2008/0789/03/CS/03 (2012/Csub/0208/LCC) – 30 Th May 2012

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

21ST FEBRUARY 2013

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NO. & DATE: 2012/0972/03 (2012/VOC/0194/LCC) & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 (2012/CSub/0208/LCC) – 30 th May 2012

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 3 and 12 of planning permission ref. 2008/0789/03 to increase the permitted number of vehicle movements from 240 to 300 per week, and to increase the approved capacity of the site from 50,000tpa to 60,000tpa

LOCATION: Mechanical/Biological Treatment Facility (MBT), Cotesbach Landfill, Shawell Quarry, Gibbet Lane, Shawell, Lutterworth (Harborough District)

APPLICANT: New Earth Solutions Ltd.

MAIN ISSUES: Increase in waste throughput, odour issues, vehicle movements.

RECOMMENDATION: A) Planning application 2008/0789/03/CS/03 (Increase in waste throughput): REFUSE due to unacceptable adverse impacts by reason of odour. B) Planning application 2012/0972/03 (Increase in HGV movements) : PERMIT subject to conditions relating to hours of operation and vehicle movements.

Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mr. G. A. Hart CC

Officer to Contact

Georg Urban (tel. 0116 305 6756) e-mail: [email protected]

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Site Location and Planning History

1. The Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach quarry and landfill site is located north west of the village of Shawell and south of the village of Cotesbach, near Lutterworth. The mineral extraction and landfill area is located north of Gibbet Lane, a road which links Shawell with the A5/A426 junction to the west of the site. The associated minerals processing plant, a number of silt settlement lagoons, a roof tile works and the site of a (now disused) concrete blockworks are located to the south of the road. Mineral is transported from the extraction area to the processing plant by means of a conveyor which crosses under Gibbet Lane. An inert waste recovery and recycling facility is also situated south of Gibbet Lane. There is also a mechanical/biological treatment (MBT) facility associated with the landfill site. This is located on the north side of Gibbet Lane adjacent to the entrance to the landfill site and treats municipal wastes.

2. Shawell Quarry has been in operation since the late 1950s. The first planning permission for sand and gravel extraction dates back to January 1958. In the late 1970s, extraction operations took place on land near Hill Farm, to the west of the A426 Rugby Road. Since then, a number of planning permissions have been granted for mineral extraction, the erection of plant, landfilling of waste and other operational works.

3. The quarry and associated mineral planning permissions have been the subject of a periodic review of planning conditions under the Environment Act 1995. An updated schedule of planning conditions for the mineral planning permissions at Shawell Quarry was approved by the Development Control and Regulatory Board in April 2005.

4. A more recent planning permission was granted in September 2007 (reference 2006/1565/03) and covers the extraction of sand and gravel from an area to the west of the previously permitted quarry/landfill. It also includes a revision of the permitted scheme of working and extends the existing landfill operation into the new western extension.

5. In September 2008, planning permission was granted under reference 2008/0789/03 for a fully enclosed composting facility for the processing of up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum, and ancillary development (now refered to as an MBT). The facility is operated by New Earth Solutions Limited (NES) and receives household waste from kerbside collections which is being subjected to mechanical and biological treatment. This process is described in more detail below. The facility commenced operations on 1 st October 2010.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 3

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 4

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

6. The nearest residential properties to the MBT facility are Holme Close Farm (currently unoccupied) and Littledene, about 390-430 metres east-southeast. Other properties in Shawell are located about 150 metres further to the east and south-east, at distances between 550 and 850 metres from the site boundary. A property known as Greenacres, on Gibbet Lane near the A5/A426 roundabout, is located about 700 metres west of the site. Two semi-detached properties, Keepers Cottage and West Cottage, are situated adjacent to the northern quarry boundary, 950m north-east of the MBT facility. The village of Cotesbach lies about 1.3km to the north, beyond the quarry and landfill operation.

7. A number of Public Rights of Way are located near the MBT facility. The original route of Footpath X26 traverses the consented mineral extraction/landfill area from Cotesbach to the north of the quarry to Gibbet Lane in the south. This footpath is currently the subject of a temporary diversion for the duration of quarrying and landfill operations. The original route of Footpath X26 is to be reinstated following the final restoration of the site. Bridleway X27 also links the unnamed lane to the north of the quarry with Gibbet Lane in the south. The route of this bridleway has been diverted temporarily along the western edge of the quarry and will also be reinstated following site reclamation. Footpath X24 connects Shawell with Gibbet Lane by crossing agricultural land and an area of former quarry workings to the east of the processing plant before linking with Gibbet Lane to the south of the MBT facility.

Existing Facility

8. On arrival at the facility, bags of waste are split open and subjected to a visual inspection. The waste then travels on a conveyor where fines are screened out, followed by density separation, magnetic extraction, eddy current separation and infrared sorting. Any recyclables which are recovered from the waste stream (such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, plastics etc.) are baled and wrapped and taken off site for recycling.

9. The remaining material is being taken into the adjacent composting halls, where it is formed into windrows. The temperature and moisture content of the waste is being monitored and windrows are turned regularly to ensure it is aerated and matures uniformly. The moisture content of the air inside the compost halls is controlled by means of an automated sprinkler system. The composting halls are kept under negative pressure to avoid odour to escape during the composting process.

10. At the end of the composting process, the material is being transferred by means of a loading shovel to the adjacent maturation building, where it is kept for a further period of maturation, before being screened again.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 5

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

11. The main output streams of the process are recyclables, industrial refuse- derived fuel (RDF), compost-like output (CLO) and process residues and rejects (i.e. materials which cannot otherwise be used). Recyclables are being taken off-site for recycling. The CLO is currently being shipped to sites near Kettering and Northampton, where it is being used in the restoration of landfills. The material recovered as refuse-derived fuel is currently being exported to the Netherlands, where it is used as fuel for district heating schemes and cement kilns. New Earth Solutions advises that the company is currently developing its own UK-based facilities to convert the material exported as RDF to heat and power. Process residues and reject materials are disposed of at Cotesbach Landfill.

Proposed Development

12. The operator of the MBT site, New Earth Solutions Limited (NES), has submitted two planning applications to vary two planning conditions of the facility’s planning permission. These relate to an increase in the waste throughput of the site (application reference 2008/0789/03/CS/03) and to an increase in vehicle movements (application reference 2012/0972/03). As both applications are directly related to one another, they are being determined in parallel.

13. Condition 3 of the planning permission for the MBT facility (reference 2008/0789/03) requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the planning application and attached supporting statement. The original planning application description was ‘Fully enclosed composting facility, for the processing of up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum, and ancillary development’. Throughout the original planning application for the MBT facility, the proposed operation is described as a facility “capable of processing 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum” . The company is applying to vary condition 3 to allow the amount of waste being processed to be increased from 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes per annum.

14. Condition 12 of the permission stipulates that the number of heavy goods vehicle movements generated by the development shall not exceed 240 in any week. NES is applying to vary this condition to allow a total of 300 vehicle movements to take place in any week.

Method of Working

15. The method of operation as described above would not change as a result of the proposed increase in waste throughput or vehicle movements.

Hours of Operation

16. The current planning permission limits any deliveries, the movement of plant or machinery outside the buildings and the export of composted material from the site to the hours of 0730 to 1700 Monday to Friday and 0730 to 1400 on Saturdays. No such operations are permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays or

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 6

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Public Holidays, with the exception of Good Friday. Compost turning operations are restricted to the hours of 0730 to 1700 on any day. It is not proposed to change the permitted hours of operation.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

17. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It replaces previous government guidance and policy contained in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) but not Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and Mineral Policy Statements (MPSs). At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role.

18. Amongst the core planning principles of the NPPF are the move to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development; to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate; and to encourage the use of previously developed land. Furthermore, local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area.

19. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies because national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England and in the meantime PPS10 remains in place.

20. The NPPF confirms that the planning system is plan-led. The Development Plan remains the starting point for the determination of applications. Whilst the NPPF is a material consideration, it does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan as the starting point for decision-making. Proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date Development Plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

21. PPS10 provides advice about how the land use planning system should contribute to sustainable waste management through the provision of the required waste management facilities in England. It continues to promote sustainable development and the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting and energy recovery, with disposal as the last option. It also explains the relationship between the planning and pollution control regimes. PPS10 was revised in March 2011 and now seeks to increase the use of waste as a resource (e.g. for fuel) and to place greater emphasis on the prevention and recycling of waste, while protecting human health and the environment.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 7

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

The Development Plan

22. The Development Plan in this instance comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan, the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies), and the Harborough Local Development Framework. The relevant policies are listed below.

The Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

23. The aim of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework is to facilitate waste management in a sustainable manner which addresses the need to produce less waste, to significantly increase levels of reuse and recovery of the waste that is generated and to move away from reliance on landfill as a means of disposal.

24. Policy WCS1 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies sets out the strategy for waste management capacity, which is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to manage the equivalent of the waste arising in the framework area and as a minimum achieve the targets for recycling, composting, reuse and landfill diversion set in the Regional Plan and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy.

25. Policy WCS3 states that the strategy for non-strategic waste sites is to locate them in the following areas, taking into account the principles set out in Policy WCS4 Waste Location Principles : (i) in the Broad Locations indicated on the Key Diagram, (ii) in or close to the main urban areas of Hinckley or Melton Mowbray; (iii) within sustainable urban extensions; (iv) within or adjacent to an existing waste facility where it can be demonstrated that transport, operational and environmental benefits arise from co- location. Where it can be demonstrated that a more dispersed location outside the above areas is necessary, locations in smaller settlements or rural areas will be considered, subject to the principles set out in Policy WCS4.

26. Policy WCS4 states that the strategy for locating waste sites is to locate waste sites in accordance with the objectives of Policies WCS2 and WCS3 and the following sequential approach:- (i) priority one will be given to land with an existing waste management use, where transport, operational and environmental benefits can be demonstrated as a consequence of the co-location of waste management facilities; (ii) thereafter, priority, in no order of preference, will be given to: a) land forming part of new major development proposals; b) existing industrial/employment land; c) other previously-developed land; d) contaminated or derelict land;

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 8

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

e) existing mineral workings; f) unused and under-used agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages; (iii) finally, consideration will be given to greenfield sites, providing that there is no unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

27. Policy WCS5 states that the strategy for re-use, recycling, waste transfer and composting facilities is to allow new waste management development, provided the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

28. Policy WCS6 allows anaerobic digestion (AD), incineration, mechanical- biological treatment (MBT) and other energy/value recovery technologies that would provide for the recovery of energy from waste, provided that: (i) pre-sorting is carried out; (ii) value recovery from by-products of the process is maximised; (iii) energy recovery is maximised; (iv) any residue of the process can be satisfactorily managed and disposed; and (v) the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

29. Policy WCS10 sets out the strategy for environmental protection, which aims to protect the natural and built environment by ensuring that there are no unacceptable impacts from waste developments on natural resources, the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, historic and cultural features of acknowledged importance, sites of geological interest, the character of settlements, and on residential amenity.

30. Policy WCS14 states that the strategy for the transportation of waste is to locate new waste developments in close proximity to arisings in order to minimise the need to transport waste, in close proximity to the County’s lorry route network, and in locations where rail or water transport could be secured for the movement of waste in order to maximise the potential to use alternative transport.

31. Policy WDC1 requires proposals for waste management development to demonstrate that they have been designed to ensure impact on the environment is minimised by appropriate measures to (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution: (ii) minimise levels of energy and water consumption; (iii) minimise production of waste during construction and operation; (iv) maximise the re-use or recycling of materials; and (v) protect and contribute positively to the character and quality of an area.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 9

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

32. Policy WDC5 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste management development within the countryside, unless it can be demonstrated that: (i) the development is such that it cannot be accommodated within the urban areas; (ii) there is an overriding need for the development; and (iii) the landscape character of the area will not be harmed.

33. Policy WDC8 presumes against waste management development which is likely to generate significant adverse impacts from noise, dust, vibration, odour emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the waste management development.

34. Policy WDC9 presumes against waste management development which would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the environment of an area or on the amenity of a local community, either in relation to the collective effect of different impacts of an individual proposal, or in relation to the effects of a number of waste developments occurring either concurrently or successively.

35. Policy WDC10 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste management facilities involving the transport of waste by road where: (i) there is a practicable alternative to road transport which would be environmentally preferable; (ii) the proposed access arrangements would be unsafe and inappropriate to the proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree; and (iii) the highway network is unable to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and have an unacceptable impact on the environment of local residents.

Consultations

Harborough District Council (Planning Officer)

36. Comments that the principal impacts from the proposed variations are likely to relate to highway safety, the character of the local area and the wider countryside, including any environmental effects, and the living conditions of nearby residents. The District Council recommends that the Highways Agency, the Highway Authority, the Environment Agency, and Environmental Health Officers, as well as local parish councils (Shawell and Cotesbach) be consulted on the application. Provided that the relevant highway authority, the Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officer have all been consulted and have no objections to the proposals, the District Council would have no objections to the current proposals.

Harborough District Council (Environmental Health Officer)

37. Has no comments to make in respect of these applications.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 10

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Shawell Parish Meeting

38. Objects to these applications on the grounds that traffic on Gibbet Lane is at full capacity and litter and mud from the existing refuse lorries using the plant make the approach to Shawell village extremely unsightly. The composting plant is still not working properly with frequent serious emissions of strongly unpleasant odours. Shawell Parish Meeting is in constant dialogue with the Environment Agency and New Earth Solutions to get this problem rectified. The Parish Meeting considers that no increase to the tonnage should be permitted until the odour issue has been rectified and the capacity of Gibbet Lane increased. The Parish Meeting states that it is in dispute with management of New Earth Solutions over the company’s continuing failure to observe the assurances they gave when seeking the initial planning permission for this facility; i.e. that the plant would not cause any environmental nuisance (including odours) to Shawell village. Although the problem of foul smell from the plant is intermittent, it is often of substantial duration and intensity and it frequently makes it impossible enjoy time out in the open air. Since the start of 2012 there have been over 150 separate instances when the nuisance has been sufficiently strong to force residents to make a formal complaint to the Environment Agency. New Earth Solutions management attended a Parish Meeting along with Leicestershire County Councillor Mr. Hart and the Environment Agency officer and gave undertakings to eliminate the problem. Notwithstanding this, the problem persists and the Parish Meeting is aware that the company has similar difficulties at their other plants. The Parish Meeting considers that there should be no question of the company being given permission for additional throughput while the problem of obnoxious odours persists. Furthermore, the Parish Meeting points out that the condition of Gibbet Lane between the A5 and the entrance to the Cotesbach Landfill site is “disgraceful”. The road surface is frequently covered in mud and the kerbs and hedges either side are continually thickly covered to the extent that the rain does not wash them clean. In addition the hedges and trees either side of the lane are liberally festooned with unsightly shards of dangling plastic sheet/bags which arise from the waste lorries visiting the site (particularly when leaving the site un-sheeted). This problem has been raised at the Quarry Liaison Meeting, and at present Harborough District Council and Lafarge management advise local residents that Health and Safety considerations make it impossible to devise a cost- effective solution to keep the road clean. The Parish Meeting believes that this problem is not all of New Earth Solutions’ making but that the adjacent Monier roof tile works, the aggregates yard and the landfill operations all contribute. But taken together it makes for a totally unacceptable situation. Until satisfactory arrangements to keep Gibbet Lane clean can be devised the Parish Meeting requests that there should be no increase in traffic permitted for any of the Lafarge and New Earth Solutions operations.

Cotesbach Parish Council

39. Objects to the application and states that the residents of the village of Cotesbach recognise the efforts made by New Earth Solutions to open up the composter plant to scrutiny and take on board the concerns of those who live closest. Despite reassurances in the letter of application, however, the Parish

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 11

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Council states that it still has concerns about the potential increase in odour, which has been quite evident during the last few months to walkers and cyclists using the adopted road from Cotesbach to West Cottage [along the northern perimeter of the quarry/landfill site]. The parish council is concerned that increasing the tonnage managed by the plant would increase the possibility of added odours. In the original application great emphasis was put on there being no odours due to the plant being operated at below atmospheric pressure. This has recently not been the case and the Parish Council suggests an enforcement officer makes an unannounced visit before the planning application is determined. In addition, the Parish Council is concerned that increasing the traffic flow from 210 [sic] to 300 vehicles a day will increase road safety hazards on the A426 and at the Gibbet Roundabout. A lorry overturned near the roundabout recently cutting off the village for a short time. Whilst recognising that the composter is an environmentally friendly process and needs to work at high capacity to be efficient, Cotesbach Parish Council does not accept that increasing the activity on the site will have as little effect as outlined in the letter of application. Cotesbach Parish Council therefore opposes this planning request.

Environment Agency

40. The Environment Agency initially objected to the increase in waste tonnages from 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes per annum on the basis that the site is currently unable to control the escape of odours with the current throughput. However, the Agency subsequently withdrew its objection in its letter dated 20 December 2012 stating: “The Environment Agency withdraws its objection to the Variation of Conditions application as we have no fundamental objection to an increase in capacity. Odour issues at the site are a serious concern to ourselves. An application to vary the existing Environmental Permit has been received, reviewed and refused on odour issues. Work is ongoing to provide an acceptable odour management plan and hence secure a variation to the Environmental Permit. Once a variation to the Permit has been secured the facility can operate at the increased throughput.”

Highway Authority

41. The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal. There are no sustainable highway grounds for refusal of this proposal as it could not be demonstrated it would result in a material increase in traffic visiting the site.

Publicity

42. The applications were advertised in June 2012 by means of site notices on Gibbet Lane and in Shawell at the junction of Main Street and the A426 opposite Town End Farm. A press notice was published in the Harborough Mail on 5 th July 2012. In addition, neighbour notification letters were sent to properties in Shawell and near the A5/A426 roundabout.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 12

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

43. 25 representations were received, all but one from households in Shawell. The majority of these (22 representations) objected to the proposals on odour grounds. The reasons for objections can be broken down as follows:

• Odour from the facility (raised by 22 representations) • Volume of traffic along Gibbet Lane (5 representations) • Flies (4 representations) • Cleanliness of road (wind-blown litter along Gibbet Lane and in trees) (3 representations) • Road not being maintained in line with level of use (1 representation) • HGV traffic through Shawell village (1 representation) • HGVs parking on road verge near A5/A426 roundabout (1 representation) • Traffic hazards created by turning lorries (1 representation) • Speed of HGVs along Gibbet Lane, and vibration caused by them (1 representation) • Road safety – road too narrow for HGVs (1 representation)

44. The local Member, Mr. G. A. Hart CC, was notified of the application in June 2012. No comments have been received to date. Mr. Hart has requested that the Board makes a site visit prior to consideration of the application.

Assessment of Proposal

45. This planning application, like any other application, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan, the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies), and the Harborough Local Development Framework. Other important material considerations to take into account are the NPPF, PPS10 and the record of odour complaints about the MBT facility and the unresolved issue the EA has with odour from the existing MBT facility.

46. In light of the above, it is considered that the key development plan polices relevant in this case are Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies WCS1, WCS3, WCS4, WCS10, WDC8 and WDC10 and in particular Policy WCS6 which deals with MBT and the key issues (which are dealt with below) to be addressed with reference to the above policies are the harm that may be caused to communities and residential amenity as a result of odour from the MBT site and the impact of vehicle movements on the highway network and environment of local residents..

47. The County Council as Waste Disposal Authority has a contract with Lafarge Aggregates, the operator of the adjacent Cotesbach Landfill site, under the terms of which an amount of initially 40,000 tonnes per annum (rising to 45,000 tonnes per annum during 2013/14) of household “black bag” waste (i.e. waste which cannot be separated for recycling by residents) is collected by the waste collection authorities and delivered to the MBT facility at Cotesbach Landfill. The MBT facility itself is operated by New Earth Solutions under a separate contract with Lafarge.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 13

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

48. The existing planning permission limits the maximum waste input to 50,000 tonnes per year and the vehicle movements associated with the transportation of waste to and from the facility to 240 movements per week (i.e. 120 vehicles entering the site plus 120 vehicles leaving the site). NES advise that this figure is sufficient to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the treatment of up to 50,000 tonnes per year of waste, but that an increase in waste throughput would result in a corresponding increase in vehicle movements.

49. Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policy WCS1 sets out the strategy for waste management capacity is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to manage the equivalent of the waste arising in the framework area, and as a minimum achieve the targets for recycling, composting, reuse and landfill diversion set in the Regional Plan and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy. It is considered that in broad terms the proposal to increase the capacity of the MBT would accord with Policy WCS1 by contributing to landfill diversion and moving waste management up the hierarchy.

50. In addition to fulfilling its contractual obligations in terms of waste disposal, NES are intending to provide additional capacity at the MBT facility to other customers. For this reason the company is applying to increase the maximum waste input from 50,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes per year and the vehicle movements from 240 to 300 per week. The increased capacity would assist in moving waste management up the waste hierarchy of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling and other recovery, with disposal only as a last resort, as set out in the revised version of PPS10.

Site location

51. The proposal to increase the capacity of the existing MBT by 10,000 tonnes per annum is not considered sufficient to make the facility strategic in its own right and the proposal should be assessed against the non-strategic waste locational principles set out in WDF Policies WCS3 and WCS4 apply. The order of preference (as set out in Policy WCS3) is to locate such sites in, or close to, built up areas, ideally within the Broad Locations indicated on the WDF key diagram; in or close to the main urban areas of Hinckley or Melton Mowbray; within sustainable urban extensions; or within or adjacent to an existing waste facility where it can be demonstrated that transport, operational and environmental benefits arise from co-location. The MBT facility is adjacent to an existing waste facility (Cotesbach Landfill site) and has some benefits arising from its co-location with that facility.

52. Policy WCS4 contains a sequential approach for the location of waste management development. The facility falls into the first priority, i.e. land with an existing waste management use where some transport, operational and environmental benefits can be demonstrated as a consequence of the co- location of waste management facilities.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 14

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Odour issues

53. Policy WCS6 allows waste management proposals consisting of a number of different processes, including mechanical-biological treatment (MBT), provided that pre-sorting is carried out; value recovery is maximised; energy recovery is maximised; process residue can be managed and disposed of in a satisfactory manner; and the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities. Whilst the MBT meets the first three of these criteria, the operation of the facility has given rise to a significant number of odour complaints resulting from odour issues with the site which continues to give the EA strong concerns. Therefore, the MBT does not meet the last criterion and is only partly in accordance with this policy.

54. Following submission of the application, 22 of the 25 representations received from local residents object to the proposal on the basis that the existing operation frequently creates odour nuisances. In addition, during 2012, the Environment Agency received 195 complaints from residents in and around Shawell, the majority of which related to odours. This represents a sharp increase from the 15 complaints received by the EA during 2011. Some of the complaints allege that the odours emanate from the MBT facility, while others indicate the adjacent landfill operation. The Environment Agency advises that in a number of the complaints received the odour could be attributed either to the landfill or to the MBT facility, but in other cases it was not possible to confirm the source beyond doubt. Some of the complaints appear to relate directly to the operation of the MBT facility, such as the practice of leaving the roller shutter doors of the composting halls open when material is being transferred from the composting to the maturation area.

55. PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out the responsibilities of waste planning authorities and pollution control authorities. It states that in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the development plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Further guidance on the roles of pollution control and planning authorities is also given in paragraph 122 in the NPPF, which states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

56. Odour is a matter regulated by the Environment Agency through the Environmental Permit it has issued to regulate the site and this includes an odour management plan with the purpose of controlling odour emissions from the MBT. Complaints about odour issues at the site are consequently being dealt with by the Environment Agency. The existing Environmental Permit also limits the amount of waste to be processed at the facility to 50,000 tonnes per year, analogous to the planning permission. NES submitted an application to the Environment Agency for a variation to the existing Environmental Permit in

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 15

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

order to be able to increase the waste throughput. This application was reviewed by the EA and subsequently refused due to the persistence of odour complaints.

57. Following the increase in complaints, NES have attempted to address this issue, working with the EA, by adjusting some operational practices at the site and undertaking measures such as applying a foam seal to the fabric of the composting building and changing the active material in the site’s biofilter. The Environment Agency has received an updated odour management plan for the site but to date has not come to a view on whether this is satisfactory. The approval of a variation of the Environmental Permit to increase the waste throughput to 60,000 tonnes per annum is dependent on an updated odour management plan being considered acceptable by the EA. A variation to the Environmental Permit is required, in addition to planning permission, to operate the facility at the increased throughput.

58. Notwithstanding the advice regarding the responsibilities of waste planning authorities and pollution control authorities contained in PPS10 and the NPPF, the adverse impact of the facility in terms of odour generation is a material consideration in the determination of this application. Policy WCS10 aims to protect the natural and built environment by ensuring that there are no unacceptable impacts from waste developments on natural resources, the character and quality of the landscape, and residential amenity. Policy WDC8 presumes against waste management development which is likely to generate significant adverse impacts, including odour emissions and traffic. The persistence of complaints shows that the emission of odours from the facility is currently not sufficiently controlled, and consequently the facility does not meet the requirements of Policies WCS10 and WDC8.

Traffic

59. Shawell Parish Meeting is objecting on the ground that Gibbet Lane is “at full capacity”. Cotesbach Parish Council raises concerns about adverse impact on traffic safety if the number of vehicle movements is to be increased. A number of representations from local residents object to the proposal because of the volume of lorry traffic along Gibbet Lane.

60. A traffic survey carried out on behalf of the applicant in March 2012 (during a weekday during term-time) shows that the main traffic on the A5/A426/Gibbet Lane junction travels along the A5 and A426 and that the number of vehicles travelling along Gibbet Lane to and from the roundabout is somewhat lower than that travelling along the other routes that meet at the roundabout.

61. During the morning and afternoon peak times (0715-0815 hours and 1630-1730 respectively), a combined total of:-

• 444 vehicles travelled along Gibbet Lane (282 towards the roundabout and 162 away from it); • 2,035 vehicles travelled on the A426 to and from Lutterworth;

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 16

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

• 2,697 vehicles used the section of the A5 to and from the north; • 2,790 vehicles travelled along the A5 to and from the south; and • 4,114 vehicles used the section of the A426 to and from Rugby (in both directions).

62. The section of Gibbet Lane between the quarry/landfill entrance and the A5/A426 roundabout was widened and improved in 2005. The proposed increase in HGV movements would equate to an average increase of 10 movements per day. The highway authority considers that this would not consist of a material increase in vehicle traffic to and from the quarry/landfill site and therefore raises no objection. In terms of traffic impact, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy WDC10.

Wind-blown litter

63. Shawell Parish Meeting raises concerns over wind-blown litter being blown from unsheeted lorries travelling back empty from the landfill site. This matter has been the subject of discussions between Harborough District Council, the Environment Agency and the Parish Meeting. The control of litter blowing from vehicles carrying waste would fall in the first instance to the drivers, who as waste carriers have a duty of care to ensure that no waste material leaves their vehicles. Any waste blowing off vehicles while on site would be a matter for the Environment Agency to control under the site’s Environmental Permit. However, this problem is a long-standing issue, and it is considered that it relates to the landfill site operation rather than the MBT and is consequently not a matter to give great weight to in determining the current applications.

Hours of operation

64. The application does not seek to vary the currently permitted hours of operation. The hours during which waste may be delivered or composted or recycled material exported from the site are linked to the hours of operation of the adjacent landfill site, because the MBT facility uses the landfill’s site access, weighbridge and wheel washing facilities. The MBT site has in the past been capable of operating within the permitted hours of the landfill and the applicant advises that the currently consented hours of operation are considered adequate to enable the additional waste tonnage to be processed.

Conclusion

65. The National Planning Policy Framework contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the main theme running through the document. For decision-taking, this means that development proposals which are in accordance with the development plan should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 17

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

66. The MBT facility is located adjacent to an established landfill site, where benefits arise from co-location and a more sustainable use of waste, and therefore is considered in accordance with Policies WCS1, WCS3 and WCS4 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies) Document.

67. The operation of the existing MBT facility continues to give rise to a significant number of odour complaints. The Environment Agency raises serious concerns about the operation of the facility and has refused an application by NES to vary the Environmental Permit for the facility due to the persistence of odour complaints. Whilst odour is a matter for the Environment Agency to regulate through the Environmental Permit, it is also a material consideration in the assessment of these planning applications in accordance with the development plan. The existing operation of the facility is giving rise to a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining residents through odour emissions and until this impact is satisfactorily controlled, the proposal is considered contrary to WDF Policies WCS5, WCS6, WCS10 and WDC8.

68. Whilst there are concerns by Shawell Parish Meeting and Cotesbach Parish Council over issues of the road capacity of Gibbet Lane, the projected increase in vehicle movements generated by the proposed increase in throughput would not be material and the highway authority does not raise an objection in respect of highway capacity. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable environmental impact and would therefore be in accordance with WDF Policy WDC10.

69. On balance it is considered that planning permission for the proposed increase in waste throughput from 50,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes per annum should be refused because the operation of the existing facility has an unacceptable adverse effect on local residents due to continuous odour generation, contrary to the WDF Policies listed above, and that it is not considered appropriate to grant permission for an increase in waste throughput until the existing odour issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority and the Environment Agency.

70. It is considered that there are no highway grounds to refuse the planning application to increase the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements to 300 per week but that the requirement for the increase only arises in the event that planning permission to increase the waste throughput is granted. Consequently it is considered that permission could be granted for the increase in HGV movements subject to a condition restricting the waste throughput to 50,000 tonnes per annum.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 18

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Recommendation

A) Planning application 2008/0789/03/CS/03 (Increase in waste throughput)

1. Refuse, for the reasons set out in Appendix A.

2. To endorse, as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended), a summary of the:

a. Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in the context of the Government’s current planning policy guidance and the relevant Circulars, together with the relevant development plan policies, including the following, and those referred to under the reasons for refusal as set out above:

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies WCS1, WCS3, WCS4, WCS5, WCS6, WCS10, WCS14, WDC1, WDC5, WDC8, WDC9 and WDC10

b. Reasons for the refusal of planning permission, as set out in the conclusion and recommendation above.

c. How Leicestershire County Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 19

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

B) Planning application 2012/0972/03 (Increase in HGV movements)

1. Permit, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B.

2. To endorse, as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended), a summary of the:

a. Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies WCS1, WCS3, WCS4, WCS5, WCS6, WCS10, WCS14, WDC1, WDC5, WDC8, WDC9 and WDC10

b. Reasons for the grant of planning permission, as set out in the conclusion and recommendation above.

c. How Leicestershire County Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 20

APPENDIX A 2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Reasons for Refusal

1. The operation of the existing MBT facility gives rise to an unacceptable adverse effect by reason of odour as evidenced by a significant number of odour complaints from residents in Shawell village. Until the odour impact is satisfactorily brought under control any increase in the tonnage of waste being processed at the facility has the potential to increase this harm and is considered to be unacceptable in terms of Policies WCS5, WCS6, WCS10 and WDC8 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Policies).

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 21

APPENDIX B 2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Conditions

General Provisions

1. This permission is limited to the period expiring on the date one year after the permanent cessation of landfilling operations at Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach Landfill. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, the importation of waste shall cease on the day of the permanent cessation of landfilling operations at Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach Landfill. All buildings, plant, equipment, machinery and materials shall be removed and the site restored within 12 months of the cessation of landfilling operations in accordance with the approved scheme of clearance and restoration submitted pursuant to condition 24 below.

2. Unless otherwise required by the conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in planning application no. 2008/0789/03 and the accompanying supporting statement.

Maximum Waste Throughput

3. The amount of waste to be imported and treated at the facility shall not exceed 50,000 tonnes per annum.

Availability of Plans

4. A copy of this permission together with any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with any condition of this permission shall be kept available for inspection on site during the prescribed working hours.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended):

a) no fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the site without the prior approval in writing of the County Planning Authority; and

b) no pole-mounted floodlights shall be installed or erected at the site unless details of them have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 22

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Soil Handling associated with site development works and site reclamation

6. All topsoil and subsoil resources which were present on the site prior to the commencement of construction of the mechanical/biological treatment facility shall be permanently retained on site and used in the reclamation of the application site or the adjacent Shawell Quarry/Landfill. No topsoil, subsoil or overburden, other than that manufactured from imported waste materials recycled at the site, shall be exported from the application site, except to the adjacent Shawell Quarry/Landfill.

Landscaping Scheme

7. All hedgerows and trees which were retained following the construction of the facility shall be protected from damage throughout the duration of its operation. Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the details specified in the Landscape Maintenance Plan submitted pursuant to condition 8 of planning permission 2008/0789/03 and approved on 6 th January 2010 and shall include the cutting and trimming of hedgerows at the appropriate season and the replacement of any shrub or tree that may be seriously damaged or become seriously diseased or die or be removed with a plant of similar species within the next planting season. No soil stripping, storage of any material or regrading shall take place within 2 metres of any hedge or within the canopies of any isolated tree on the site.

External Appearance of Buildings

8. All buildings on the site shall be finished and thereafter maintained in dark green external colour (BS 12B25 or similar) in accordance with the details contained in the supporting statement submitted with planning application reference 2008/0789/03.

Hours of Operation

9. Except in emergencies to maintain safe working conditions (which shall be notified to the County Planning Authority as soon as practicable):

a) No deliveries, movement of plant or machinery outside of the buildings or export of composted materials from the site shall take place except between the following times:

0730 hours and 1700 hours Monday to Friday; and 0730 hours and 1400 hours Saturday

and not at all on Sundays or Public or Bank Holidays with the exception of Good Friday.

b) No compost turning operations shall take place except between the following times:

0730 hours and 1700 hours on any day.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 23

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

Access and Traffic

10. The number of heavy goods vehicle movements generated by the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 300 in any week. The operator shall keep a record of all heavy goods vehicles accessing and leaving the site. Records of vehicle movements shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority within three months of the date of this permission and thereafter at quarterly intervals. The submission of the required details shall be taken to mean that this permission has been implemented.

11. All heavy goods vehicles accessing the site shall use the quarry/landfill access on the north side of Gibbet Lane and shall enter the site by turning left from Gibbet Lane. All heavy goods vehicles leaving the site shall do so by turning right onto Gibbet Lane. No vehicles associated with the development hereby permitted shall use that stretch of Gibbet Lane to the east of the quarry/landfill entrance, except for the purposes of local waste collection.

12. All heavy goods vehicles entering or leaving the site shall be sheeted or netted or carry their load in an otherwise enclosed load space.

13. No vehicles associated with the development hereby permitted shall access or leave the site except during the permitted hours of operation of the MBT facility.

14. No heavy goods vehicles shall enter the public highway from the site unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned as necessary using the existing wheel cleaning facilities to ensure that no mud or detritus is carried onto the highway by vehicles leaving the site.

Types of Waste

15. The waste materials processed in the facility hereby permitted shall be restricted to household, commercial and industrial waste. No hazardous waste shall be accepted onto the site for processing.

Operational Matters

16. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated at the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers. Any breakdown or malfunction of silencing equipment or screening shall be treated as an emergency and shall be dealt with immediately. Where a repair cannot be effected within a reasonable period, the equipment affected shall be taken out of service.

17. No tipping, storing, handling, sorting, screening, shredding, processing, composting, bulking or baling of waste shall take place outside the confines of the buildings approved for this purpose.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 24

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

18. No loose waste materials shall be deposited or stored and no waste storage containers shall be kept outside the confines of the buildings.

19. All roller shutter doors of the waste reception building, bio-fines bulk bay, composting halls, screening/maturation building and RDF blending and baling hall shall be kept closed at all times except when waste materials are delivered into or transferred from the buildings.

20. No sales of compost to the public shall take place from the site.

Environmental Protection

21. Any surface water and process water shall be managed in accordance with the details contained in the drainage strategy and associated documents (including details of the proposed balancing facility, incorporation of features to enhance the facility for wildlife, water quality treatment and details of the maintenance requirements) submitted pursuant to condition 23 of planning permission reference 2008/0789/03 and approved on 1 st March 2010.

22. All audible warning devices fitted to mobile plant, vehicles and fixed plant and machinery, whilst affording suitable safety, shall as far as is reasonably practicable be of a design that does not cause unreasonable noise intrusion to residential properties.

23. There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways.

Site Reclamation

24. No later than three months prior to the permanent cessation of landfilling operations at Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach Landfill, the operator shall submit a scheme of site clearance and reclamation of the site for the approval of the Waste Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include provisions for soil handling in connection with reclamation works and have regard to the approved restoration proposals for Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach Landfill with regard to topography, planting, landscaping and afteruse.

Reasons

1. For the avoidance of doubt, because of the relationship between the proposed use and existing activities at Shawell Quarry/Cotesbach Landfill, and to provide for the restoration of the site within an agreed timescale. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies WDC15 and WDC17)

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 25

2012/0972/03 & 2008/0789/03/CS/03 - continued

2&3. To ensure the development is implemented in all respects in accordance with the submitted details, in the interest of the amenities of the locality and for the avoidance of doubt. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies WCS10, WDC8 and WDC17)

4. For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure the development accords with the submitted details. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policy WDC17)

5. To retain control of these matters, in order to ensure no unacceptable impact on the amenities of the locality. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WCS10, WDC8 and WDC17)

6. To ensure a satisfactory means of final restoration of the site. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policy WDC15)

7,8,9, In the interest of the amenities of the area. (Leicestershire and Leicester 16,17, Waste Development Framework Policies WCS10, WDC7, WDC8 18,19 and WDC17) &22

10,11, In the interest of highway safety and the amenities of the area. 12,13 (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies &14 Policies WCS10, WDC8, WDC10 and WDC17)

15. For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WCS10, WDC8 and WDC17)

20. To enable the County Planning Authority to adequately control the development, and in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WCS10, WDC8 and WDC17)

21. To ensure the satisfactory disposal of surface water and to improve the biodiversity value of the balancing pond. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WCS10, WDC12 and WDC17)

23. To prevent pollution of the water environment. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WDC12 and WDC17)

24. To provide for the restoration of the site in a satisfactory manner and timescale. (Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Policies Policies WDC15 and WDC17)

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013 26

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all the following applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Young People's Service and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Human Resources Department if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

DC®. BOARD 21/02/2013