In particular, it advises that Table 1 of the 17 January letter does not actually assess noise from the FM Conway crusher. It advises that using the submitted data it calculates a Rating Level of +7dB for the operation of the crusher in accordance with BS 4142. This noise level is 2 dB above the threshold level of marginal significance. With a loading shovel in operation (necessary I understand for the continued normal operation of the crusher) the Rating Level becomes +8dB above the background level. At this level, the noise is tending towards a complaints likely scenario (at the distances used by RPS.) Furthermore, the assessment was undertaken assuming that the crusher is sited in the middle of the site, circa 130m from housing and the loading shovel at 140m distance. Photo evidence and my site visit has confirmed that the crusher and loader operate at locations closer to that assumed in the assessment. In addition, attention is drawn to two discrepancies in the calculations, one relating to the measurements for the adjoining Easyload site and the other relating to the Laeq for the site which has been increased in the supplementary statement to 56dB.
32. Following receipt of the above comments and those made by Bexley Council, RPS provided further noise and dust information was submitted in February 2005 with the intention of demonstrating that the site could be operated within an acceptable noise and dust climate. The details are set out in paras 17-19 above.
33. On the February 2005 information, Jacob Babtie advises that in noise and dust attenuation terms the optimum solution would be to locate the activity within a building. However it is considered that the mitigation measures identified in the February information are capable of achieving the ‘marginal threshold’ test in BS4142 with regard to noise and would therefore be acceptable. Details could be amplified in a condition.
34. The noise data assumes that all Conway activities are operational and this gives a rating of 5.3db. A slight concern is raised that calculations suggest that when operations are moved towards the housing, the rating level will increase to 6db. This is just above the
C2. 9 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
marginal level, but if the additional measures suggested in the submission were incorporated into site operations, (in particular the measures to the loading shovels which are the 2 nd noisiest source on the site) the impact would be within the acceptable threshold limits of BS4142. It is noted that the enclosure to the crusher supports an attenuation reduction if 7-10 dba and based upon the assumptions used, the enclosure could result in a further 3db reduction.
35. In conclusion and having considered the comments raised by Bexley Council as set out in Appendix 5, Jacob Babtie is of the view that in principle the development could be mitigated to acceptable limits with regard to noise, dust and odour and that in the event planning permission were granted it would be appropriate to require details to be fully worked up by way of a planning condition.
36. With regard to odour, it advises that the type of material is not such that odour is an issue on this site. When officers visited the site with Bexley Council’s Environmental Health Officer no odour was identified.
37. Environment Agency – No view has been received on this application. The other application is the subject of a PPC Waste Authorisation that is being dealt with by the Agency.
38. English Nature – The application site is adjacent to the Wansunt Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest. The proposed development is not expected to have any significant adverse impact upon the geological interest of the SSSI. If permission were granted, a buffer zone should be implemented to prevent accidental damage as a precaution.
39. English Nature is aware of concerns that have been raised regarding potential dust and noise impacts. If permission is granted, opportunity should be taken to secure enhancements and mitigation measures.
40. Jacobs Babtie (Advisor on Landscape Matters) – It is understood that when the Braeburn Park housing was built an extensive bund was formed to offer environmental protection to the properties from various activities in and around the Conway site. As part of the planning permission the bund was to be planted. This would have greatly enhanced its effectiveness as a visual screen to the benefit of the houses. In more general landscape terms, it would have completed a wooded line that already exists and runs along the higher land. Unfortunately the bund has not been planted and although not part of the current application its successful enforcement should be assumed to give a true picture. If the bund supported a successful planting scheme with a potential height of anything over 3m then any of the operations taking place on the application site would be comfortably screened and form no visual intrusion. The approved planting scheme is extensive and if detailed properly would in time achieve the objective of providing an adequate screen between the application site and the new housing in Braeburn Park. Given the species and planting specification a period of up to 5 years may be required before a visual planting screen is available.
41. In the absence of planting there are elements of the proposed and existing buildings and structures on the site that are visible from the higher positions namely the access road into Braeburn Park (Galloway Drive and some upper storey windows) and Heathview Avenue. On the basis however that the stockpile heights are kept to the stated 6m then only the transitory movement of plant operating on the mounds is likely to be visible. The impact of machine activity is transitory and when operating at ground level is not visible. Planting on the bund would successfully mitigate this transitory impact.
C2. 10 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
42. Thames Water – no objection.
43. London Wildlife Trust - In commenting on both applications it advises that Braeburn Park is a new nature reserve which will be owned and managed by the Trust. The intention is to manage the open space for wildlife and to enable access by the local community.
44. Following consideration of the supplementary information, the Trust is still concerned over the potential negative impact due to noise and dust and the overall assessment of the proposed location of these waste management facilities. The submission suggests that noise and dust levels emanating from the site are within acceptable thresholds. The Trust is unable to support or object to these findings on technical grounds. However, should the developments be permitted measures should be taken to monitor the environmental impact. Acceptable levels would need to be maintained and any breaches immediately rectified. The Trust is concerned that what are official limits may in reality be at odds with perceived levels of disturbance.
45. Following feedback from local residents, the Trust believes that the variances of intensity of on site operations may result in detrimental impact on local quality of life and their ability to enjoy the new nature reserve.
46. The Trust objects to the open storage heaps of aggregate materials. It is concerned that the movement of material on site from the heaps may disturb significant levels of dust. Also of concern is the design of the dry concrete containment walls and that they fail to provide proper site security and effective containment allowing spillage of materials on to the reserve.
47. The Trust acknowledges that the earth bund and tree planting may help to reduce noise and dust levels. It is noted that the bund was not designed specifically to mitigate against the impact of the current applications. Any new planting will take time to have any mitigation value
48. The Trust is doubtful that the development will result in a zero nuisance factor to Braeburn Park residents. PPG 10 A50 states that particular care should be taken to avoid locations where new waste facilities may be incompatible with existing land uses.
49. Braeburn Park is a designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation in the Bexley UDP. This is incorrectly recorded in the application. (But see para. 123 below).
50. In conclusion the Trust can appreciate the potential contribution that the applications may bring to implementing the objectives of Waste Strategy 2000, however it remains concerned that the negative environmental impacts of the scheme will not be consistently and fully mitigated. Should the Council be minded to permit then suitable systems should be put in place to monitor dust and noise levels.
51. Kent County Council – Archaeology – No views received.
Publicity 52. The application has been publicised by way of site notices and newspaper advertisement. Neighbour notification was carried out to 91 properties in the vicinity of the site. This included properties within Braeburn Park (the adjacent housing development). In addition, Bexley Council carried out further neighbour notification and posted site notices in Braeburn Park. The application has been advertised as a departure to the development plan given its location within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
C2. 11 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
If Members are therefore minded to grant planning permission the application would need to be referred to Government Office for the South East in order that it can consider whether to ‘call in’ the application for its own determination.
Representations 53. Prior to the receipt of the supplementary information in December, I had received 472 letters of objection. Of these 26 were individual letters and the remaining 446 were a standard letter. The letters object to both applications. A copy of the standard letter is attached at appendix 4. I have also received a copy of a letter addressed to the Leader of the County Council objecting to the applications. This letter encloses a copy of a petition signed by 238 names.
The petition states that:
We the residents of Braeburn Park vehemently oppose the two planning applications by F M Conway. We believe if these plans are approved the impact on our lives will be devastating. We therefore appeal in the strongest possible terms that the applications are refused in full.
The points raised in the 26 individual letters can be briefly summarised as:
Environmental § Noise, dust, odour and traffic objections. As a result of the proposal, local residents are suffering an increasingly blighted landscape, reduction in air quality and noise pollution. Diary sheets have been submitted to Bexley Council to support the complaints. § Adverse impact upon health, particularly eye irritation and asthma. The significant amounts of dust from the stockpiles will cause health issues. § Great concern over the concrete crushing activity due to the silica dust content. § Adverse impact upon the designated nature conservation area surrounding the housing estate. This should be protected and enhanced. Braeburn Park was given planning permission on the basis that 75% of the site was to be developed as a nature reserve. These proposals would destroy that nature reserve. § Crayford High Street and Station Road in particular cannot cope with more HGV traffic. § Proposal will totally blight the area. § Site is a revolting eyesore and has created a negative visual impact over Braeburn Park. § Proposal would result in offensive visibility of plant, machinery and heavy traffic. § Concern that the Company is operating outside normal working hours adding to the disturbance. Current working hours are unacceptable.
Planning policies § Conflicts with planning policies, particularly those concerning development in the Green Belt. § Contrary to the Dartford Borough Environment Plan § The handling of waste at this site will far outweigh any benefits, recycling may have.
Retrospective Development § The applicant has made a mockery of the planning system and highlights its appalling attitude to the neighbourhood and disregard for residents. § If the development is permitted, then safeguards fought for in the earlier consents will be lost.
C2. 12 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
§ Retrospective planning applications should not be allowed. F M Conway has consistently flouted planning regulations.
Future Plans § Grave concern at the continued expansion of the site and the boast of future expansion as can be seen from the Company’s website – glass crushing and asphalt plant. § Submitted application plans fail to show the Braeburn Park housing estate which would be most affected by the development. § Proposals were not picked up in local authority searches when houses were purchased. Unauthorised development begun within days of the last house being sold.
54. As a result of the Supplementary Information submitted in December 2004 and January 2005, I have received 7 further letters which relate to both planning applications. The following additional points are made:
§ Supplementary information fails to provide justification for why permission should be granted. The information is inaccurate, uses inappropriate references and comparisons and as parts are unsigned its validity is questioned. The report was commissioned by the applicant and is therefore biased. KCC should commission its own report.
Green Belt § No accurate justification to meet the special circumstances test for development in the Green Belt. It is impossible to argue that the enormous adverse impact of the development on the lives of local residents and the nature reserve can outweigh other consideration. The reference to the Tesco case is not appropriate as the businesses are totally different. § Braeburn Park would be harmed to an enormous extent by the development. § Policy W4 presumes against development within the Green Belt unless it is related to the restoration of mineral working.
BPEO § The Site Suitability Matrix (part of the BPEO) is ‘doctored’ to suggest that there is no alternative location. The alternative sites appear more acceptable and these and others should be investigated further. § The BPEO assessment acknowledges that the development is not really suitable on the site. It notes that on air quality the site’s acceptability is questioned, yet the application fails to report any proven findings on the dust and odour problems arising from the site. § The Holborough Works site also lies in a valley and is 250m away from housing. The assessment recognises that difficulties may arise at this site with atmospheric dispersion. In the case of the Conway development properties are 100m away, so why don’t the same principles apply? § The number of objections to the development support the view that the development is unacceptable for development when considered against the criteria for Landscape and Nature Conservation and Visual Impact. If the matrix was accurate, then it would prove that the alternative site such as Hermitage Quarry would be more appropriate. § Commercial viability of moving sites should not be a consideration.
C2. 13 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Operational Impacts § Noise data is severely flawed and does not reflect the true impact. Readings of 77dba have been recorded. Noise generated from the site is simply unbearable. § There is no dust study. Residents cannot open their windows because of the dust. § Report fails to address impact on resident’s health. Residents have reported a worsening of respiratory illnesses. § Dust and smells are attributed to adjoining landuses but there is no evidence to support this. § Conway’s cannot comply with Policy W18 (re dust, noise and odour) without the provision of a management regime and the restriction of operating hours. Quantifying limits are needed for the management regime and the restricted hours are not compatible with the intended increase in the amount of waste to be processed on site. The stored material will require controls on a 24 hour basis. § The hours of operation are not a true reflection of the hours currently in use. Vehicular access at all times and a 7am start are not acceptable and are not currently adhered to. § The bund (when planted) would have provided sufficient protection from the industrial uses had the site remained as a ‘parking lot’. It does not provide protection from noise, dust, odour and visual impacts from the development. The bund also forms part of the nature reserve and represents protected land. § The application takes no account of the effect on the skyline as you enter Braeburn Park, where stone, grit and plant can be clearly seen. Photos have been provided showing the development as a complete eyesore. § Who will carry out the monitoring and maintain the environmental log? § There is no consideration of the play area 100m from the site, nor the impact from the lighting columns which project above the bund.
Other § Residents lack confidence in F M Conway that it will provide the necessary safeguards to protect the geological conservation, nor to set up systems to prevent dust from impacting upon local residents. § The rights of 600 local residents and the opposition of local elected representatives are not acknowledged which highlights the disregard the company has for its neighbours. Legal action was threatened against a local resident for stating that the development did not have permission. § Local properties have been blighted by the development and have been virtually impossible to sell. Residents bought property on Braeburn Park believing that the housing development would have the appearance of a woodland glade. § There is an opportunity for Conway to assist in the planting of a tree shield which would help to reduce dust and grit leaving the site. § The stated intent to implement a more intensive development (already permitted) if permission is refused is considered blackmail. What measures are in place to prevent such development being implemented? § The Statement shows that the County Council as Waste Disposal Authority are actively seeking to encourage another contractor to divert Kent’s gully waste to the facility. This raises a serious conflict of interest and raises questions of impartiality. § The enforcement notice appeal against the flood lights was upheld. If lighting is inappropriate it is inconceivable that these planning applications should be permitted. § The stored bitumen on the site was removed before the County Council visited the site. § The Company was fined for fly tipping in 2004. § Residents invite the County Council to visit Braeburn Park to have the opportunity to speak with residents and see the impact of the development. It is understood that
C2. 14 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
the County Council has held meetings on the Conway site and feels strongly that the same courtesy should be extended to residents.
Local Member Views including Elected Members Representing Bexley Residents 55. County Council Member Mr B Wood advises the following on both applications:
"After carefully considering all of the facts, discussions and presentations in these complex applications and the due process undertaken thus far, I am happy to support both applications provided there are suitable constraints placed regarding the environmental considerations and hours of operation. I look forward to Bexley Council facilitating the completion of the bund to the north of the site."
56. Nigel Beard MP for Bexley Heath and Crayford and Bexleyheath objects to the proposal. His objection to both applications on the F M Conway site can be summarised as :
§ Supports the objections from residents of Braeburn Park and considers that the residential surroundings of the housing estate should not be jeopardised by the development. The houses were sold with woodland and open space surrounding the estate. Had Conway’s proposals been public, then the decision to purchase the houses would have been made in a different context. § Concern about the timing of the development – just as the last house on Braeburn Park was sold. § There are other areas within the Thames Gateway without any impact on a residential area. § This is an inappropriate landuse adjacent to a new housing. § The present operations are aggravating residents in terms of dust, noise and visual intrusion. Any further development would lead to environmental degradation and depreciation of property values § The resident’s anger to the proposals has been hugely aggravated by the illegal nature of the activity.
57. Robert Neill, the Greater London Authority Member for Bexley and Bromley objects to both applications on the site. His points can be summarised as:
§ The resident’s anger to the proposals has been hugely aggravated by the illegal nature of the activity. § the smells, pollution, visual intrusion at these premises and noise arising from the operations are unacceptable considering its location immediately against housing and a conservation area. § the open storage of materials causes dust pollution to adjoining residents. Residents cannot open their windows for fear of dust and dirt entering properties. § Dust from the rubble is causing health issues and is unacceptable. § Additional traffic will have a detrimental effect on residents. Many of the roads are small and not built for constant use of lorries. § The crushing and processing of materials creates noise and pollution. § Residents on Braeburn Park were unaware of the development when they undertook land searches and would not have purchased had these developments been permitted. § The site is in the green belt. § FM Conway Ltd has shown no regard for the detrimental effects the developments have had on the community and it would be unacceptable to grant retrospective planning permission. The Company failed to meet deadlines set to
C2. 15 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
submit the planning application. There should be no advantage from a breach of planning control.
58. The three Ward Councillors for Bexley Council very strongly object to both applications. They advise:
‘Apart from representing a flagrant disregard for the planning process these activities will further degrade the Green Belt. The application represent, in our opinion a material departure from the agreed use of this area of land. These operations are part of waste recycling and are inappropriate activities on Green Belt land which is within sight and sound of near by residences. Neighbouring properties will suffer loss of visual amenity and will suffer noise and vehicle movement disruption. Such intensification of use is unacceptable. It also sets a dangerous precedent.’
59. Following consideration of the supplementary information, the Bexley Ward Councillors submitted a further letter expressing their ‘very strong objection’ to both planning applications. It advises:
‘Notwithstanding the recent additional information which has been submitted which Bexley Planning Committee will consider at its next meeting, we consider that these applications will further degrade the Green Belt and that no special circumstances exist to justify the continuance and intensification of use on this site.
The applications represent, in our opinion, a material departure from the agreed use for this area of land. These operations are part of waste recycling and are inappropriate activities on Green Belt land which is within sight and sound of near by residences. Neighbouring properties will suffer loss of visual amenity and will suffer noise and vehicle movement disruption. Such intensification of use is unacceptable. It also sets a dangerous precedent.’
Discussion
60. Section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The most significant development plan policies are outlined at paragraphs 20 above (and amplified in Appendix 3).
61. This is a retrospective planning application. Members are reminded that in determining retrospective planning applications, the planning considerations are the same as if the development had not taken place. Care needs to be taken to ensure that no advantage is given to the consideration of retrospective proposals.
62. In the context of this application, Waste Strategy 2000 and PPG10 ‘Planning & Waste Management’ require planning authorities to consider whether waste management proposals constitute the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). This approach is designed to assist in establishing the optimum and most sustainable form of waste management for any given waste stream.
63. The guiding principles of BPEO are the concept of the waste hierarchy, the proximity principle and the objective of self-sufficiency. In addition, BPEO seeks the right form and scale of waste management for the given waste stream at the right time and location. Although the BPEO concept as it applies to strategic policy development is supported by guidance and is relatively well understood, its role in the assessment of specific locations for waste management facilities is less clear and is open to debate.
C2. 16 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
64. Government is currently consulting on proposals to revise Waste Strategy 2000 (alongside a new PPS10 “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” and draft guidance on the preparation of Municipal Waste Management Strategies). The proposals would remove the need to specifically consider the role of the BPEO. Instead, the principles that underpin the BPEO (i.e. consultation, option appraisal, assessing long term environmental impacts and cost effectiveness), together with the waste hierarchy, proximity principle and self sufficiency (set out both internationally and nationally), would be addressed explicitly through the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development documents. Both documents must have a Strategic Environmental Assessment [SEA] (covering environmental issues) and a broader Sustainability Appraisal [SA] (covering social and economic issues). Similar requirements would also apply to Municipal Waste Management Strategies.
65. Draft PPS10 does not contain any advice on the role of BPEO or what should be done in determining individual planning applications during the ‘policy vacuum’ period prior to the preparation of waste development plans that have been subject to SEA and SA and prior to the publication of PPS10 and revised Waste Strategy 2000. In the case of Kent, where the Waste Local Plan has not been subjected to SEA, I am of the opinion that under the circumstances, WPAs should adopt a precautionary approach and continue to consider whether proposals represent the BPEO on a case by case basis. It is also of note that recent case law on BPEO has established that it is necessary for determining authorities to consider BPEO in its decision making process and that it is an important consideration but that it is not an ‘overriding ’ one.
66. Accordance with Development Plan policy and demonstration of BPEO can be assessed in relation to the following issues: need for waste management facilities; the principles of the waste hierarchy and self sufficiency, sources of waste and proximity principle; location (including Green Belt); environmental and amenity impacts; access and routing;
Need for Waste Management Facilities 67. Waste Strategy 2000 and national policy guidance on waste management places an emphasis on reducing the growth in waste and moving away from landfill towards more acceptable ways of waste management. To do so it is recognised that significant new investment will be required in waste plant. Waste management objectives as set out in Draft PPS10 accept the need to move waste management up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and to see waste as a ‘resource’. In particular, the guidance seeks to ensure communities take responsibility for dealing with its own waste and that it is disposed of as near as possible to the place of production and in a way that minimises risks to the environment. Whilst the Green Belt is to be protected, the guidance recognises that in some circumstances waste development may be acceptable.
68. The emerging SE Regional policy provides further recognition that a range of facilities is necessary to manage the region’s waste and that a large number of new facilities will be required. Work to support the Strategy in No Time to Waste, 2004 identified that by 2016 some 1.07m tonnes of construction and demolition waste would need to be recycled within Kent. This would equate to 6 facilities of this size. However these figures for Kent assumed the reprocessing of inert materials generated from within Kent. The basis of this particular operation is that the majority of waste arisings would be from within London.
69. A key policy objective is reducing the amount of material sent to landfill and an encouragement of recycling and recovery. Waste is now to be considered as a ‘resource’ and ‘ managed’ to release its potential. These objectives are also reflected in
C2. 17 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
development plan policy and in recycling targets within the Draft Regional Strategy. The latter seeks to recycle in the South East Region some 60% of construction and demolition waste by 2015. Support is also given in MPG6 to proposals to facilitate the use of secondary and waste materials where this is environmentally and economically acceptable and this is given policy support in the development by way of Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies M1 and M2.
70. In principle, proposals for waste recovery facilities on the site are therefore in accordance with waste management policy and guidance that supports the need for significant growth in facilities to enable the diversion of material from landfill. In particular, the proposal would enable up to 170,000 tonnes pa to be recovered to re- useable constituents which are more likely to be landfilled without this facility. The development treats waste as a resource and maximises it potential for other beneficial uses, thereby reducing both the amount of material to landfill and the need for virgin aggregates to be won.
71. However, whilst the proposal fares well against the general thrust of waste management policy/guidance, the sites acceptability for these waste management operations needs to be assessed against other planning considerations including the concepts of BPEO, the very special circumstances needed for development within the Green Belt and other environmental considerations.
BPEO 72. The application is accompanied by a BPEO assessment that considers the waste types and sources, strategic requirements, the waste hierarchy, technological options for waste streams, self sufficiency, the proximity principle and consideration of alternative sites. The BPEO assessment carried out by the applicant is the same for this planning application and application DA/04/770. With the exception of a site in Greenwich, all alternative sites assessed are located in Kent. The applicant’s assessment concluded that the application site ‘performs as well as the best of the other sites considered’ and ‘on balance that the site represents the BPEO in the particular circumstances of this proposal.’
Waste Hierarchy 73. In terms of the waste hierarchy, the proposal is positive in a number of ways and as such meets the requirements of W1 of the Kent Waste Local Plan. In particular, it scores well with regard to the resultant shift away from landfill disposal towards recycling and its production of a useable alternative to virgin aggregates would assist in the overall reduction of waste. The proposal would enable a very high level of recovery of material (in excess of 90%) which without this facility would very likely be diverted to landfill or to other less beneficial uses.
Self Sufficiency 74. The objective of self sufficiency is for local authorities and the industry to achieve regional self sufficiency in managing its waste. Firm guidance in how London’s waste is to be dealt with is not currently available, although emerging guidance supports development that has proven benefit to the South East Region and where the proximity principle is met.
75. From the stated waste sources, the proposal is primarily a facility to deal with London’s waste. The proposal is however on the boundary of the London Borough of Bexley and some 60% of the arising would be sourced from the 4 London Boroughs closest to Dartford (Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham). Whilst it meets the objective for the areas in which it will serve, it would process very little of waste arisings in Kent
C2. 18 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
(some 6000 tonnes pa from the Dartford area). Given this and the current uncertainty in how to deal with London’s waste, it is not possible at this time to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the self sufficiency principle.
Waste Sources and the Proximity Principle 76. The applicant’s business is centred on servicing highway maintenance contracts for various highway authorities. The contracts are in two categories – highway maintenance and gully cleansing. Whilst two applications have been submitted the applicant states that the operations (ie both applications) are fully integrated. The feedstock for the aggregate washing plant arises principally from the aggregate crushing operation on the site (ie this development) and the water from the drainage treatment plant is recycled for use in the aggregate washing plant. Silts and sand from the drainage treatment plant are processed in the aggregate washing plant. There are however 2 planning applications and the Planning Authority is required to treat each application on its merits.
77. Whilst operationally it may suit the applicant to locate the crushing facility with the other operations it is not a fundamental requirement. In planning terms it make sense to ‘process’ the material stream as close as possible to the sources of the arisings and to transport the ‘crushed’ material to the site for further washing as required.
78. The material for the crushing and screening activity essentially arises from the highway maintenance contracts which are sourced from the London Boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Merton and Southwark and a number of Boroughs North of the River Thames. As stated above, only a small quantity (5750 tonnes pa) would arise from the Dartford area.
79. The Proximity Principle requires that waste should be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible. The submitted BPEO considered a number of alternative sites to the application site. This included a number of locational criteria, along with a calculation for the average distance per tonne of waste. This allowed the sites to be ranked. The assessment took into account that the application site is the operational base and HQ of the applicant and as a consequence it argues that a number of synergies arise. In particular, the site and adjoining land is where the company’s vehicles are parked and serviced. As proposed, vehicles would therefore be able to collect processed material at the start of and during the day and return waste for processing at the end of the day rather than take it to landfill. To fully explore the proximity principle the applicant argues that it would need to relocate the entire F M Conway business from the Dartford site to one of the alternatives considered, otherwise there would be additional transport dis- benefits as vehicles travelled between the base depot and the material source and a likely degree of additional new built development on the alternative site. I do not accept this premise as explained above.
80. The BPEO assessment initially carried out by the applicant considered the site and 5 alternatives. With one exception the alternatives were all within Kent (Halling, Holborough, Strood, Maidstone and Kingsnorth). The original assessment only compared the application site against alternatives in Kent. However given the waste sources and that almost all of the construction and demolition waste would be derived in London, I considered that the assessment was flawed in that it failed to consider any alternatives within London. The applicant therefore carried out a further assessment and considered sites within the London Boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham. These areas were selected on the basis that they would generate some 60% of the arisings and would therefore appear at face value to be more proximate than the selected sites within Kent.
C2. 19 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
81. The further assessment reviewed the development plans of the 4 identified London Boroughs to identify suitable sites and other documents (ie the waste strategy for London prepared by the Mayor of London). In addition, discussions were held with planning officers to identify any sites that the Borough Council considered suitable for an aggregate processing facility. This is understood to have included a search of appropriate industrial land. This further assessment identified a possible site within Greenwich, currently operating as a waste management facility that recycles construction and demolition waste assessment. However, no documentation has been provided (other than the statement in the addendum that discussions took place) to confirm the outcome of the discussions with the London Boroughs on possible alternative sites.
82. The BPEO addendum that included consideration of the Greenwich site (Day Aggregates) alternative concluded that the application site is the most proximate for the highway maintenance and gully waste arisings with an average of 9.09 miles per tonne. The site in Greenwich resulted in an average distance per tonne of 9.11 miles. In comparison, the other considered sites in Kent generated average mileage of between 19 and 24 miles per tonne. If the assessment considered only the aggregate waste, then the Greenwich site was ranked as the most proximate to the waste sources with an average distance per tonne of 6.99 miles compared to 7.53 miles for the application site. The applicant concludes that whilst the Greenwich site is the most proximate, it does not represent the BPEO as the operator has confirmed in writing that it is unable to process the quantities arising from the applicant’s contracts.
83. In addition to comparing the sites against the distance per tonne, the assessment considered the site’s potential against local planning policy, air quality, accessibility, landscape and nature conservation and visual impact. This concluded that the application site was acceptable for the development although the acceptability on air quality was questioned. Clarification has established that the applicant considers that this issue is capable of management through the mitigation measures proposed to ensure that any impact upon residential amenity is acceptable.
84. Planning policy and in particular policy W3 of the emerging Regional Waste Management Strategy supports waste management facilities in the South East Region involving London’s waste where there is a proven need with demonstrable benefits to the Region (ie the South East Region) and where the development is consistent with the proximity principle. The application site also lies within the Green Belt, where policy supports facilities where they are consistent with the proximity principle and where there are no suitable alternative sites. As such there is a requirement to demonstrate that the application site meets these policy criteria.
85. The further BPEO assessment undertaken by the applicant has sought to consider alternative sites within the London Boroughs of Bromley, Bexley, Greenwich and Lewisham where the greatest percentage of waste arises. It does not however appear to have satisfactorily demonstrated that no alternative site exists within these areas. The application fails to have fully explored the potential for an aggregate recycling facility such as proposed on the application site within this part of London. The aggregate crushing development is being promoted by the applicant as ‘acceptable in planning terms’ on an industrial estate within 100m of residential property and immediately adjoining a nature conservation site. On the information submitted to date, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that a site does not exist closer to the waste sources that in terms of other planning considerations, particularly amenity impact on adjoining landuses is equal to or better than the application site. In addition, the submission fails
C2. 20 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
to have demonstrated that there is a proven need for the development with demonstrable benefits to the Region.
86. To fully consider the issue, the applicant should have explored comparable sites to the application site. This should have considered comparable industrial sites or other previously developed land and undertaken sufficient assessment to establish whether the site performed as well or better in BPEO terms than the application site. Members are being asked to permit the proposal on the basis that it represents BPEO, without the necessary evidence to substantiate that the development couldn’t be satisfactorily provided on an industrial estate or other land closer to the waste arisings. Notwithstanding that the site is on the London boundary, in light of the policy considerations the failure of the application to fully consider options for this waste stream in London closer to the arisings is flawed. Without further evidence, I am not convinced that an alternative site in terms of BPEO of 1.1ha (the application site area) does not exist closer to the waste sources As a result, I cannot conclude that the proposal meets the proximity principle, nor that it meets the best environmental option for this waste stream. It is therefore contrary to development plan policy in particular emerging policy W3 of South East Regional Waste Management Strategy, WM1 and WM2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2003) and the relevant part of ENV21 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996.
87. A number of the representations raise concerns about the BPEO information and dispute the conclusions. This BPEO methodology used to measure proximity has been accepted by the County Council to support other waste management proposals across the County. The comments raised relate to alternative sites considered in Kent which for the reasons discussed above are not a suitable alternative given the waste sources.
Locational Considerations 88. The site is not identified in the Waste Local Plan for waste management development. As such the locational criteria of policies W3 and W7 are relevant. These seek to ensure that development on unallocated sites has access to the primary or secondary route network, is located within or adjacent to an existing waste management operation or within an area of established general industrial use and seeks to minimise the impact on local and natural environments. The locational criteria in SE Regional Plan (Policy W17/W18) are also relevant. These require that potential new sites should have good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections, compatible land uses – active mineral site, previous/existing industrial land, contaminated or derelict land, land adjacent to sewage treatment works and be capable of meeting locally based environmental and amenity criteria. In relation to development in the green belt, proposals waste facilities are acceptable where they are consistent with the proximity principle, where there are no suitable alternative sites and provided that the development does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt designation.
89. The application site lies within an old established industrial area and is surrounded by a number of other waste management operations including the County Council’s Civic Amenity Site. It is well connected to the primary route network. In light of these characteristics, the site is in accordance with elements of development plan policy. The proposal has not however satisfactorily demonstrate that there are benefits to the SE Region from the development and that the proximity principle is met.
Green Belt 90. The site lies within the Green Belt and the application accepts that the development is ‘inappropriate development ’ in terms of national policy advice for Green Belt. Inappropriate development is by its very nature considered to be harmful to an interest
C2. 21 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
of acknowledged importance. As such there is a policy presumption against development unless ‘very special circumstances’ can be demonstrated. PPG2 advises that ‘very special circumstances’ will not be shown to exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The onus is on the applicant to show that the circumstances of the particular development are such as to outweigh the harm to interests of acknowledged importance. The main feature of the Green Belt designation is its openness. Development Plan policies in the adopted Structure Plan (MPG3) the emerging Structure Plan (SS9) and W4 of the Kent Waste Local Plan reflect national guidance on development in the Green Belt.
91. The applicant has sought to set out what it considers to be the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to enable the Green Belt Test to be satisfied. Its case can be summarised as
§ Clear need for the facility to meet national and regional targets for diversion from landfill through increased recycling; § The applicant’s BPEO assessment concluded that for the waste being managed and its identified sources that the application site represents BPEO; § The function that the site performs in relation to the Green Belt function and the relevance of case law Tesco’s Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment and Hounslow Bough Council, 1991 (the Tesco case).
92. In terms of the last bullet point above the application considers that the site already fails to meet one of the five objectives of the Green Belt designation. These are to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the re-use of derelict and other urban land.
93. In the case of the application site it is argued that the site is not undeveloped and that this fact will be unaffected by the determination of this application. This is because notwithstanding the retrospective nature of this application, Dartford Borough Council granted planning permission in 2002 for development on the site. In permitting the application for the redevelopment of the site which included the demolition of existing buildings and erection of an industrial and storage building, an extension to an existing workshop and associated ancillary works the Borough Council would have had to be satisfied that the development met the ‘very special circumstances’ to overcome this inappropriate green belt development. In its consideration, the Borough Council appear to have accepted that the planning benefit gained by the replacement of various unsightly buildings on the site by smaller, more attractive buildings met the ‘very special circumstances’ test.
94. As a consequence the applicant states that case law (the Tesco case) has established that in such circumstances it is appropriate to assess the green belt considerations in the light of the Tesco case referred to above. In this particular case, it was found that in determining an appeal for Tescos, the Inspector had not felt it necessary to follow an earlier decision on the site that ‘very special circumstances’ existed, but had taken a practical view that if the appeal were dismissed, the consequence would remain that site could be developed under the earlier permission for industrial uses. It was therefore the dismissing of the appeal that amounted to the ‘very special circumstances’. The consequences of permitting the Tesco application were that the development would have no greater impact than the permitted development on the Green Belt.
C2. 22 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
95. The above special circumstances case was put forward for both waste management planning applications. In the case of the F M Conway application for the drainage treatment and the aggregate washing plants (DA/04/770), I concluded that similar circumstances to the Tesco case existed in that the existing permission had a potentially greater impact on the green belt than the waste management proposal. In the case of this current proposal, the ‘very special circumstances’ argument is however less clear as the 2002 permission does not provide for floorspace on the current application site. My interpretation however of the 2002 planning permission granted by the Borough Council is that the applicant can use the site for open storage in association with its civil engineering depot. There are no restrictions on this storage use with regard to operating hours, nature of material nor a limit on the number or height of any stockpiles. The approved use of the site has in my view the potential to have an impact upon the openness of the greenbelt.
96. The emerging Regional Strategy also provides guidance for waste management proposal within the Green Belt. The emerging Strategy recognises that waste management facilities are not precluded from the Green Belt provided that the development will not cause harm to the objective of the designation, is consistent with the proximity principle and where there are no suitable alternative sites. The key purpose behind this is to balance the necessary significant growth in waste management facilities that are required and the need for facilities to be proximate to the waste arisings without compromising the function of the Green Belt designation.
97. The application site is an industrial enclave within the Green Belt. It does not easily meet any of the 5 objectives of the Green Belt designation (as set out in para 92 above). The principle of a potentially more intensive development (albeit not waste related with some of the related environmental effects) on the site than that proposed in this application has already been considered acceptable in the Green Belt. In light of this issue only and the case law referred to above, I am satisfied that on balance that the ‘very special circumstances’ regarding the Green Belt have been met. However, I do not agree that the first two circumstances referred to by the applicant (see para 91) would constitute the required special circumstances.
Amenity Impacts (noise, dust, odour and visual impact) 98. The potential amenity impacts arising from the development need to be considered in the context of advice in PPG10, draft PPS10, PPG24 and development plan policies. In particular consideration needs to be given to potential impact from noise, dust, odour, access, nature conservation, visual intrusion and operating hours. A substantial number of objections have been raised to the development on these grounds arguing that the development is inappropriate to be sited in close proximity to housing. In the decision making process, these amenity considerations referred to above should have particular regard to the adjoining land uses. Where demonstrable harm is shown, policy W6 of the Waste Local Plan establishes that need for the development is a consideration.
Noise, Dust and Odour 99. PPG24 provides guidance on how the planning system should balance the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restriction on development. As a general principle however, noisy development should be sited away from noise sensitive land uses (which includes housing). In the decision making process, planning authorities are however advised to consider whether it is practicable to control noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise through the use of conditions or planning obligations such as to render the development acceptable. Policy W18 of the Waste Local Plan requires development to satisfactorily address means of controlling noise, dust, odour and other
C2. 23 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
emissions. A similar objective is reflected in the Kent Structure Plan policy ENV20 and the Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies QL1 and NR4.
Noise 100. The supplementary information submitted with the application included a noise assessment of the activities on the Conway site. It was carried in accordance with the methodology advocated in MPG11. The views of Jacobs Babtie (who advise the County Council on noise matters) advised that the methodology selected was incorrect given the nature of the development and that an assessment should have been carried out in accordance with British Standard: 4142. This revised assessment was undertaken and submitted in support of both planning applications.
101. This assessment indicated that the development without mitigation measures would give rise to noise impacts greater than the acceptable threshold advised in BS4142. It demonstrated that the unmitigated development would tend towards a positive indication that complaints are likely to arise within the Braeburn Park area and as such would be unacceptable in planning terms. The applicant however considers that it is confident that noise levels can be brought within acceptable limits, such that a planning refusal on this ground would be unwarranted. It therefore sought to demonstrate that in principle an acceptable noise climate could be established and that it was appropriate to amplify details in a condition. Jacobs Babtie accepts that this is a reasonable approach and it follows that in the event that the detail of a condition could not be satisfied, the plant could not operate.
102. The applicant for determination therefore includes a conceptual noise scheme (as referred to in para 18) which seeks to partially enclose the crusher. This is agreed to be the noisiest source on the site. The enclosure would result in a reduction of noise on the site to a rating of 5.3db which is just above the marginal threshold of 5db and acceptability in planning terms. Calculations to consider the likely impact of working closer towards the site boundary with Braeburn Park suggests that a rating of +6db would occur. As a consequence, it will be necessary in my view to provide further mitigation than the enclosure as currently proposed. The applicant has however indicated that it could provide further mitigation such as attenuation to the loading shovels (the second noisiest source on site and acoustic fencing). These are unlikely to reduce levels significantly, but advice from Jacobs Babtie confirms that measures such as these could bring the operational noise climate within the 0-+5dba rating that is necessary for the development to be acceptable. With a rating within this threshold, a ground for refusal would be difficult to fully substantiate.
103. It has been suggested that an acoustic fence be provided on the bund as a means of to mitigating the development. The bund is not within the ownership of the applicant and could only be pursued with the agreement of the landowner. Any mitigation benefit would have to be balanced against Green Belt considerations.
104. In light of the above, Jacobs Babtie advises that with appropriate noise mitigation , the development could be operated such that noise arising from the site would not constitute an unacceptable impact upon the adjacent housing development, nor the adjoining public open space. Specific details including threshold levels could be addressed by way of condition(s). Any mitigation measures would need to be balanced against the benefit that they may bring and the impact upon the Green Belt. This view is not however shared by LB Bexley who consider that in terms of noise (and dust and odour) the application is inadequate to assess the impact of the activities on the amenities of nearby residents.
C2. 24 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Dust 105. Considerable objection has been raised to the dust that could arise from the development and concerns regarding poor air quality. Dust has been witnessed on the site around the crusher and above the industrial estate from the Braeburn Park area. Residents state that dust falls within the housing area and monitoring by Bexley Council has identified a number of ‘dust instances’ following the installation of a dust monitor within the estate. London Wildlife Trust has raised specific concerns that the movement of material on site from the stockpiles may disturb significant levels of dust and that the operation has the potential to have a detrimental impact upon local quality of life and visitor’s ability to enjoy the new nature reserve. There is also concern that the ‘official limits in reality may be at odds with perceived levels of disturbance’.
106. The applicant recognises the potential for dust arising from the crusher proposal and a number of mitigation measures are therefore proposed in order to minimise the amount of wind blown dust that arises from activities in the recycling area. These are set out in para 16. above but include the use of water sprays at agreed locations which would be triggered by windspeed, hard surfaces and stockpile heights to be dampened down and stockpiles kept at less than 6m and the mechanical sweeping of the site. During any period of strong wind (which the applicants suggest could be defined by condition) such that nuisance to local residents may occur, the crusher operation would be suspended. The enclosure of the crusher would also have a positive impact in terms of dust mitigation. In light of these measures, Jacobs Babtie have advised that the development with the proposed mitigation measures in place would appear capable of operating within acceptable amenity limits and that specific details could be addressed by condition.
107. Bexley Council however considers that the application has failed to provide sufficient information to enable the impact on the amenity of Bexley residents to be properly assessed. Having considered the supplementary information (February 2005) submitted with regard to dust the Council maintains its objection to the development. It advises that the Council continues to receive complaints about activities on the site (principally noise and dust). Whilst I accept that these complaints are being made in relation to the current development that is operating without the mitigation measures, it does raise an important planning consideration.
108. Planning guidance advises that care should be taken to ensure in decision making that new waste management facilities avoid locations which may be incompatible with existing land uses. The County Council’s normal practice in considering planning applications for waste management development is to seek to protect local amenity by allowing for a sufficient zone between the site and any adjacent ‘sensitive’ landuse. There is no definition as to what constitutes an ‘acceptable zone’ and each case is considered on its own merits. In this particular case, the site is located some 100m from residential property and immediately adjacent and contiguous with public open space that is to be managed as a nature conservation site. In order to support the development with regards to dust, the planning authority needs to be satisfied that any amenity impacts arising from the development are acceptable and that dust is unlikely to migrate onto adjacent landuses as well as be confident that the mitigation measures proposed are adequate. In the absence of a traditional buffer zone, the need to be satisfied on amenity with regard to dust is arguably strengthened.
109. A crushing operation will generate dust. In this particular case given the location, it has the potential to deposit dust on the adjoining public open space and within the
C2. 25 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Braeburn Park housing area. This has the potential to have an adverse impact upon amenity. Whilst it is recognised that the open space closest to the bund will eventually be densely planted and thereby have reduced public access, this planting will require a number of years before it is properly established. The applicant recognises that the development may have an adverse impact and includes measures that in its view will enable the development to operate within acceptable dust limits. Whilst I recognise it may be possible to bring about an acceptable dust climate by the way of condition as suggested by Jabob Babtie, we have not principally controlled dust in this way before at other sites in Kent. Traditionally, we have been fully satisfied in advance of determination of an application that the applicant can meet in principle the terms of any planning condition that may be imposed.
110. As stated by Bexley Council, there has been inadequate assessment of the impact of the development on the local residents of Braeburn Park and that particularly with regard to dust there has been no site-specific quantified dust assessment to support this application. This is particularly important where the sources of the feedstock to the crusher are likely to be variable. As such it not possible to fully consider the impact of the development with regard to dust on the adjoining public open space or on the Braeburn Park housing development. Without a clear understanding of the specific dust considerations arising from the development I cannot be confident that the measures proposed will be effective in preventing dust emissions beyond the site boundary. Given the issues raised by this proposal, the precautionary approach in being fully satisfied on dust issues in advance of determination would appear to be a reasonable one.
111. Representations also draw attention to health concerns relating to the development, particularly arising from dust associated with the crushing operation. The applicant considers that given the distance between the application site and the nearest housing, together with the proposed mitigation measures to control dust and the applicant’s obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act, the potential adverse impact upon health is considered to be minimal. To support this view, it advises that its personnel working on the site are required to work in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act. This identifies an occupational exposure standard (OES) which is set at a level, based upon current scientific knowledge at which there is no indication of risk to workers exposed by daily inhalation. Control of exposure to acceptable levels for site operatives is achieved by the application of dust control measures. It argues that these measures would also benefit the wider public, such that the impact upon health is likely to be minimal. Without information to demonstrate that dust can be satisfactorily managed on this site, I cannot fully conclude on the perceived health issue arising from this development. Where there is demonstrable harm, policy W6 of the Waste Local Plan identifies needs as a planning consideration. Need for the development as proposed has not been demonstrated on this occasion.
112. A number of representations refer to the risk of silicosis arising from the development. This is usually associated with workers employed in the mining, blasting and glass foundry industries.
113. The application refers to an adjoining operator on the industrial estate who is also crushing materials (Easyload) and that when considering complaints it is difficult to clearly identify between the operators as to which is the noise or dust source. This would in my view support the justification for a specific dust assessment to be undertaken on the application site.
C2. 26 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
114. Bexley Council and Jacob Babtie infer that the enclosure of the crushing operation within a building would in terms of addressing noise and dust impacts be a more acceptable solution to that currently proposed. In terms of mitigating noise and dust from the site, this would appear to be the optimum solution. It would however raise Green Belt considerations for which ‘very special circumstances’ would need to be demonstrated. As the application does not incorporate a building, this application is not supported by such justification.
115. Recycling facilities for construction and demolition waste in the County are usually located in the open, having satisfied in planning terms that the impacts that may arise are acceptable given the circumstances of each site . The provision of a building for a waste management facility was however permitted by this Council (subject to a legal agreement) on a site in the urban area of Ashford. This covered solution was proposed in response to amenity concerns. The applicant is aware of this site and has been provided with a copy of the scheme.
Odour 116. A number of the representations refer to odour objections. An odour assessment accompanied both waste management applications, but did not identify an odour issue with the aggregate crushing activity. As such no mitigation measures are proposed. Site visits by officers from the planning authority and from Jacobs Babtie (with Bexley Council’s Environmental Health Officer) have not experienced an odour problem arising from the development. The type of material involved in this development are unlikely to create odour. I do however understand that the applicant may have previously had a bitumen plant on the site which may have given rise to the concerns raised in the representations. This plant is no longer on site and not part of the planning application.
Visual Impact 117. Objection has been raised to the visual appearance of the site and the negative impact this is having on Braeburn Park and the surrounding area, Between the application site and the Braeburn Park housing there is an extensive earth bund which is to form part of a nature reserve. A legal agreement tied to the residential planning permission requires this land to be substantially planted and subsequently managed as a local nature reserve by the London Wildlife Trust. The bund rises to approximately 15m in height above the houses in Braeburn Park and was provided as a ‘buffer’ between the housing and industrial landuses. Despite the housing being occupied for some time, the planting on the bund has yet to be implemented. The approved scheme shows that some 10,0000 trees of mixed species are to be planted. Figure 3 which accompanies this report shows the relationship of the landuses and the area that is to be planted. Bexley Council has confirmed that it is its intention to ensure that the planting takes place in accordance with the legal agreement and discussions are currently underway regarding timescales. It is therefore reasonable to determine the planning application on the basis that the bund will be planted, although the earliest date is likely to be undertaken in Winter 2005/6.
118. The planting of the bund would in my view greatly enhance its effectiveness as a visual screen and serve its intended purpose. Jacobs Babtie who advise the Planning Authority on landscape matters considers that a successful planting scheme of more than 3m in height would screen the operations on the applicant’s site and satisfactorily address visual intrusion. It has to be recognised however that the planting may require up to 5 years before it reaches 3m in height and this is
C2. 27 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Figure 3 – Extract form Braeburn Park planning permission showing the bund (W1) and required planting scheme
C2. 28 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
dependent upon soil conditions and aftercare. Until then, the transient movement of plant within the site may be visible from the higher ground (the access road and some upper floor windows) within Braeburn Park. Braeburn Park is developed in a former quarry and the housing is constructed on what was previously the quarry floor. The restriction of stockpile heights to 6m would ensure that stored materials are unlikely to be visible from the neighbouring housing development. Views of the site would be visible from the top of the bund, but as the intention is to densely plant this bund pedestrian activity in this area is likely to be low. The visual impact needs to be balanced against the potential visual impact of unrestricted open storage on the site. The site is briefly glimpsed from the A2 and is read as part of the established industrial estate. This view is transitory and is not considered to be an overriding factor. In light of the above, the visual impact arising from the development assuming the successful planting of the bund is considered acceptable.
119. One of the representations suggests that the applicant contributes to the planting on the bund. I understand that the applicant is keen to see the bund planted and has previously offered assistance to achieve this objective. However, the bund is not within the applicant’s ownership and would require the agreement of the landowner for this to occur.
Hours of Operation 120. Permission is being sought to operate the crushing plant between the hours of 0700 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays and from 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays. Vehicles would have access to the site on a 24 hour basis, although the applicant has confirmed that waste processing would not take place on a 24 hour basis. The applicant advises that it has contracts that can require weekend and night- time working, this is planned and except in emergencies (ie emergency road re-surfacing following an accident) the work can be scheduled so that there is no requirement to load or unload outside the above ‘normal’ hours. At present the site operates under the benefit of a planning permission granted by Dartford Borough Council. With the exception of the workshop building there are no restrictions on operating hours and vehicles have 24 hour access.
121. Objection has been raised to the operating hours sought from local residents. Bexley Council has resolved that if the County Council is minded to permit the application the operating hours should start at 0800 hours rather than 0700 hours. The operating hours requested for the crushing plant accord with policy W26 of the Kent Waste Local Plan. In light of the amenity considerations raised, the close proximity of housing and potential use of the adjoining public open space (the bund) there would appear to be merit in restricting the use of the crushing activity to Monday to Friday, although maintenance of plant may be acceptable on Saturday. Given the restriction on no weekend working, a restriction to a 0800 start would not appear to be reasonable. If Members were minded to approve the proposal I would recommend these hours be imposed for amenity purposes.
Impact upon the SSSI and Nature Conservation 122. Objection is made on the grounds of the potential impact to the nature conservation site and the SSSI in the vicinity of the site. The SSSI lies to the east of the application site. English Nature advises that as a precaution to protect the site a buffer zone should be provided between the SSSI and the development. In this case, the SSSI lies to the rear of the existing workshop, some 150m from the application site. I am therefore satisfied that the development would have no adverse impact upon the SSSI and would be consistent with development plan policy.
C2. 29 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
123. The earth bund adjoining the application site is intended to be densely planted and managed by London Wildlife Trust as part of the planning permission for the development of the housing in Braeburn Park. A Borough Site of Nature Conservation Importance (The Gun Club) lies further to the west of the application site and a review is currently taking place with a view to including the open space within Braeburn Park (ie the bund) into the Gun Club SNCI. The site does not currently have the status of a SNCI and in its present form would appear to have limited nature conservation value. London Wildlife Trust who will manage the site has advised that whilst the planted bund will have public access, it will be densely planted that access routes will be provided on the lower slope of the bund. Until the planting is established, it would be reasonable to assume that the public will have access to the part of the site closest to the application area.
124. London Wildlife Trust has also drawn attention to the design of the dry concrete containment walls and concern that they fail to provide proper site security and effective containment allowing spillage of materials on to the reserve. The walls around the perimeter of the site would appear to offer sufficient containment. I am not aware of spillage from the site despite stockpiles being in excess of the proposed 6m. Given the proposed restrictions on stockpile heights it would appear unlikely that material would spill onto the proposed nature reserve. The application has however failed to demonstrate that the development will not give rise to unacceptable impacts with regard to dust on the public open space such as to affect the amenity and enjoyment of users of the open space. It is therefore contrary to policy G27 of the Bexley Unitary Plan.
Access 125. The site has good access to the primary route network and in particular the A2 and the M25. Width restrictions are in place in Station Road, Bexley which effectively prohibit large vehicles using roads within the Bexley area. There is no objection from the Highway Authority. I therefore conclude that the proposal is in accordance with development plan policy regarding satisfactory means of access
Other issues 126. A number of representations are concerned about the potential further expansion of the site and in particular references on the Company’s website to a glass crushing proposal and an asphalt plant. The latter was originally included in an earlier application for waste management development that was incorrectly made to Dartford Borough Council. This element of the application was withdrawn prior to the resubmission of the application to Kent CC. I am not aware of any proposal to operate a glass crushing facility on the site. Any further proposals on this site would however need to be considered on their own merits. They are not part of the current proposals and without an application no judgement can be made on the acceptability of otherwise of such development.
127. In the event that planning permission is granted there appears to be a lack of confidence in the applicant to carry out the development in accordance with a planning permission. Clarification has been sought as to how the site will be monitored and by whom. In the event that permission were granted, monitoring would take place by the Waste Planning Authority against the terms of the permission. The possibility of a Site Liaison Group for this site may also have some merit. As Members are aware, a Liaison Group has been established on a number of waste and mineral sites. The membership of the Group is usually the operator and/or landowner, parish council or resident representative, elected members and
C2. 30 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
officers from the Waste Planning Authority. A key objective of the Group’s is to provide an opportunity to discuss issue of concern. If there were sufficient interest to establish a Group for the Conway site, this would provide a channel for communication and dialogue on planning issues. The location of the site and the planning remit of Dartford Borough Council for other elements of the site suggests that it would be appropriate to extend any Group’s membership (if they wished) to include Dartford and Bexley Councils.
128. Finally, the visual impact of lighting has been raised by a number of those making representation and Bexley Council. There are no lighting proposals associated with this development, although this issue is an ongoing planning matter for Dartford Borough Council.
Conclusion 129. This is one of two retrospective planning applications for waste management development on the site. Both applications have generated considerable objection, principally from residents of a recently constructed housing development which neighbours the site and their elected representatives.
130. This development is also the subject of two outstanding applications for a Certificate for Lawful Use (CLUED). - one of which is currently with the Planning Inspectorate; the other is with Dartford Borough Council for determination. The applicant requires either permission from the County Council for this application or confirmation that the CLUED has been confirmed in order to carry on this activity on the site.
131. The proposals in the two planning applications have been promoted together to form an integrated waste management system which would enable the recycling of highway maintenance (construction and demolition) and highway gully waste. This application seeks permission for an aggregate screening and crushing operation and associated storage on the site. Each application must be determined on its merits and as if the development had not been implemented.
132. This is a particular difficult proposal on which to recommend. The issues are very finely balanced. Given waste management policy and guidance, its location on an established industrial estate, adjacent to other waste uses would appear to make the site acceptable in principle for a waste management function. The principle of the proposal to utilise waste as a resource and enable diversion away from landfill up the waste hierarchy has considerable merit and one that accords with waste management policy and guidelines. Without this facility, it is arguable that potentially 170,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition waste would be diverted to landfill or less beneficial uses, contrary to waste management objectives. The proposal provides the potential to recover the material for a beneficial use, thereby reducing the demand on virgin aggregates, another key waste management objective.
133. The proposal has been promoted as an integrated waste management facility. This integration and that the applicant’s main depot and HQ are on the same site may well result in some environmental benefits, particularly associated with transportation, but unlike in the case of the aggregate washing plant and the drainage treatment plant (application DA/04/770) there is arguably no physical inter- dependence between these elements and the crushing plant.
134. The activity is currently operating on the site without the benefit of the mitigation measures proposed. Without such measures the development has attracted
C2. 31 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
objection on amenity grounds, particularly noise and dust. The proposal before Members seeks approval for the development with appropriate mitigation. The application includes information that seeks to demonstrate that in principle it is possible with mitigation measures (particularly the enclosure of the crusher and dust sprays) to carry out the development within acceptable noise and dust limits. Given the nature of the adjoining land uses and their proximity to the site, it is necessary in my view for the development to be carried out so as to ensure that amenity impacts experienced by adjoining land users are acceptable. Whilst I am satisfied with regard to noise, odour and visual impacts, the applicant has not undertaken a site specific assessment with regard to dust. It is not therefore possible to fully consider the dust impacts arising from the development on adjacent landuses. I cannot therefore conclude that the proposed mitigation measures would provide the necessary level of mitigation to protect local amenity with regards to dust.
135. On the basis of the stated waste sources, this is a facility to primarily process London’s waste in Kent, albeit on the border of the London area. As such the emerging regional guidance supports development where there is a proved need with demonstrable benefits to the South East Region and where it is consistent with the proximity principle. The proposal as submitted has not clearly demonstrated that no suitable alternative site exits, bearing in mind the particular location and nature of this site, nor that it is proximate to the waste arisings. It is not therefore possible to conclude that the proposal meets the BPEO with regard to the proximity and self- sufficiency principles. The decision making process also needs to balance the changing concept of BPEO and that the site is immediately on the border of London.
136. In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal should be refused and recommend accordingly
Recommendation
137. I RECOMMEND that PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the grounds that that:
(i) given the stated waste sources the application has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal represents the BPEO with particular regard to the proximity and self sufficiency principles. As such the development is contrary to Waste Strategy 2000, PPG10 and the consultation draft PPS10 with regard to these principles, WM1 and WM2 of the emerging Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2003), the relevant part of policy ENV21 of the Kent Structure Plan (1996) and emerging policy W3 of the South East Regional Waste Management Strategy.
(ii) the application has failed to demonstrate that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon local amenity with regards to dust. It is therefore contrary to Kent Structure Plan (1996) policy ENV20, policy NR4 of the emerging Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2003), policies W7 and W18 of the Kent Waste Local Plan (1998) and policy G27 of the Bexley Unitary Plan.
(iii) In view of the potential harm upon local amenity arising from dust emissions from the development, the application has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate an overriding need for the development. As such the development is contrary to Kent Structure Plan (1996) policy ENV22, emerging Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2003) policy WM2 and policy W6 of the Kent Waste Local Plan (1998).
C2. 32 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
138. I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the Regulation Committee in invited to take appropriate planning enforcement action.
Case Officer: Sharon Thompson Tel. No. 01622 696052
Background Documents: see section heading.
C2. 33 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 1a to Item C2
APPLICATIONS DA/04/770 AND DA/04/787 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR (I) DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANT, AGGREGATE WASHING PLANT, 2 ADDITIONAL B2/B8 INDUSTRIAL UNITS, ASSOCIATED REVISIONS TO ACCESS PARKING AND OPEN STORAGE; (ii) USE OF LAND FOR SCREENING, CRUSHING AND PROCESSING OF AGGREGATES, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE AND CONCRETE TOGETHER WITH OPEN STORAGE OF THESE MATERIALS AT LAND AT FM CONWAY WORKS, ROCHESTER WAY, DARTFORD
NOTES of a site visit held at FM Conway Works, Dartford on Monday, 20 September 2004.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr J F London (Chairman), Mr F Wood-Brignall (Vice-Chairman), Mr R F Manning, Mr A R Poole and Mr J H Tolputt. (Mr B P Wood was present as the Local Member).
OFFICERS: Mrs S Thompson (Planning) and Mr A Tait (Legal and Secretariat).
THE APPLICANT: FM Conway: Mr M Conway (Managing Director), Mr A Holmes (Business Development Manager), Mr N Leaver (Director). Mr F Robinson (Robinson Escott Planning) and Mr H Williams (RPS).
OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES: Bexley Council: Cllr R Everitt, Cllr J Waters, Mr L Sayers (Planning); Dartford Borough Council: Cllr C Broadley, Cllr T C H Smith and Mr A Legg (Planning)
ALSO PRESENT was a local resident representing residents from the adjoining housing development.
(1) The Chairman opened the visit by explaining that its purpose was to enable Members to familiarise themselves with the application site and to gather the views of the Technical Officers present. He then invited Mr Conway to address the meeting.
(2) Mr Conway said that he had worked for Conways in the construction industry for 35 years and had been the Managing Director since 1972. The company aimed to be very professional in everything that it did. Some 13 years ago, Conways had become involved in the recycling of aggregates.
(3) Mr Conway then explained that Conways was committed to reducing the amount of virgin aggregate used and maximising recycling opportunities. He said that the site in Rochester Road, Dartford was perfect for a major recycling operation as it enabled material to be transported along the A2 trunk road straight to the site.
(4) Mr Holmes gave a presentation on the workings of the plant, describing the various waste management elements of the site. This included details of the Foamway and on-site concrete manufacture, which were not the subject of applications to KCC.
(5) Mr Holmes said that over 200,000 tonnes of waste road arisings were processed each year. These came from the London Boroughs and consisted mainly of concrete and asphalt. Once on site, this material was crushed and screened for re-use as a granular sub-base or to produce Foamway cold-lay macadam. Alternatively, when washed, it could be reused as sand and gravel. Conways also treated and
C2. 34 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
processed drainage waste, reducing the burden on landfill. He said that Conways was proud to be setting standards in the recycling of construction waste.
(6) Mr Holmes then spoke in greater detail about the processes involved. He said that concrete and asphalt arising from highway and footway works in London, which had formerly been taken to landfill, could now be treated and processed at this site. The loads brought on to the site were closely inspected, and contaminated loads (containing such materials as clay) were rejected. Details of all vehicles entering or leaving the site were recorded. The concrete and asphalt were separated on arrival.
(7) Mr Holmes then described the aggregate recovery process. The computer-controlled impact crushing machine could be moved around the site and could crush up to 350 tonnes per hour. All material was put through this machinery and then graded. None of it went to landfill.
(8) Mr Holmes turned to the Foamway Plant. He said that this produced safe, cold foam- mix macadam for use in any road category. This process was used in the UK, Europe and America and produced an environmentally friendly alternative to hot asphalt (particularly as it consisted of 100% recycled aggregate). He added that this material was particularly popular with the National Trust, who used it on their sites.
(9) Mr Holmes moved on to describe the aggregate washing process. This was linked to the drainage waste treatment plant, whose water returned to the aggregate washing plant. The aggregate was placed on conveyors, sent through a wash drum and washed at a very high pressure level. The aggregates were then split up according to their size, through the use of screens. The remaining particles and silt were then washed back in to the drainage treatment plant for reuse in the aggregate wash. The whole process was designed to be particularly quiet. The separated aggregate was stockpiled before being used in the production of concrete or other high value applications.
(10) Mr Holmes then explained that after being washed, the aggregate together with materials from the drainage waste processing plant, could be mixed in volumetric trucks to make concrete to the customers’ specifications. The maximum load that could be mixed in these trucks was 8 m 3. These vehicles were never overloaded.
(11) Mr Holmes continued by explaining that drainage waste was brought on to the site in up to 30 yellow vehicles per day. This waste arose from such tasks as cleaning the M25 network and jet-cleaning gullies. Each vehicle was GPS-fitted to make it trackable. This waste was put through the drainage treatment plant in order to separate water and silt into very fine particles. This involved a highly complex system of separation, filtration and screening to render 95% of its constituents harmless and suitable for reuse.
(12) Mr Leaver replied to questions from Mr Manning by saying that 5% of the waste (including plastics) was sent to Landfill. Heavy metals were collected in a drum at the back of the site. He added that the site was doused every 5 minutes in order to suppress dust.
(13) Following the presentation, Members inspected the aggregate recovery, aggregate washing and drainage waste processing areas before returning to the main meeting area.
(14) Mrs Thompson explained that the Foamway plant and concrete vehicles were not
C2. 35 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
part of the two applications being considered by the Committee. Retrospective planning consent was being sought for the aggregate crushing and aggregate washing plants, the drainage treatment plant, two industrial units and associated developments.
(15) Mrs Thompson went on to say that the application site lay within the Metropolitan Green Belt and had originally been the subject of an application to Dartford BC for a drainage plant as part of an application for a wider development in 2002. Permission had been granted. In 2003 F M Conway had submitted an application to Dartford BC for further development. Following consultation between KCC, Dartford BC and F M Conway, it was agreed that a planning application for the Drainage Treatment Plant and Aggregate Washing Plant should be submitted to KCC.
(16) Mrs Thompson then said that F M Conway had constructed the Drainage Treatment Plant before KCC had become involved in the application. It was understood to have been erected on the site on the basis that the Company considered that they already had permission to do so (subject to approval of the details) under the terms of the 2002 planning permission. She (and Dartford BC) did not share this view, as they considered that the drainage plant, as constructed, differed materially from the one granted permission in 2002 to such an extent, that it did not have planning permission.
(17) Mrs Thompson then told the meeting that Conways did not believe that the use of the aggregate crusher required planning permission, as it fell, in its view, within the existing B2/B8 Use already permitted on the site. As the County Council did not share this view, Conways had submitted an application to KCC on a “without prejudice” basis. They had also applied to Dartford BC for a Certificate of Lawful Development. If either the planning application or the Certificate were to be approved, the development would become regularised.
(18) Mrs Thompson summed up the County Council’s view on the retrospective nature of the development by explaining that its Regulation Committee had considered this breach of planning control and had concluded that the most appropriate way of dealing with it was to invite a retrospective planning application.
(19) Mrs Thompson advised that the County Council would not normally determine a planning application for B2/B8 industrial buildings as this would usually be a matter for the Borough Council. However, on this occasion, this aspect of the development was fundamental to the “special circumstances” case for development in the Green Belt. It was therefore permissible for the County Council (with the agreement of the Borough Council) to determine this element of the development as part of the waste management application. Dartford BC had agreed to KCC dealing with this aspect.
(20) Mrs Thompson then turned to the planning issues relating to the two applications. She explained that although the site had not been identified as an appropriate location in the Kent Waste Local Plan, it did meet the locational criteria for Policies W3 and W7 in that it was on an industrial estate next to other waste sites. The site was, however, also in close proximity on the northern side to the newly-constructed Braeburn Park Housing Estate. It was separated from it by a bund, which was the subject of a legal agreement requiring it to be planted and transferred to the London Wildlife Trust as a nature conservation site.
(21) Mrs Thompson reminded the meeting that the applications would be determined on the basis that the development had not taken place.
C2. 36 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
(22) Mrs Thompson continued her presentation by describing the views of statutory consultees. Many of the statutory consultees had not yet given a formal response. Those who had responded had requested additional information on noise, dust, odour and visual intrusion. Almost 450 local residents had sent in a standard letter objecting on the grounds of pollution and congestion, environmental and social impact. These had been reinforced by 26 individual letters, which had also raised the issues of the development being retrospective and contrary to Green Belt policies.
(23) Mrs Thompson had also received letters of objection from local elected representatives. These included an objection from Nigel Beard, MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford, Bob Neill, GLA Member for Bexley and Bromley and the three Ward Councillors from Bexley Council. She summarised their main points of concern, which related to the development being an inappropriate landuse in that it adjoined housing and was within the Green Belt; the existence of other more appropriate sites; environmental concerns (noise, dust, odour, access and visual intrusion); traffic and health objections. In addition, objection was raised because of the retrospective nature of the development and on the grounds that local residents had been unaware of the development when they had purchased houses on the Braeburn Park development.
(24) Mrs Thompson concluded her presentation by saying that the applications would be determined against a number of key planning considerations. These included: whether these applications were able to demonstrate BPEO; Regional Planning Guidance; Green Belt; the Kent Waste Local Plan; and Amenity Impacts (particularly those relating to Braeburn Park and the bund).
(25) Following Mrs Thompson’s presentation, Mr Conway asked her to confirm that there was no similar facility in the county of Kent. Mrs Thompson said that she was not aware of another one.
(26) Mr Manning asked Mr Conway whether the facility would be capable of taking Kent’s waste or only waste from London. He also asked what Conway’s intentions had been when they had purchased the site in 2000. Mr Conway replied that the facility could potentially take waste from Kent and that it was the company’s intention to bring a new dimension to recycling. It was also, in his opinion essential for one user to be responsible for the entire site. He pointed out that Conways had inherited 16 tenants when they had purchased it.
(27) Mr Conway responded to a question from Mr Wood-Brigand by saying that he envisaged the site being roughly the same as it was at present. The only possible addition would be the glass crusher, which they might store on the site.
(28) Mrs Thompson replied to a question by saying that complaints by local residents concerning noise, dust and odour were usually received by Bexley Council rather than KCC. In investigating complaints, it had been very difficult to determine whether these complaints related to this site or to the neighbouring operators.
(29) Mr Conway said that since Christmas 2003 there had been 21 visits by Environmental Enforcement Officers. To date, however, they had not been able to establish a connection between this site and local residents’ complaints.
(30) Mr Leaver asked whether KCC could give an assurance that the bund would be planted to a very high level. He sought assistance from the County Council to seek
C2. 37 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
early completion of the outstanding works. Mrs Thompson answered that this was entirely a matter for Bexley Council. It would not be appropriate for KCC as Planning Authority to seek planting of the bund. There was perhaps a role here for the local Member from KCC.
(31) The Chairman thanked everyone for attending. The notes of this visit would be appended to the Committee report when the application came to be determined.
(32) Following the meeting, Members observed the site from the Braeburn Park Estate, noting the activity from the adjoining land uses.
04/a&a/planapps/misc/052804Site Visit - conways
C2. 38 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 1b to Item C2
APPLICATIONS DA/04/770 AND DA/04/787 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR (i) DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANT, AGGREGATE WASHING PLANT, 2 ADDITIONAL B2/B8 INDUSTRIAL UNITS, ASSOCIATED REVISIONS TO ACCESS PARKING AND OPEN STORAGE; (ii) USE OF LAND FOR SCREENING, CRUSHING AND PROCESSING OF AGGREGATES, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE AND CONCRETE TOGETHER WITH OPEN STORAGE OF THESE MATERIALS AT LAND AT FM CONWAY WORKS, ROCHESTER WAY, DARTFORD
NOTES of a site visit held at FM Conway Works, Dartford on Tuesday, 18 January 2005.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr J F London (Chairman), Mr F Wood-Brignall (Vice-Chairman), Mr A R Bassam, Mrs V J Dagger, Mr J A Davies, Mr J B O Fullarton, Mr P M Hill and Mr A R Poole. Mr B P Wood was present as the Local Member.
OFFICERS: Mrs S Thompson (Planning) and Mr A Tait (Legal and Secretariat).
THE APPLICANT: FM Conway: Mr M Conway (Managing Director), Mr A Holmes (Business Development Manager), Mr N Leaver (Director) and Mr B Cook (RPS).
OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES: Bexley Council: Mr L Sayers (Planning)
ALSO PRESENT were three local residents representing residents from the adjoining housing development.
(33) The Chairman opened the visit by explaining that its purpose was to enable Members to familiarise themselves with the application site and to gather the views of those present. He then invited Mr Conway to address the meeting.
(34) Mr Conway said that some 12 - 15 years ago, Conways had become involved in the recycling of aggregates. The use of advanced technology now enabled the company to recycle aggregates to the point where they could compete well with virgin aggregates. He added that the Rochester Way development was one of the most modern recycling plants in the World.
(35) Mr Holmes gave a presentation on the workings of the plant, describing the various waste management elements of the site. This included details of the Foamway and on-site concrete manufacture, which were not the subject of applications to KCC.
(36) Mr Holmes said that Conways was multi-disciplined, working in the fields of civil engineering, surfacing, term maintenance contracting, building and structural maintenance, highway cleansing and recycling. In the recycling field, the company’s most important aim was to add value to recycled products, keeping tonnage to a lower level. The company was looking to provide solutions for waste as it needed to safeguard the future for itself and its employees by contributing to sustainability.
(37) Mr Holmes continued by saying that the Dartford facility was 14 acres in size. Conways had invested heavily in it, bringing in leading edge technology, sourced from Europe.
(38) Mr Holmes went on to say that currently 260m tonnes were quarried each year in the
C2. 39 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
UK. It was now, however becoming increasingly difficult to obtain planning permission for quarrying operations. This was due to UK and EU legislation and the annual increase in Aggregate Tax. This encouraged recycling. Local Authority recycling targets needed to be met. Sustainability was therefore very important and Conways took this very seriously.
(39) Mr Holmes then said that Conways produced high value recycled products such as high volume unbound granular materials and Foamway (a cold-lay macadam providing an alternative to asphalt with environmental and safety benefits. When aggregates were washed, the level at which they could be employed was elevated. The Drainage Treatment Plant was designed to process gully waste as recent legislation forbade the co-disposal of wet aggregate waste with municipal waste.
(40) Mr Holmes then spoke in greater detail about the processes involved. He said that concrete and asphalt arisings from highway and footway works in London, which had formerly been taken to landfill, could now be treated and processed at this site. The loads brought on to the site were closely inspected, and contaminated loads (containing such materials as clay) were rejected. Details of all vehicles entering or leaving the site were recorded. The concrete and asphalt were separated on arrival.
(41) Mr Holmes then described the aggregate recovery process. The computer-controlled impact crushing machine could be moved around the site and could crush up to 350 tonnes per hour. All material was put through this machinery and then graded. None of it went to landfill. The crusher could be moved around the yard through remote control. It had modems on board that linked to the manufacturers in Austria, who were able to warn the operators if there was a problem.
(42) Mr Holmes went on to say that crushed asphalt was washed in the Aggregate Washing Plant. Water for this process was supplied by the Drainage Treatment Plant. Once the aggregate was washed, the water was returned for cleansing to the Drainage Waste Treatment Plant. The Aggregate Washing Plant could screen and clean up to 100 tonnes of aggregate per hour. It was used in concrete production and elsewhere where clean aggregate was needed. Mr Holmes also gave a brief description of the Foamway Plant and concrete manufacturing process using the Company’s volumetric trucks.
(43) Mr Holmes continued by explaining that drainage waste was brought to the site from London and the South East in up to 30 vehicles per day. This waste arose from such tasks as cleaning the M25 network and jet-cleaning gullies. Each vehicle was GPS- fitted to make it trackable. This waste was put through the Drainage Waste Treatment Plant in order to separate water and silt into very fine particles. From there it was discharged into acceptance tanks so that the material could be isolated. This plant was the first of its kind in the UK. It recovered 90% of its constituents. Plastics accounted for about 5% of its volume.
(44) Mrs Thompson briefly described the planning issues involved. She said that there were two applications, both of them retrospective. Members of the Committee would be able to inspect every aspect applied for, except for the two industrial storage buildings, which had not been erected.
(45) Mrs Thompson explained that the County Council’s Regulation Committee had considered the breach of planning control and had concluded that an appropriate way of dealing with this breach was to invite a retrospective planning application. The Planning Applications Committee would need to determine these applications as if
C2. 40 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
the development had not already taken place.
(46) Mrs Thompson described the location of the site. The outlying bund and housing estate to the north were all within the London Borough of Bexley. The site itself was in the Dartford Borough area and lay within the Metropolitan Green Belt. This was a factor that the Committee would need to consider. So too would be those planning policies that encouraged waste recycling. This included policy support in the Kent Waste Local Plan, which encouraged waste management facilities on industrial estates. Consideration would also need to be given to the proximity of other landuses. She noted that the site was accessed from Rochester Way, which linked to the primary road network.
(47) Mrs Thompson then said that the Braeburn Park Housing Estate was separated from the site by a large bund. This would eventually be turned over to the London Wildlife Trust and be managed as a nature conservation site.
(48) Mrs Thompson went on to explain that the development had a complicated history. Dartford BC had granted permission for a drainage plant in 2002 as part of wider development proposals. It had not been explicit in this submission that the development would process gully waste. The current applications had been submitted by Conways following consultation between KCC, Dartford BC and Conways.
(49) Mrs Thompson concluded her presentation by saying that since the previous site visit in September 2004, a considerable amount of new information had been. She confirmed that the Drainage Treatment Plant served London Boroughs, the M25, East Surrey and East Sussex. The crushing operation served mainly South East London.
(50) Following the presentations, Members inspected the aggregate recovery, aggregate washing and drainage waste processing areas. They then observed the site from Braeburn Park Estate, (including walking to the top of the bund) and walked back to the point in the Estate where noise monitoring had taken place.
(51) The Chairman thanked everyone for attending. The notes of this visit would be appended to the Committee report when the application came to be determined.
04/a&a/planapps/misc/011805Site Visit - conways
C2. 41 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 2 to Item C2
Waste source map
C2. 42 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 3 to Item C2
Planning Policy Considerations
National Planning Policy The planning policy context for waste management facilities is changing following recent work undertaken by the Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office. This considered how new waste management facilities are delivered through the planning system. The findings were published in ‘Waste Not Want Not’ and concluded that PPG10 be revised as a priority. The publication of draft PPS10 and emerging changes to WS2000 reflects the concerns highlighted by the Strategy Unit. In particular it proposes changes to the way in which Best Practicable Environment Option (BPEO) is carried out for individual proposals. Planning considerations are also affected by recent case law concerning BPEO, in particular the Derbyshire Waste Limited case.
The most relevant national policies considerations are set out in Waste Strategy 2000 (WS2000), PPG Planning and Waste Management, draft PPS10 Sustainable Waste Management, PPG2 Green Belts, PPG24 Planning and Noise, along with MPG6.
Waste Strategy 2000 and PPG10 Waste Strategy 2000 is the national waste plan and has been produced to meet the requirements of the European Waste Framework Directive. This Directive requires the Planning Authority to discharge its function in accordance with any plan made under the plan making provision (ie the policy consideration below). The Strategy sets out the Government’s vision of sustainable waste management. The emphasis is on reducing growth in waste and moving away from landfill to more acceptable ways of management. It recognises that to realise this vision then significant new investment will be required in waste plant.
The Strategy along with PPG10 requires applications to be assessed on the consideration of the Best Practicable Environment Option for each waste stream. This requires waste management proposals to be considered against the 3 key principles of BPEO – waste hierarchy, the proximity principle and regional self sufficiency. In addition BPEO seeks the right form and scale of facility the given waste stream at the right time and location. The process should establish the optimum option that provides the most benefits or least damage to the environment as a whole, at an acceptable cost in the short and long term.
Draft PPS10 Sustainable Waste Management This policy document reflects Government concern with WS2000. The key objectives can be summarised as
§ Moving waste management up the waste hierarchy; § Seeing waste as a resource; § Communities to take responsibility for dealing with its own waste; § Waste to be disposed of as near as possible to its production; § Management to be carried out safely in ways that minimise risks to the environment and health; § Protection of the Green Belt, although the PPS recognises the particular locational needs of some waste management development that the wider
C2. 43 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining planning applications. § Need to avoid duplicating other pollution regimes § BPEO remains a valid concept, but the underlying principles are to be delivered through a plan led approach.
With regard to the changes to BPEO, it proposes to remove the need to specifically consider the role of BPEO at application level. Instead the principles that underpin the BPEO will be addressed explicitly through the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development documents. Both of these must have Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA).
The draft PPS does not contain advice on the role of BPEO or what should be done in determining individual applications during the policy vacuum period prior to the preparation of Waste Development Documents that have been subject to SEA and SA.
The PPS provides plan guidance for the identification of sites for new waste management capacity. It advises WPA to adopt the following search sequence:
§ First to on-site management were waste arises; then § Industrial sites, looking for co-location and complementary activities; then § Priority to the re-use of previously developed land before green field sites.
The potential or suitability of sites should be assessed against
§ The extent to which it supports the objectives of the PPS; § Physical and environmental constraints § The capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure.
MPG6 This gives support to proposals to facilitate the use of secondary and waste materials where this is environmentally and economically acceptable.
PPG2 - Green Belts There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless ‘very special circumstances’ can be demonstrated. The PPG provides guidance on inappropriateness and sets out limited circumstances where development may be acceptable. This includes advice for ‘ essential other uses of land’ which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purpose of its inclusion and for redevelopment proposals of major sites within the Green Belt where opportunities for improvement may arise without adding to the impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
PPG24 – Planning and Noise This provides guidance on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development. As a general principle, noisy development should where possible be sited away from noise sensitive land uses (ie housing). Planning Authorities should however consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations.
C2. 44 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
South East Regional Planning Policy The most relevant policies are set out in RPG9 and the emerging South East Regional Waste Management Strategy ‘No Time to Waste’, March 2004 (which will amend RPG9).
RPG9 requires local authorities to make adequate provision for managing the Region’s waste within its boundaries and that a range of facilities are necessary to manage the waste arisings. The emerging South East Strategy identifies the need for a large number of new facilities to effectively manage the Region’s waste. A key objective is on reducing the amount of material sent to landfill and therefore encourages recycling and recovery .
An Examination in Public into the Waste and Minerals Aspects of the Strategy was held in late 2004. The Report of the Panel was published in December 2004. The following policy considerations are relevant to the application:
Locational Considerations Policy W17/W18 gives support for the location of waste management facilities. Potential new sites should have the following:
§ Good accessibility from existing urban area § Good transport connections § Compatible land uses – active mineral site, previous existing industrial land use, contaminated or derelict land, or land on or adjacent to sewage treatment works, or agricultural buildings or yards, and § Be capable of meeting locally based environmental and amenity criteria.
It further advises that on Green Belt locations that:
‘waste management facilities should not be precluded from Green Belt where this is consistent with the proximity principle, where there are no suitable alternative sites and provided that the development would not cause harm to the objectives of the designation ….’
Waste as a Resource The Guidance supports in Policy W2 that waste should be seen as a resource and managed to release its potential.
London’s Waste The Strategy recognises the need to provide some capacity for London’s Waste. Policy W3 restricts recovery and processing capacity for London’s waste to
that where there is a proven need with demonstrable benefits to the Region, including improving the viability of recovery and reprocessing within the Region and where this is consistent with the proximity principle.
Policy W4 requires WPAs to provide capacity for London’s waste ‘ where appropriate and consistent with Policy W3’’. It is noted that no guidance on the level of provision exists and that the EIP Panel recognised that further work was needed on apportionment.
Recycling The Strategy recognises the need for more facilities and that the capacity could be
C2. 45 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
limiting recycling rates. To justify capital investment, it accepts that some of the more specialised facilities will need to serve large catchment areas.
Kent Structure Plan (1996 ) The most relevant policies are :
S1 - Seeks to achieve a sustainable pattern and form of development. ENV5 – development that would materially harm the scientific or wildlife interests of SSSIs will normally be refused. ENV6 – development that would materially harm the wildlife interests of Sites of Nature Conservation Interest or Local Nature Reserve will not be permitted unless the need outweighs the habitat interest. ENV20 – development is required to minimise pollution impacts. ENV21 – Provision to meet waste arisings in Kent, together with a contribution to meet the wider waste management needs of the South East Region. Policy seeks to reduce the proportion of waste disposed to landfill. Support for recycling waste where it is acceptable in environmentally and traffic terms. ENV22 – presumption against the treatment, storage, transfer, processing or disposal of waste unless the need for the development overrides material considerations. NR3/ NR4 – Protection for ground and surface water. NR8 – support for the provision of recycled aggregates development subject to environment, transport and other planning considerations. MGB3 – presumption against inappropriate development. Any development approved within the Green Belt will be required to be designed and sited so as to maintain the open character of the area and should not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. T18 – Development that significantly increases traffic, particularly HGVs will normally be refused unless it is well located to the primary or secondary route network.
Kent and Medway Structure Plan: Deposit Plan (September 2003 ) The most relevant policies are : SP1- Strategic policy to conserve and enhance Kent’s environment and ensure a sustainable pattern of development. SS9 - presumption against ‘inappropriate development’. Any development permitted within the Green Belt should be designed and sited so as to maintain the open character of the area and should not conflict with the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt. E3 – protection for Kent’s landscape and wildlife habitats. E7 – protection for local nature reserves QL1 – development should be well designed and be of high quality. Development that is detrimental to the built environment and amenity will not be permitted. TP14 – Presumption against development that generates significant increases in traffic unless it accesses the primary and secondary route network. NR4 – protection from pollution impacts. NR7 – protection of water quality. WM1 – support for integrated management of waste reflecting BPEO, national waste hierarchy and national waste management targets. WM2 – Assessment criteria for waste proposals. Proposals should demonstrate that they are the BPEO and that they demonstrate a need that overrides material environmental and other land use concerns. M1 – support for the provision of minerals through recycling, subject to environmental, transport and other planning considerations. M2 – support for recycling proposals at appropriate locations to maximise the use of
C2. 46 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
recycled and secondary materials.
Kent Waste Local Plan (1998) Relevant policies are: W1 – Provision for dealing with waste arisings in accordance with the waste hierarchy for Kent and for a share of the Region’s waste as agreed by SERPLAN which cannot be reasonably dealt with in the area of origin. W2 -Protection of environmental resources including groundwater, SSSIs and sites of nature conservation interest. W3 – Locational criteria for waste processing and transfer proposals. On unallocated sites, presumption against development unless it has access to primary or secondary route network and is located within or adjacent to an existing waste management operation or within an area of established general industrial use. W4 - Presumption against built waste management development within the Green Belt with the exception of temporary proposals related to the restoration of mineral workings. W7 – location al criteria for proposals to prepare Cat A material for re-use. Unallocated , sites considered against whether they: • Seek to minimise impact on the local and natural environment; • Have access to the main road network • Are within or adjacent to an existing waste management facility or are part of a location within an established general industrial type area. W6 – on unallocated sites where demonstrable harm would be caused, need will be a material consideration. W18 – Policy to satisfactorily address means of controlling noise, dust, odour and other emissions, particularly in respect of potential impact on neighbouring land uses. W19 – policy to satisfactorily address surface and ground water issues. W21 – safeguard of geological and habitat features and provision where appropriate for suitable compensatory mitigation measures. W22 – satisfactory means of access. W23 – measures to prevent debris on the highway. W25 – consideration for the siting and layout of the facility to minimise impact. W26 - Standard operating hours – 0700 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday – Proposals to work outside these hours will be considered where operational factors justify greater flexibility
Dartford Borough Local Plan Review 2000 GB2/GB6 – presumption against development in the greenbelt unless it maintains the openness of the greenbelt and does not conflict with its function. DD11 – General design criteria for development
Bexley Unitary Plan G26 – gives protection to conserve and enhance those features of the built and natural environment, which contribute to the special character of London. This includes sites of nature conservation interest. G27 – protection for open land. ENV24 – In the Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation, the Council will have particular regard to the effects of development on wildlife habitats, or the need to protect rare species. Planning permission may be refused if development is likely to cause the loss of a valuable habitat or conditions will be used, where appropriate, to protect, enhance, create or restore habitats. G30 – Proposals for waste management developments will be considered within the context of national sustainable development principles of BPEO, the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle.
C2. 47 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 4 to Item C2
Standard rep letter
C2. 48 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
Appendix 5 to Item C2
Views of Bexley Council on the February 2005 Supplementary Information
Environment and Regeneration Services Wyncham House 207 Longlands Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA15 7JH Tel: 020 8303 7777 Fax: 020 8308 4897 DX31807 Bexleyheath www.bexley.gov.uk
m/r 04/04417/ALA & 04/04418/ALA ext 4767 y/r PAG/DA/04/770 & DA/04/787 date 7 March 2005
The person dealing with this matter is Mr L Sayers e-mail [email protected]
Head of Planning Applications Group First Floor Invicta House County Hall MAIDSTONE Kent ME14 1XX for the attention of Mrs Sharon Thompson
Dear Sirs • F M Conway Ltd, Rochester Way, Dartford DA1 3QY • retrospective applications for: (i) retention of building to house drainage treatment plant and water storage tanks for the processing and treatment of on-site surface water and highway gully waste, retention of aggregate washing plant, together with the erection of two additional B2/B8 industrial units and associated revisions to access parking and open storage; and (ii) use of land for screening, crushing and processing of aggregates
I refer to Mrs Thompson’s e-mail dated 28 February 2005 inviting Bexley Council’s observations on the further details submitted by the applicants’ consultants in response to issues raised by Bexley Council and by Kent CC’s environmental consultant.
Bexley Council makes the following comments:
1 Noise
Detailed comments on the BS 4142: 1997 assessment
• the distance assumption for the road sweeper is still too high in view of the fact it is used across the site. This assumption does affect the noise attenuation stated, leading to an underestimation of its impact on the noise rating given. During monitoring visits to the site the sweeper has regularly been seen operating at locations significantly closer to the nearby residential development. This piece of plant creates a very intrusive tonal noise audible in the nearby residential properties;
• as the assumed locations of mobile plant are not given, it is not clear whether an accurate assessment has been made of their contribution to the rating level;
C2. 49 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
• the sound measurement of the Easyload crusher seems comparatively high. It is not clear why the lower reading used for the supplementary statement is now considered erroneous and has been discounted. The difference between these two readings significantly affects the relative ratings of the FM Conway and Easyload operations. This measurement should therefore be taken again to confirm its accuracy.
In Bexley Council’s view, the discrepancies identified result in an underestimation of the noise impact FM Conway has on local residential development and lead to doubts as to the accuracy of the rating figure given by RPS for the noise sources operating on the application site. This will clearly affect assumptions made about the impact of any proposed sound improvement measures.
It is also this Council’s view that insufficient measurements have been taken in accordance with the requirements of BS4142: 1997 to make a valid assessment of the noise level from the site. This is of particular concern because the data on which reliance is placed, as in this case, forms the basis of judgments as to the efficiency of proposed sound attenuation measures.
Furthermore, noise readings made by equipment do not always reflect the disturbance caused by noise. RPS has not supported its noise data with any subjective (human) assessment of the impact the noise arising from activities on the FM Conway site has on the nearby residential development. Monitoring visits made by Bexley Council officers have shown that noise resulting from concrete crushing and other activities on the FM Conway site is clearly audible within Braeburn Park and that it does have an adverse impact on local amenity.
There is no mention in the further comments of any measures to mitigate the effects of tonal reversing beepers from lorries operating on the FM Conway site. These bleepers are clearly audible in the nearby residential development and have an intrusive tonal character.
Comments regarding the proposed ‘conceptual scheme’ for noise mitigation
• as set out above, Bexley Council has concerns regarding the accuracy of the noise data used to support the noise rating on which the scheme is based, and therefore doubts that the proposed scheme will achieve the benefits claimed in the report;
• the data and diagrams given in support of this scheme are unclear and in many parts poorly presented, to the extent of being impossible to read;
• the report does not provide data to support the sound attenuation to be actually provided by the proposed construction. It is therefore entirely unclear as to how the figure of 7–10 dB (A) reduction is to be achieved;
• the proposal relies largely on the use of PVC curtains around the sides of an enclosure, but neither the extent of these nor how they will operate both mechanically and acoustically when the crusher is in use is made clear. It is also unclear whether this arrangement has sufficient durability for the proposed use.
In summary, the submitted scheme is poorly presented and contains insufficient and inadequate data, none of which, furthermore, relates to sound attenuation under operating conditions. The submission includes no information or detail as to whether such enclosures have been successfully used for enclosing concrete crushers.
C2. 50 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
The RPS report makes reference to further additional measures that could be put in place to reduce the noise from other sources which contribute to the noise environment created by the concrete crushing operation. However, Bexley Council considers that these measures should form part of the application submission itself and not be reserved by condition for future discussion, particularly as RPS accept in their report that operation of the crusher is likely to give rise to complaint when assessed in accordance with BS 4142: 1997.
The same observation applies to the possibility of a noise barrier around the site.
Another issue of concern is the effect of increasing noise levels. The further information produced by RPS on 17 th January 2005 demonstrates that the noise rating level of operations in Rochester Way (without the FM Conway crusher operating), is such that it is already likely to give rise to complaint. The impact this activity has on increasing background noise levels is also a concern and will lead to the problem of the background noise level creeping upwards.
It is therefore Bexley Council’s view that it would be inappropriate to grant planning permission subject to conditions (as proposed in the RPS further comments), because it has not been demonstrated that the necessary noise attenuation can, in principle, be achieved.
2 Dust
There is no detailed site-specific proposal regarding dust control in either the further comments or the supplementary statement to which they refer.
Although some general information about dust control has been provided, no actual measurement of dust emissions from the site or any proposals for a dust management system specific to the site are included, in spite of the fact that the supplementary statement provided by RPS in December 2004 identified air quality as a reason to question the acceptability of the site due to the proximity of residential dwellings.
The further comments make reference to FM Conway’s experience in installing dust suppression systems but give no details of these schemes. The comments also suggest that measures designed to mitigate noise will also improve dust suppression, but again, no evidence to support this is provided.
A site-specific scheme with detailed control measures regarding the site in question needs to be provided. As with the noise attenuation issue discussed above, Bexley Council concludes that the applicants have not provided sufficient information or detail to demonstrate that satisfactory dust control can, in principle, be achieved. This, again, makes it inappropriate for the matter to be dealt with by way of conditions, particularly in view of the proximity of sensitive receptors.
Dust emissions from the concrete crusher operating on the FM Conway site have been witnessed by officers from Bexley Council. A static dust monitor installed by Bexley Council in October 2004 indicates there have been some dust pollution episodes in Braeburn Park since it was installed.
3 BPEO
The addendum report to the BPEO assessment provided by RPS in respect of the Rochester Way site places reliance on a dust management system to ensure no adverse impacts occur at the nearby residential development. However, as pointed out above, because no detailed dust management scheme has yet been produced, it is unwarranted and impractical for the report to conclude that a dust management system is capable of ensuring no adverse impact.
Details of complaints from local residents show that dust is a major concern.
C2. 51 DA/04/787 – Aggregate screening and crushing operation, F M Conway, Dartford
According the suitability matrix provided in the report, the site currently managed by Day Aggregates was the most suitable. The reasons for discounting this site are not clearly supported in the addendum report to the BPEO assessment, for example the letter from the Day Group dated 28 February regarding the capacity of the site in Greenwich is merely an informal note, which cannot, in Bexley Council’s view, be treated as a properly weighed and considered assessment.
The conclusion that the Rochester Way site represents the BPEO in all circumstances is therefore questionable.
4 Conclusion
In summary, in response to the further comments submitted in February 2005, taken together with the previous submissions prepared by consultant RPS in support of the two applications by FM Conway, Bexley Council concludes that:
• in terms of both noise and dust, the assessment of the current impact of the activities on the site on the amenities of nearby residents is inadequate;
• the proposed conceptual scheme to control noise is insufficient, illegible and unquantified;
• no site-specific quantified dust suppression scheme has been prepared; and
• the BPEO assessment appears to discount a more suitable site.
In view of the above comments, and in consideration of the adverse impact the site has on local residential amenity, and taking account of the ongoing high level of complaint about activities on the site generating noise and dust, Bexley Council reiterates its recommendation previously made to Kent County Council that planning permission should be refused for these two applications.
Yours faithfully
Head of Development Control
C2. 52