AGENDA ITEM 5.1
DR/01/17
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: For the northern quarry void and plant site including the restoration of the northern quarry void using inert materials to agriculture and nature conservation interest with new public rights of way, the installation and operation of an inert waste recycling facility in the plant site for the production of secondary aggregate followed by the restoration of the plant site to nature conservation interest and the creation of an area of biodiversity compensation habitat Location: Land at Sandon Quarry Molrams Lane, Sandon Ref: ESS/08/16/CHL Applicant: Brett Aggregates Limited Report by Acting Head of County Planning Enquiries to: Terry Burns Tel: 03330 136440 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
1. BACKGROUND & SITE
Sandon Quarry is a former sand and gravel site situated South East of Sandon Village and separated from it by the A12T.
Access to the quarry complex is taken off a junction with Church Street and Molrams Lane, these being a slip road onto the A1114. The A1114 itself is some 650 metres north west of its own access with the A12 (T) and A130. From the junction entrance an internal haul road runs eastwards for some 650 metres, crossing both formerly worked mineral land (part agriculture and part now designed to accommodate an area of biodiversity compensation habitat associated with the southern void workings referred to below) and the A12 (T) to then access the site areas identified above.
The Sandon Quarry complex can be considered to comprise a number of discrete areas these being referred to as:
• Northern quarry void – the subject of this application, and situated between the A12 (T) and Sandon Brook. This area is a former quarry extraction void that was then used for some silt disposal and is now partially filled with water. There is a 2 metre high soil bund extending around the north western perimeter of the void and a 5 metre high stockpile located adjacent the voids north eastern perimeter. Adjacent the A12 (T) the void perimeter is at about 27 – 28m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) with water level maintained at around 10 m AOD. The base of the void is between 4 – 8 m AOD. Side slopes are
described as generally between 1 vertical (v) and 2-4 horizontal (h). Steeper slopes are located predominantly on the north, northeast and south. The applicant confirms that there have been signs of historic instability of the slopes and that during construction of the A12 (T) slope failure resulted in extensive slope remediation works and underdrainage provision. The applicant confirms that records from the Resident Engineer for the road construction indicated drainage measures being constructed from a bench about 19m AOD to below the base of the quarry floor which is anticipated has been partially filled to below -3m AOD and water levels of between -2m AOD to +2m AOD.
• This void is designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) due to its invertebrate interest and associated habitats established post mineral extraction. Land immediately to the north of the void and within the application boundary comprises grassland that was previously worked and restored. Within this grassland area, some ponds have previously been created for nature conservation translocation associated with the southern void permission. Water levels within the northern void are maintained, given proximity of the A12 (T), by pumping from the southern void into the eastern arm of the Sandon Brook that flows through the complex.
• Southern Void – A former quarry void separated from the northern void by the main site haul road. This area is subject to an extant permission for the infilling with inert materials under ESS/30/11/CHL with restoration scheduled to be completed by December 2017. The restored land would then accommodate agriculture and woodland together with public rights of way.
• Former processing plant and stockpiling area. Situated east of Sandon Brook and accessed via a bridge on the site access road. This area comprises some redundant plant, hardstandings two ponds formerly used for water management and the site security caravan. The land previously accommodated mineral stockpiling, silt lagoons as well as a concrete batching plant.
The above three areas are located within a generally agricultural landscape of hedgerows, fields and mature trees. The Sandon Brook which flows south to north approaches the Sandon complex from the south and at this point comprises an eastern and western arm. The eastern arm of the Sandon Brook approaches the quarry complex from the south east and forms the eastern boundary of the southern void then crosses through the application land dividing the northern void area from the processing plant area. The brook then continues north forming the north eastern boundary of the northern void area before exiting the application land and joining the western arm of the brook just before Woodhill Road. The western arm of Sandon Brook first encounters the Sandon Complex when if flows beneath the haul road near the site entrance onto Molram's Lane then flows north east to flow beneath the A12(T) emerging the other side to form the north western boundary of the northern void. The brook then continues north to join with its eastern arm. At its closest point the eastern arm of the Sandon Brook lies 30 metres from the eastern edge of the northern void. Between the two void areas is situated the site weighbridge and portacabin style site office and car parking area. Further north framing the complex beyond the nature conservation ponds and some fields is Woodhall Road linking Sandon Village with Danbury. Immediately east of the processing plant area lies a small industrial estate
that separates the plant area from Mayes Road that provides a link between Woodhall Road and Butts Green located south east of the quarry complex. A number of residential properties lie either side of Mayes Road separated by fields and hedgerows from the quarry complex.
Sandon Hall (c 250 m south of southern void) set in its own grounds forms the quarry complex’s southern boundary.
Nearest properties are some 120 metres to the north west beyond the A12 in Sandon. Sandon Lodge (c180 m) and Bridge Farm (c200 m) are located north and north east off Woodhall Road.
Bridge Cottage (20 m to south) and Brookside Diary (c40 m north) are located adjacent the site entrance on Molrams Lane.
The complex is affected by a number of public rights of way: Right of Way 232_7 passes through the site following the western bank of the eastern arm of the Sandon Brook crossing the haul road and continuing southwards to the east of the southern void and past Sandon Hall. Public Right of Way 232_5 approaches the Sandon complex from the west follows part of the site haul road before linking at the A12(T) overbridge with Right of Way 232_26 which follows the western boundary line of the A12(T) northwards to link with Sandon Village. Public Right of Way 232_5 continues over the bridge before turning southwards before skirting around Sandon Hall. Planning History
The Sandon Quarry complex has a long mineral and waste planning history. Still of relevance is an Interim Development Order (ref no: IDO/GHL/2/92A) known as an IDO. This Order covered most of the worked out site and also extended over the land identified as the plant processing area. The IDO permits mineral extraction until 2042 with restoration through infilling with inert materials to restore the land back to a grazing and amenity afteruse. The status of the land affected by the IDO is referred to in planning terms as currently being dormant.
Of the two void areas the applicant confirms that the northern void has no restoration commitment and therefore there is a necessity, given the proximity of the A12 (T), for continual dewatering to maintain water levels below natural ground levels. Currently water levels in the northern void are maintained by pumping from the southern void (so allowing natural flow through the intervening strata) and discharging into the eastern arm of the Sandon Brook.
Planning approval for infilling the southern void with restoration to agriculture and woodland under ESS/21/92/CHL was subsequently varied by ESS/30/11/CHL which extended the restoration date until 31 st December 2017. Traffic associated with the southern void development are subject to a HGV routeing agreement such that vehicles approaching from the south on the A1114 “ uses the northbound off slip and turns right into Southend Road to cross over the A1114 before travelling south down Molrams Lane and turning left into Sandon Quarry. Traffic arriving at Sandon Quarry from the north on the A1114 leaves on the southbound off slip before turning right onto Molrams Lane and immediately left into the site. All traffic leaving the site turns left onto the southbound slip road to the A1114. Vehicles leaving the site and needing to travel north use the A1114/A12(T)/A130 junction to turn around and travel north on
the A111 4”.
There are a number of ancillary permissions related to site fencing as well as the siting of a security caravan within the complex. The Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted September 2001 identifies the Sandon quarry as Site LNI.2 and WM6 these designations encompass the whole of the complex east of the A12 (T) (the present application footprint plus the southern void). The Plan identified the land as suitable for inert landfill as well as a permanent waste management facility.
Within the Essex County Council Replacement Waste Local Plan Pre Submission document June 2016; two land parcels within the Sandon Quarry complex have been put forward known as:
• Site L(i)6 identified on Map 16 in the plan as “West” comprising the northern and southern void areas although the Plan acknowledges the active southern void landfilling and identifies the northern void as suitable for inert infilling. • Site W7 known as Sandon East comprising the plant site area and identified as suitable for inert waste recycling capacity with a permanent lifespan.
The Pre Submission Plan identifies the following specific issues to be addressed for the Sandon West parcel as being:
• Filling of the northern void identified as a County Wildlife Site would require some form of biodiversity offsetting. • Dust mitigation, operating hour restrictions as well as noise generation. • Any extraction requirements taking place with regard to underground infrastructure.
As part of the applicant’s preparation for this application they undertook a Screening Request under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. As a result, the Mineral Planning Authority issued a Screening Opinion in early 2015 to the effect that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was necessary. A request for a Scoping opinion was submitted by the applicant concurrently with the Screening Request. The Scoping Opinion response included in its contents that the applicant address in particular certain issues put forward during the consultation process.
As a result of the scoping exercise the EIA was prepared and provided the background information against which the Environmental Statement (ES) as referred to in this report, was prepared.
2. PROPOS AL
The application footprint of some 25.4 hectares comprises the haul road, northern void, including the pond area location, and the former processing plant area.
The application seeks to restore the northern void through infilling with inert materials and residues from inert waste recycling facility located within the former processing plant area. Restoration of the northern void would be to agriculture and nature conservation with establishment of new public rights of way.
The applicant proposes:
• Replacement of the site offices and provision of additional car parking and possible second weighbridge. • Placement of inert waste recycling plant within the former processing plant area (referred to as the plant area in the rest of this report) including crusher and screener, stockpiling and creation of a screening bund. Products of the crushing/screening to produce secondary aggregate. • Secondary aggregate to be used off site or, subject to approval on a separate standalone planning application that would be submitted should planning approval be forthcoming for this present application, for onsite processing into concrete known as hydraulically bound material (HBM). Both the recycling plant and HBM plant, if forthcoming, would be removed at the cessation of infilling activities. • Inert residues from the inert recycling plant, together with non-recyclable imported material, to be deposited within northern void to achieve restoration. • The recycling plant would handle some 300,000 tonnes per annum of inert waste with an equal split of some 150,000 tonnes being recycled and the rest comprising non recoverable material being used in the infilling of the void. Restoration would be achieved in 8.5 years with operations commencing January 2018. • Traffic generation predicted at 164 HGV movements (82 in/82 out) per day. • Operating hours same as existing southern void operational hours of: 0700 – 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays.
A Biodiversity Compensation Area (BCA) would be prepared as soon after planning permission, and licencing from Natural England, was secured in order to allow translocation areas to establish allowing key habitats to be replaced in the BCA as restoration work progress and habitat in the northern void is lost. The applicant notes that the existing compensatory habitat in the Northern Void has established in a relatively short timescale and replacement habitat should therefore be achievable. The applicant proposes to adopt a limited management to speed up the process of habitat establishment.
The BCA would be located within the eastern half of the plant area. Any hardsurfacing would be broken up and removed from within the confines of the biodiversity area. The rest of the plant site (that land proposed to accommodate the recycling and HDM facilities) would be integrated into the biodiversity compensation area following removal of the infrastructure at the end of infilling activities. The mitigation area would be created a minimum of 12 months prior to the commencement of infilling with “ the creation of reed swamp, exposed substrates and exposures created by soil stripping and disturbance; species rich grassland, tall ruderal vegetation including species known to have associations with scarce invertebrates species recorded at the site. An area of existing sparse ephemeral over bare ground will be retained. Log piles and areas of shrub will be created in several locations. Areas of shallow pools and open water will also be created. Isolated trees within the biodiversity compensation area along with existing woodland, semi-improved grassland, ponds and associated vegetation will be retained as far as possible around the periphery of the area ”.
To achieve the aim of ceasing dewatering whilst infilling the applicant has identified the need for addressing the integrity of the remediated slope stability associated with the A12 (T).
The applicant has confirmed two main considerations arising from the proposal; the first being that complete dewatering of the northern void in reasonable timescales “may not allow pore water pressures within the slopes at the site including the A12 (T) to dissipate and may cause slope failure. The second is that filling the northern quarry void with low permeability inert materials may disrupt the pathways by which the existing A12 (T) slope drainage drains to the permeable strata underlying the site and allow groundwater pressures to build up behind the remediated A12 (T) slope which could possibly cause slope failure”. In order to mitigate potential slope failure the proposal would be to undertake controlled dewatering to maintain water level whilst infilling progressed into the water. Through the monitoring/pumping programme the mitigation measures would provide for a stable pore water pressure in the A12 (T) slope during infilling.
The applicant states that to mitigate potential slope instability caused by the build up of groundwater pressure behind the remediated A12(T) slope, the proposal would be to use granular material and a sump/dewatering system within the granular fill to allow dewatering as necessary. The granular material would allow a pathway for water to move away from the slope with the sump/dewatering system in place to control slope water levels. Once the western part of the void is filled above water level then general inert material would progress for the rest of the void. Ongoing monitoring would be put in place to confirm effectiveness.
Restoration of the void is proposed in four phases.
Phase 1- Granular fill to be placed within the western section of the water body as described above. The Phase 1 infilling to above water level would ensure a supported toe being created on the A12 (T) slope whilst allowing its dewatering. The A12 (T) slope gradient would be slackened through extending its toe. The point of change for Phase 1 to stop and Phase 2 use of general inert material would be agreed with Highways England given the slope proximity to the A12(T).
Phase 2 – The remaining area of the northern void would be infilled to a level above current water level and general infill material used given the already installed sump and dewatering system. Water levels would be determined in accordance with the monitoring programme once infilling reaches above water levels dewatering would no longer be necessary.
Phase 3 – Continued infilling and as elevation increases the proposal would see an extension of the sump by provision of a riser pipe up the A12(T) slope to provide for continued controlled dewatering to ensure control of potential water build up behind the slope. At the end of Phase 3 the mass of inert material should exceed the natural rebound groundwater pressures so removing further dewatering. Reaching this state would be agreed with Highways England.
Phase 4 – Would be the completion of the infilling to final restoration levels. The applicant acknowledges the potential for dust arising from the infilling activities and that provision of a water bower would be utilised.
Restoration of Northern Void
The proposal would seek to achieve a profile of landform approximately 32m AOD in the south to approximately 25m AOD in the north. Restoration levels being designed not only to reflect surrounding landform but also to address anticipated recovered groundwater levels of up to 25m AOD.
The applicant confirms that a fundamental objective of the restoration is to recreate habitats found within the Northern Void. Suitable clay and sands would be sourced from stockpiles to be used in recreating suitable substrates to be sown with species rich chalk grassland seed and subsequently managed by grazing. Shallow ponds and sandy substrate would be created. The existing 2 metre high bund would be partially used in restoration to recreate landform whilst a section of it would be retained in place to enable continued use by protected species. Existing trees along the eastern arm of Sandon Brook would be retained where possible, New hedgerows would be installed and natural regeneration of woodland and shrub encouraged.
The proposal would envisage natural colonisation of invertebrates from the BCA adjacent the restored Northern Void. Where possible progressive restoration planting would take place as restoration material becomes available. Following restoration, circular public rights of way would be provided both around and through the northern void footprint allowing connection to the existing rights of way network.
The plant site infrastructure would be removed and the land here restored into the BCA. The bailey bridge would be retained post infilling for future management access of the plant area.
[For clarity the originally submitted Restoration plan has been revised such that the latest revision Restoration Plan (1910/005 Rev: K) now clarifies the landuse within the northern void area as being species rich grazed grassland and not agriculture as was originally depicted on earlier plans. Use of the word “agriculture” remains in the application titling however, should planning approval be forthcoming, the above referred to restoration plan together with a recommended legal agreement would clarify the afteruse parcels of the land ]
The applicant has, in respect of justifying the application proposal stated that there is a need to maintain a low level of water in the void due to proximity of the A12 and so to avoid the pumping it is proposed to infill the void area.
The applicant refers to national and local planning policy supporting restoration and regeneration of former mineral workings where beneficial afteruse arises for environment, biodiversity and local communities. The applicant sees the restored land as achieving nature conservation and public amenity with new public rights of way. The recovery of secondary aggregate is supported in policy terms that recognise minerals are a finite resource and production and use of secondary aggregate is to be supported.
The applicant has considered the following alternatives and noted:
• Do nothing: The applicant notes that this would not deliver the proposed
comprehensive restoration and require continual dewatering that is not sustainable. Also would not provide opportunity for facilities to produce secondary aggregate which is supported in policy terms.
• Alternative locations: Application seeks to achieve the restoration of the void which cannot be down at alternative locations.
• Alternative methods of inert waste treatment: Applicant does not see practical alternative to use of recognised methods of producing secondary aggregate through use of mobile crusher/screening plant.
• Alternative restoration schemes: Proposed restoration scheme based on surrounding landuses, proximity of A12, ground water levels and need to deliver biodiverse habits and public access. Considered the scheme provides the optimum combination of such uses.
The Applicant considers that as the BCA and restoration of the plant site have been designed to be consistent with that habitat that would be lost then it is considered there are no alternatives “which will deliver the equivalent range of habitats which are appropriate for the site setting. The Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator demonstrates that that the scheme can reach a position of “no net loss” of biodiversity as per the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework”. Overall there would be a small net biodiversity gain from the void restoration and BCA.
The applicant states that the timely determination of the present application would ensure continuity of infilling at the Sandon Quarry following the completion of the southern void and lead to the early restoration than currently consented for the plant processing area.
As part of the application the applicant undertook community engagement in the preparation of the application, including introductory talks with the local community and Sandon Parish Council that began in late 2014. Discussions have also taken place including requests for formal Screening and Scoping Opinions from Essex County Council as the application was recognised as exceeding the relevant thresholds of site hectares; proximity to controlled waters and type of development, for the application to be considered to require an Environmental Impact Assessment under the relevant Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
Details of the proposed development scheme were presented by the applicant to both Sandon Parish Council in February 2015 and the Local Community Liaison Group for the Sandon complex in May 2015 before the proposals were presented at a public exhibition on 12 th May 2015. The exhibition was advertised in the local newspaper, the Essex Chronicle, in April and May 2015; by way of site notices and directly with both Sandon Parish and neighbouring Parishes being notified.
The exhibition was attended by some 31 people with 22 leaving comments that were included in the application submission. These comments included:
• Would like to see reduced working timescale • Informative exhibition and information presented was useful in understanding proposal
• Clarified “disinformation” which may have appeared in local press. • Restoration seen as a community asset • An increase in public rights of way and upgrades to the bridleways. • Good use of land. • Post submission of the application and having reviewed consultees comments concerning the location of the proposed inert waste recycling facility (IWRF) the applicant proposed a re-siting of the plant. As part of the revision the applicant undertook meetings with the Waste Planning Authority, Sandon Parish Council and members of the local community to present the proposals before formal submission of the amendment.
The application subject of this report is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) that has been informed through a formal Screening process. The ES assessments addressed with a summary of their findings, predicted impacts and mitigation measures outlined are set out below. The ES also included reference and some assessment of a proposed future application for a facility to manufacture hydraulically bound materials (HDM). The HDM plant application would follow any approval of this present application subject of this report. The HDM plant would be proposed within the plant site area adjacent to the inert recycling plant. Reference in this report therefore to the HDM plant and its environmental assessments considered as part of the larger ES for this present application are included in this report for information purposes. Any future application for the HDM facility would be considered on its merits at that time.
Traffic and Transportation
The assessment considered the baseline as the present highway system with access to the application area from the A1114 slip road. The existing routeing of traffic to and from using the southern void has been described earlier in the report.
The assessment confirmed that traffic surveys were undertaken, in May 2015, with automatic traffic counters being placed at locations along the A1114 and fully attended traffic count surveys at junctions in the vicinity of the application site were also carried out in May 2015.
The assessment noted that previous mineral traffic generated by the site has been in the order of 220 daily HGV movements (110 in/110 out). The southern void generates some 80 daily HGV movements.
It was also confirmed that the existing site operations are subject to a HGV Routeing Plan.
An assessment of environmental effects confirmed the proposed daily HGV generation as 164 movements (82 in/82 out), that the routeing agreement would remain in place and that operating times would not change from those presently permitted.
The assessment whilst noting the anticipated tonnage removal equating to some 30,000 20 tonne HGV’s per annum, and 15,000 per annum for secondary aggregate the assessment assumed the latter arriving at the site empty. In reality a proportion
would likely be backhauling. Over a working day the vehicle movements would be an average 16 per hour (8 in/8 out).
The assessment confirmed that site vehicle generation would add between 0.3% and 6.3% in the AM peak hours and between 0.3 and 9.0% in the PM peak hours. The percentage impacts on the local highway network junctions are considered to cause minimal impact. It is noted that with backhauling this is likely to be an over estimation.
The assessment considered the most recent past accident data over a four year period and this did not identify any accidents attributable with quarry traffic movements.
The assessment considered that a routeing plan would be maintained for this proposal.
In terms of cumulative impact the assessment addressed the future HDM application as being a recipient of some 50,000 tonnes of the proposed secondary aggregate generated by the inert recycling plant. Importation of some 5,280 tonnes of cement per annum and 660 tonnes of lime would be required and this would generate some 594 HGV movements per annum. The HDM plant would produce some 66,000 tonnes of HDM (utilising some 9,000 tonnes of water annually and sourced onsite) and generate some 6,600 HGV movements per annum.
The assessment stated that taking account of reduced secondary aggregate exported, importation of cement and lime and export of HDM the HGV daily generation would be 170 movements (85 in/85 out). The production of the HDM generating some 6 additional daily HGV movements.
The assessment considered that: use of the existing access entrance and haul road were appropriate; that the HGV routeing plan that already exists for the southern void activities would remain in place for this new development and, that overall there would not be an unacceptable impact arising in terms of highway safety or traffic generation.
Landscape and Visibility
The assessment undertaken included a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) of potential effects on the local landscape character and quality, together with an assessment of the sites visibility from the surrounding area.
The assessment considered the baseline with a description of the landscape noting the Natural England countryside character listing for the application footprint as being within National Character Area 111 – Northern Thames Basin. At the county level, the landscape character designation is identified as D3 Danbury Hills and at the District level the landscape character is recorded as F12 East Hanningfield Wooded Farmland Landscape Character Area.
The assessment noted that for the county designation the character is represented amongst others by wooded hill and ridge housing, linear settlements of Little Baddow and Danbury, enclosures and an intricate landscape pattern consisting of commons, pastures, heathland and wooded habitat and arable farming fringing outer edges of
woodland.
The assessment noted that for the field survey undertaken for the LVIA it was found that Sandon Quarry was not typical of the landscape character due to previous mineral extraction and ongoing restoration activities. The LVIA assessed the sensitivity of the landscape to accommodate changes in character and value as a result of the proposal. The LVIA assessed the sensitivity as moderate
The assessment noted that only broad judgements can be made on assessing receptor sensitivity given individual subjectivity. The landscape character of the area is recognised as being of a high landscape value and not within any nationally important landscape designations. Land to the south west of the site and west of the A1114 is Green Belt and as a result of the presence of the Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings there is a high-medium landscape value. Similarly the same value exists because of the nature conservation interest.
Visually the assessment noted that the Zone of Visual Significance (ZVS) for the application footprint is restricted to a very limited area. Visual receptors are considered to be where there are views of the site to be the occupiers of properties and users of both the public rights of way and road.
The LVIA considered a Zone of Theoretical Visibility to demonstrate how visible changes in the site would be from surrounding areas. This zoning supported a Zone of Significant Visibility (ZSV) which includes the northern void, plant site and immediate adjacent areas. Three categories of visual receptor identified, users of public rights of way, residential areas and occupiers of individual residential properties and users of local roads.
The assessment considered that within the ZSV views from public rights of way, roads and residential areas are often screened by combination of landform, vegetation and buildings. The ZSV would vary according to seasons.
In assessing the effects on the landscape character it was found that restoration would return the land to the typical surrounding landscape and with a rural character. It is considered there would be a low magnitude of change to the landscape character during restoration works and operation of the recycling facility. There is considered to be a long term benefit to the scenic value, tranquillity and leisure within the site.
In assessing landscape value, there would be no impact of the Green Belt, no impact on the Listed buildings setting as these are generally screened by existing vegetation or already overlook the ongoing restoration works. Whilst there would likely be an adverse effect on tranquillity and scenic quality during site activities, in the long term there would be beneficial impact.
The provision of the BCA and, after restoration, the rest of the land having new areas of key habitat created there would be overall a small biodiversity gain. Provision of public access would have a beneficial effect on leisure.
In terms of visual impacts the assessment noted that localised views would be
restricted to receptors on the site boundary immediately to the south. The assessment considered 21 viewpoints of which only 8 would experience adverse effects and only 2 would result in very substantial or substantial adverse effect. Both of these viewpoints are from public rights of way (one inside and one outside the site). The significance of the effect would decrease as restoration progressed.
In mitigation terms the assessment found the site already well screened by vegetation. A 3 metre high bund would be constructed on the eastern boundary of the IWRF site.
In cumulative impact terms the assessment addressed the proposed HDM plant finding that its provision would not add to the impact with its proposed siting being adjacent the recycling plant and screening provisions.
In conclusion there would, post restoration, be a long term beneficial landscape and visual aspect.
The LVIA was revisited to take account of the proposed re-siting of the IWRF and this identified that the revised siting location would not be visible from Mayes Lane. All other previously assessed landscape and visual effects were found to remain unchanged.
Water Resources
A hydrogeological and hydrological impact assessment was carried out which included a flood risk assessment.
As a baseline, the assessment viewed available maps from Envirocheck and the Environment Agency (EA) and the historical mapping showed the application land as being open fields until 1945. Quarries developed within the northern part of the plant site post 1945. The northern quarry void is shown as open fields until a gravel pit appears on the map dated 1967 and as a disused pit on a similar map dated 2006. A sand and gravel pit is shown south of the north void on a map dated 2006.
Two historic landfills show up on the EA website with the first identified as Southend Road landfill (inert materials between 1985 – 1991 and likely to have been the remediation activities associated with the A12 (T) slope) located in the western part of the northern void. The second identified as the Mayes Lane Landfill (commercial and household waste 1958 -1970) was located to the north east of the plant site and within the proposed BCA. This latter landfill would not be affected by any proposed recycling activities. A further landfill identified on the EA website is recorded as being located some 50 metres south of the northern void and is identified as the present southern void restoration activities.
The assessment confirmed that there are no recorded pollution incidents within 2km of the application site and no history of potentially contaminating activities.
The assessment confirmed the geology of the application footprint from British Geological Survey maps together with borehole data. Sandon quarry is identified as being located within a buried channel of superficial drift deposits underlain by Boulder Clay.
In terms of Hydrology the assessment noted the application site as being in the catchment of the River Chelmer with the Sandon Brook acting as a tributary.
There are 14 licensed surface water abstractions within approximately 2km and 37 Environment Permits for discharges in a similar radius. The closest is the southern void discharge point in the south east of the complexes boundary.
The assessment noted that the applicant undertook water quality monitoring at and around the site between 1997 and 2014 and no trends or conclusions are drawn from this data. The assessment notes that an Environmental Permit would be required for restoration of the northern void and that as part of this there would be surface quality water monitoring.
In respect of hydrogeology the assessment confirms the site as not being within a groundwater Source Protection Zone. The applicant has undertaken groundwater monitoring at 17 boreholes since 1998 with recorded levels ranging from around 1.68m AOD south west of plant site to 27.07m AOD further south west of plant site. In the vicinity of the northern void groundwater levels are around 12.1 and 21.8m AOD. Seasonal variations of 1 metre were experienced in the vicinity of the site.
The assessment confirmed that dewatering activities has had effects on groundwater levels. Groundwater flow in both void areas is towards the pumping location in the southern void. In the absence of pumping flow direction would be towards the north and north east in the direction of topographical fall; the direction of the buried channel and confluence of the Sandon Brook arms.
In assessing effects the assessment noted that the infilling would be undertaken in phases using granular material and dewatering. The assessment confirmed there is no groundwater level monitoring available in or around the void areas. It is assumed that groundwater levels in the northern void may recover to around 25m AOD whilst in the plant area levels are not considered to change given that the groundwater here already appears as surface water ponds.
Groundwater flows though the restored northern void are not considered to be affected given the remaining sand and gravel deposits and the use of granular fill that would allow the groundwater to equilibrate.
In terms of surface water runoff the assessment considered that surface water would naturally infiltrate ground in the restored northern void whilst in the plant area it would infiltrate the ground as occurs at present. It is not considered there would be significant impact on surface water drainage.
The assessment noted that both the proposed infilling and use of the recycling facility would require Environmental Permitting that would control the waste types to inert materials.
Conclusion was that it was considered unlikely that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts
Flood Risk
The assessment considered the flood risk aspect of the proposal noting that the central and north western parts of the northern quarry void, together with the eastern arm of the Sandon Brook, main site haul road to the plant site, the pond on the western side of the plant site and part of the haul road where it crosses the western arm of the Sandon Brook are identified as being within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The remainder of the site is in Flood Zone 1. (Zone 1 is assessed as having less than a 1 in a 1000 annual probability of river flooding; Zone 2 is assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability and Zone 3 as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding).
Based on a review of published Strategic Flood Risk Assessment the application area shown as Flood Zone 3 is categorised as Flood Zone 3a and therefore not the functional floodplain 3b (where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood).
A review of potential flooding from groundwater found that groundwater levels may recover to approximately 25m AOD and may result in more recharge of groundwater to nearby surface watercourses. However, given these watercourses are likely to be in low permeability alluvium any recharge is likely to be modest and would not significantly affect the flooding risk.
The assessment did not find the application land as likely to be affected by flooding from surface waters, sewers, drains or canals/reservoirs.
The assessment considered the Sequential and Exemption Test with the former seeking to steer new development to areas of low probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1). The assessment notes that the underlying principle of the application is to restore land to a sustainable use and as such no alternative locations exist. Where no alternative sites exist the flood risk vulnerability needs to be considered. Landfill is classed as more vulnerable and the assessment takes this heading noting that in reality the proposal is more one of a recovery process.
The Exceptions Test identifies the management aspects of flood risk to people and property whilst allowing development to go ahead where there are not available alternative less flood risk prone sites available.
The assessment finds that the Flood Zone 2 and 3 in the northern void exist only because of the pumping and that its recovery after pumping would allow it to rise so removing the flood storage capacity shown in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The restoration of the northern void would not reduce the identified capacity any more than the situation where groundwater pumping ceases.
In terms of flood risk and the proposed development the assessment identified that the plant site is in Flood Zone 1 and has hardstanding existing and proposed. It is not considered that the development would increase surface water runoff. In the northern void, groundwater would be pumped during infilling as at present and no significant increase in flood risk is identified. On restoration any recharge of nearby watercourses is considered to be modest and not to significantly increase flooding risk.
In terms of mitigation the assessment notes that restoration and operation of the recycling plant would be subject to Environmental Permitting. That would also address ground and surface water monitoring.
In terms of cumulative impacts the assessment took on board the proposed HBM plant which it noted would be located within Flood Zone 1. As such the combined operation of the HBM and recycling plant and restoration of the void was not considered to result in additional impacts of surface water run-off, quality or flood risk. The conclusion was that the development would not increase significantly the risk of flooding at or in the sites vicinity.
The Flood Risk Assessment was revisited to take account of the proposed re-siting of the IWRF and it found that the revised location would not require a flood risk assessment being undertaken.
Ecology
The assessment confirmed that a range of ecological surveys have been carried out at the site including protected species and habitat surveys. The northern void area was acknowledged as being a Local Wildlife Site mainly due to invertebrate/reptiles/birds and protected species interests.
Surveys undertaken included:
1. Extended Phase 1 habitat survey 2. Bat Roosting 3. Protected species 4. Reptiles 5. Breeding birds 6. Invertebrates 7. Water Vole and Otter 8. Arborocultural.
The assessment considered mitigation measures including translocation.
An area of biodiversity compensation has been identified within the eastern part of the application land that would accommodate habitat replacement.
The nearest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 2.2 kilometres east of the application site. Two Local Nature Reserves (LNR’s) are located to the west of the application land the nearest being Chelmer Valley Riverside LNR at about 4.2 kilometres north west and Galleywood Common LNR approximately 4.2 kilometres south west.
There were 8 non statutory nature conservation designations within 2.5 kilometres. The northern void is designated a LoWS as described earlier in the report. The next closest site is just over 1 kilometre north east.
The assessment described the habitats present as being grassland and woodland, with the largest continuous piece of woodland being along the arm of the Sandon Brook. The application land exhibits scattered woodland and shrub areas. There are nine water bodies of various size present.
The assessment considered potential impacts on the statutory and non statutory sites
noting that for the statutory sites the application proposals would not result in a significant risk or direct/indirect impact on their interests.
In respect of non statutory sites; mitigation for the habitat interest within the northern void would be provided through the creation of the BCA described earlier in the report.
The assessment found that for the habitats present; the majority are common and widespread and of low ecological value. Land in the northern void and north of plant site are Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority open mosaic habits on previously developed land. This habitat is one of the qualifying attributes for the LoWS designation as is some of the grassland present. The rough neutral grassland is of local importance. Secondary woodland and areas of swamp also qualify as national BAP habitats of principal importance.
Mature trees occur along the north and north eastern perimeter along the eastern and western arms of the Sandon Brook and along northern boundary of the BCA. Mature trees would not be affected by the proposals.
Ponds on the site qualify for national BAP habitat.
The assessment mitigation and compensation measures identified the provision of the BCA; a translocation programme for protected species under licence from Natural England; vegetation removal and site clearance outside of bird breeding season. A qualified ecologist would be used prior to any clearance works taking place outside of these times.
The assessment identified under cumulative impact that a separate application for the HDM plant would be forthcoming. Whilst the land area for this future application would mostly be on hardstanding; part of it would see the loss of some of the open mosaic habitat. The loss of this area is seen as being compensated through the provision of the BCA. The assessment confirmed that no significant cumulative impact from the HDM production alongside the inert waste recycling and restoration was anticipated.
Conclusion was that the ecology led restoration would provide further habitat consistent with the Local Wildlife Site. Overall the proposal was found to result in no net loss of biodiversity and would result in a small gain through the restoration programme.
The assessment was updated in respect of the revised location of the IWRF noting that the revised siting location would occupy some of the land previously identified for inclusion within the previously proposed BCA. The footprint of the revised IWRF was identified as having rough neutral grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, some individual trees, scrub and two small ponds previously identified as not having any protected species interest. A pond located to the south west of the proposed IWRF which had protected species interest would be unaffected although a ditch which had such interest would be removed. In compensation two new ditches would be proposed. The conclusion on the ecological impact was revisited and found that the biodiversity impact calculations showed the revised location would result in a small loss in biodiversity interest of 0.13% that was close to a position of no net loss of biodiversity and considered to be negligible in terms of biodiversity value for the application site.
Cultural Heritage
A Heritage Statement was prepared on designated cultural heritage assets. The assessment considered the baseline using the previously referred to Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) in the LVIA to identify the designated assets that could potentially be affected. In addition designated assets out to 500m were assessed for adverse impacts arising from noise and vehicle movements.
The assessment found no designated assets in the site and no scheduled monuments within 1km. There are 13 listed buildings within the ZTV and 500m of the site. Sandon Conservation Area is located some 300m north west and 400m north of the site haul road.
Around the site, the Historic Environment Record identifies 14 records of finds within 1km of the site.
The assessment confirms that site visits were undertaken and an assessment of environmental effects complied. It was found that the proposed development would be on land already disturbed by mineral extraction, manual process operations or by the main site haul road. There would not be direct impact on archaeology or heritage assets. The assessment went on to assess the indirect impacts that would result in alterations to the setting or context of the heritage asset or landscape. A number of assets were scoped out of the assessment as a result of intervening vegetation, development, topography or distance.
Two assets, The Rectory and Sandon Conservation Area were considered in more detail as a result of the consultant’s site visit and ZTV findings that indicated a potential susceptibility to adverse impact. The assessment concluded that from The Rectory although the site would be screened by topography and intervening vegetation there would be highly filtered views of the main site haul road during winter months from upstairs windows. The magnitude of change is considered negligible/imperceptible and the impact on view as negligible.
For the Conservation Area, views are screened by intervening vegetation, development, topography and the A12 (T). The assessment noted that the south western part of the Conservation Area is near the southern boundary of The Rectory garden. There could be highly filtered views of the main site haul road from this location. The magnitude of change is considered negligible.
In terms of noise and vehicle movements their potential impacts have been assessed as minimal in comparison to A12 (T) traffic movements and movements of vehicles in the broader landscape is considered to have an adverse effect of low magnitude. No specific mitigation measures are proposed.
In cumulative impact terms the proposed HBM plant has been assessed alongside the recycling plant and infilling operations. Given the HBM proposed closeness and similarity in operations it is considered that the combined operations would not result in any additional impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets.
Conclusion was that there would be no significant impacts on settings of designated heritage assets.
Traffic Air Quality and Amenity
The assessment reviewed the guidance in the Design Manuel for Roads and Bridges against the Manuel’s criteria in respect of impact of road projects on local and regional air quality. Under the criteria the assessment found the proposal would result in no changes to road alignments; no increase in the daily HGV traffic flows of 200 annual average daily traffic flows, nor would there be an increase in daily road speed. Traffic flows on the A12 (T) as a result of the proposal would not exceed regional air quality criteria. No further impact assessment on local or regional air quality was therefore considered.
In terms of amenity, the assessment considered the results of transport, processing and placement of the materials and operation of the recycling plant. Generation of mud and dust on the road was acknowledged and considered to have the most potential in the immediate vicinity of the site. It was noted that there have been no substantiated complaints related to these matters in relation to the site.
As a baseline local meteorological records were collected and identified prevailing wind as being south west and west south west.
In terms of mud on the road the experience of the southern void activities have not given rise to significant quantities of mud being carried out of the site and no history of local resident complaints. The haul road is concrete surfaced for its entire length to the weighbridge area.
In assessing environmental effects a qualitative assessment of dust has been undertaken and considered the particle sizes, topography, rainfall and perimeter vegetation. The consideration was that there was a low risk of dust impact from the infilling activities and good site management would be adopted.
In respect of the recycling activities the provision of water suppression would mitigate potential dust generation together with minimising drop heights. Appropriate management practices could control dust arising such that the proposal would not cause a significant impact.
The assessment confirms that dust emissions from the proposal would be controlled through the Environmental Permit.
Provision of a road sweeper and good management of the haul road would address the potential for mud and debris carry out.
In terms of cumulative impact the assessment considered the operation of the HBM plant alongside the other proposed site activities. It was considered that there would not be a significant increase in HGV movements and therefore no unacceptable cumulative impact on traffic. air quality, dust or mud associated with the combined HGV movements.
The proposed HBM plant would be designed and operated to control dust emissions. Overall operation of the HBM and recycling plant would not result in any additional dust emission impacts.
The assessments conclusion was that air quality would not be impacted through this application.
Noise and Vibration
The assessment calculated the predicted noise levels for the proposed development. A noise survey was undertaken to establish background baseline conditions at 6 locations. The recorded background sound levels identified road traffic, aircraft and natural noises such as birdsong. Operations in the southern void were taking place but did not contribute significantly to the recorded levels.
In assessing the environmental effects the assessment noted that in line with Planning Practice Guidance for Minerals that noise limits of 10dB(A) above background have been set to a maximum of 55 dB L Aeq 1h . The representative background levels during the weekday period between 0700 and 1800 hours was 47dB L A90,1h and for Saturday 45 dB L A90,1h .
The assessment confirmed that noise calculations took into account the proposed screening arrangements, and that plant would be maintained according to manufactures specifications. The highest predicted sound levels associated with bund construction are found to be below guidance levels at all six monitoring locations. For proposed site operations five, of the six, monitoring locations would receive noise within the predicted 55 dB L Aeq 1h whilst the sixth location would register 56 dB L Aeq 1h. The dominant noise source for this location would be site haul road traffic at Bridge Cottage. The assessment found that the dominant background noise at this location is vehicle movements along Molrams Land and the A1114. Sound from additional HGV’s associated with the proposal would not increase ambient sound at Bridge Cottage. It is considered that the noise impact from HGV’s along the haul road would be of negligible significance. The assessment considered that overall noise effects are of negligible significance.
Noise emissions of HGV’s on the public highway have been considered with calculations at four locations and the predicted change in noise level is assessed at less than 1 dB which is considered negligible.
Effects of vibration have been considered from mobile crushing and screening plant. It was considered that as receptors generally have to be very close to vibration sources and no plant would be located close to sensitive receptors vibration has been found to be insignificant. Vibration from offsite HGV movements are considered to be insignificant based on assumption of standard maintenance of both highway and main site haul road.
Mitigation – The assessment noted that all mobile site plant would have white noise alarms and there would be provision of the plant area screen bund. In terms of cumulative effects, the proposed noise generation from the HDM plant has been assessed along with the operation of the recycling plant at the six monitoring points.
In terms of cumulative impact the assessment found the levels of generated noise to be within the 55 dB L Aeq 1h level at 5 of the locations and for the sixth that the 1dB increase is due to HGV traffic on the haul road that is similar to the ambient sound
level already experienced at Bridge Cottage. It is not therefore considered that operation of the HDM plant, inert recycling plant and restoration works would result in significantly increased noise levels and therefore cumulative effects would be negligible.
The Noise assessment was revisited to take account of the proposed re-siting of the IWRF and the noise impacts previously assessed above were not found to be affected.
Stability Risk Assessment
A Stability Risk Assessment (SRA) was undertaken which included the restoration profile incorporating a sloping topography from the south west at an approximate elevation of 32m AOD to north east at approximately 25m AOD. The proposed slope gradient being from around 1v60h to 1v120h (v: vertical, h: horizontal). The restoration profile includes a south west slope of 1v10h 40m long with a 4 metre height. The SRA considered that the materials being used would comprise a range of cohesive and granular inert materials.
The SRA was carried out in accordance with British Standards and modelling software. A target factor of safety of 1.5 for the restoration profile has been chosen as this would reflect that the landform is stable in perpetuity.
The SRA considered the steepest proposed slope and analysis showed the factor of safety as 4.3 constructed with cohesive material and 5.4 if constructed with granular. In both case the factor of safety of 1.5 would be achieved.
In respect of infilling activities, the SRA considered the proposed infilling within the void and it is proposed that a detailed methodology be developed through discussion with Highways England and that this could be addressed through planning condition . In terms of mitigation, the proposal has considered the use of controlled dewatering and use of granular materials to the top of the current water levels.
Conclusion was that no infilling would take place until a final methodology had been agreed with Highways England.
3. POLICIES
Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that consideration be had to the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Other material considerations include:
i) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012. ii) The National Planning Policy for Waste October 2014. iii) Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted September 2001 iv) Essex County Council Replacement Waste Local Plan Pre Submission document June 2016 v) Chelmsford Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies 2001-2021 Adopted February
2008. The following policies of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted September 2001 (WLPA); Essex County Council Replacement Waste Local Plan Submission document June 2016 (WLPS) the Chelmsford Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies 2001-2021 Adopted February 2008 and Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Focussed Review, Local Development Framework 2001 – 2021, Development Plan Document Adopted December 2013 (paraphrased or in quotation marks if set out in full) are of relevance to this application:
Relevant policies within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted September 2001 are:
Policy W3A (Best Practicable Environmental Option)
Requires that consideration be given to:
(a) The goals of sustainable development (b) Whether the proposal represents the best practicable environmental option for that particular waste stream (c) Whether the proposal conflicts with options further up the waste hierarchy. (d) Conformity with proximity principle.
Policy W4A (Water Pollution and Flood Control)
Would support waste management development where it would not present an unacceptable risk in respect of it impeding surface water flows; have an adverse effect on the water environment as a result of surface water runoff or existing and proposed flood defences are protected.
Policy W4B (Water Pollution and Flood Control)
Would restrict development where there would be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface or groundwater.
Policy W8A (Criteria for waste management facilities)
Supports waste management facilities at specific locations provided relevant criteria are met including:
(a) There is a need for the facility to manage waste. (b) The proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option. (c) The development complies with other relevant policies. (d) Adequate road access. (e) Integrated schemes for recycling, composting, materials recovery and energy recovery would be supported where there are shown to be benefits in the management of waste which would not otherwise be obtained.
Policy W8B (Location of waste management facilities).
Provides for waste management facilities to be provided at locations other than those
identified in the waste plan where relevant criteria identified in Policy W8A are met. Such other locations, of relevance to this application include existing general industrial areas and areas allocated for general industrial use in adopted local plans.
Policy W10A (Planning Conditions and Obligations)
Provides for the Waste Planning Authority to impose conditions as appropriate to ensure the development is operated in an acceptable manner and undertaken in accordance with approved details.
Policy W10B (Content of Planning Applications and Material Considerations)
Requires all proposals for waste management to be accompanied by full planning applications to include such aspects as “siting, design and external appearance of buildings, plant, equipment and storage facilities, landscaping and suitable measures to mitigate and control unacceptable adverse effects, including noise and artificial lighting”.
Policy W10E (Content of Planning Applications and Material Considerations)
(a) Supports applications for waste management development where provision is made to address, amongst other matters relevant to this application: (b) Effects on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. (c) Effects on the landscape. (d) Impact on road traffic generation.
Policy W10F (Hours of Operation)
Provides for the WPA to impose operating hours in respect of safeguarding local amenity and the nature of the operations.
Policy W10G (Public Rights of Way)
Requires that applications include measures to both safeguard and where practicable improve rights of way provision and that such improvements take place prior to any development affecting such routes takes place.
In the Chelmsford Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies 2001- 2021 Adopted February 2008 (CBC AP2008) the following policies are of relevance:
Policy CP9 – Protecting Areas of Natural and Built Heritage and Archaeological Importance – This policy seeks to “sustain biodiversity, historic landscape character, archaeological and geological conservation by ensuring sites of international, national, regional and local importance are protected and enhanced. The Borough Council will designate and keep under review Conservation Areas in order to protect or enhance their special architectural or historic interest and will seek to protect the character and setting of Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens and Protected Lanes”.
Policy CP10 - Protection from Flooding
This policy seeks to ensure that when considering proposals a sequential risk-based approach, including the application of the “exception test” where some continuing development is necessary for wider sustainable reasons would be required. The Borough Council would require that development is protected from flooding and that appropriate measures are implemented to mitigate flood risk.
Policy CP12 – Protecting and Enhancing Recreational Provision The policy seeks to maintain and enhance the provision of formal and informal recreation facilities, at appropriate locations, within the Borough including the designation of new local parks and gardens, country parks and other public open spaces.
Policy CP13 - Minimising Environmental Impact The policy seeks to ensure that development proposals minimise their impact on the environment and that they do not give rise to significant and adverse impacts on health, amenity including air quality, and the wider environment.
Policy CP14 – Environmental Quality and Landscape Character The policy seeks to promote and support the enhancement of the environmental quality of the countryside and settlements. The policy would be supported through the preparation of a Landscape Character Assessment.
Policy DC4 - Protecting Existing Amenity Seeks to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of any nearby properties by ensuring that development would not result in excessive noise, activity or vehicle movements, overlooking or visual intrusion.
Policy DC13 - Sites of Biodiversity and Geological Value The policy seeks to restore, maintain and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests.” In determining planning applications appropriate weight will be attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species, and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment which includes ancient woodlands other important woodland sites ..Within those sites, and subject to securing the wider objectives of sustainable development, planning permission will not be granted for development that would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests unless it can be clearly demonstrated that; i) there is no appropriate alternative site available; and ii) all statutory and regulatory requirements relating to any such proposal have been satisfied; and iii) appropriate mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Where possible the Borough Council will expect development proposals to promote opportunities for the incorporation of beneficial biodiversity and geological features within the design of development. Development proposals must avoid any adverse effects on the integrity of European and Ramsar sites and where possible enhance the biodiversity interest of internationally designated sites for nature conservation”.
Policy DC14 - Protected Trees and Hedges The policy would seek refusal of development that would “cause demonstrable harm to protected woodland, trees and hedgerows, unless conditions can be imposed requiring the developer to take steps to secure their protection. Where the felling of a preserved tree or removal of a hedgerow is permitted a replacement tree or hedge of an appropriate type, size and in a suitable location, will usually be required”.
Policy DC16 - Development Adjacent to Watercourses States “Planning permission will be refused for development adjacent to rivers, the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation and other watercourses where the design and layout of the proposed development fails to be sensitive to the landscape or fails to take full advantage of the development setting afforded by open water features and their margins. Where appropriate, development proposals adjoining the rivers will be required to incorporate riverside paths and open spaces”.
Policy DC18 - Listed Buildings Seeks to restrict approval where development or works affecting the exterior or interior of listed buildings, fail to preserve or enhance the special character and/or setting of those buildings.
Policy DC21 – Archaeology The policy states that “Planning permission will be granted for development affecting archaeological sites providing it protects, enhances and preserves sites of archaeological interest and their settings taking account of the archaeological importance of those remains, the need for the development, the likely extent of any harm, and the likelihood of the proposal successfully preserving the archaeological interest of the site by record”.
Policy DC22 - Areas of Flood Risk The policy requires Flood Risk Assessment on development within Flood Zone 2 and 3. Planning permission would only be granted for development providing existing flood defences or other satisfactory mitigation, including replacement flood storage capacity, provide adequate protection from flooding now and for the lifetime of the development. Outside of settlements permission would only be granted where that development is (amongst other criteria) primarily open in character.
Policy DC28 - Air Quality The policy requires that where air quality objectives are likely to be prejudiced or proposals fall within an Air Quality Management Area, “applicants will be required to submit a detailed specialist report which sets out the impact that the proposed development has upon air quality. Planning permission will not be granted for development where there is significant adverse impact upon air quality in the Air Quality Management Area”.
In the Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Focussed Review, Local Development Framework 2001 – 2021, Development Plan Document Adopted December 2013 (CCS Adopted 2013) relevant policies are considered to be:
Policy DC2 - Managing Development in the Countryside Beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt – This policy seeks to support development within the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt provided that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and provided it is for under criteria C of the policy “ the carrying out of an engineering or other operations, or the making of a material change to the use of land, where the works or use concerned would have no material effect on the appearance and character of the countryside in the Rural Area beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt”.
Policy DC29 - Amenity and Pollution The policy would seek to restrict development that “could potentially give rise to polluting emissions to land, air, and water by reason of noise, light, smell, fumes, vibration or other (including smoke, soot, ash, dust and grit) unless appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place and permanently maintained”.
Policy DC41 - Traffic Management Measures The policy requires ”all developments to include appropriate traffic management measures to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods by all modes whilst protecting and enhancing the quality of life within communities, facilitating the appropriate use of different types of road and environment, and achieving a clear, consistent and understandable road, cycle and pedestrian network. These measures will comprise, amongst others, reducing the impact of motorised traffic, traffic calming measures to assist public transport, cycling, and walking, horse riders, congestion relief and other speed and demand management measures”.
The Essex and Southend Replacement Waste Local Plan Submission document was submitted in June 2016 to the Secretary of State and is currently undergoing examination. The submitted policies, whilst at this juncture are unadopted, reflect the intention of the Waste Planning Authority towards waste related matters. The Proposed Modifications as recommended by the Secretary of State and approved by this Authority are at present being consulted upon. The policies referred to below should be considered as having weight and therefore remain material considerations in respect of applications of the nature being contemplated in this report.
Relevant policies within this document are:
(a) Policy 1 (Need for Waste Management Facilities).
Over the Plan period (up to 2032) the Plan identifies a shortfall in capacity of up to 1.5 million tonnes per annum by 20131/32 for the management of inert waste.
(b) Policy 3 (Strategic Site Allocations)
Supports waste management development at a list of sites including for inert waste recycling Site W7 Sandon East.
(c) Policy 6 (Open Waste Facilities)
This policy includes aggregate recycling activities and seeks to collocate such activities at mineral and waste landfill sites where such material is used in
conjunction with restoration works.
(d) Policy 10 (Development Management Criteria)
Provides support for waste management development where such development can be demonstrated not to have an unacceptable impact (including cumulative impact with other existing development) on a list of issues, where relevant to this application include:
(i) Local amenity (ii) Water quality (iii) Safety and capacity of road network (iv) Appearance quality and character of the landscape and visual environment. (v) Public open space, the definitive Public Rights of Way network (vi) The natural environment (vii) The historic environment (viii) The character and quality of the area through poor design. • (e) Policy 11 (Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change)
Requires proposals for waste management development through their construction and operation are required “to minimise their potential contribution to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, incorporating energy and water efficient design measures and being adaptive to future climatic conditions”.
(f) Policy 12 (Transport and Access)
Provides support for waste management development where it would not have “an unacceptable impact on the efficiency and effective operation of the road network, including safety and capacity, local amenity and the environment.
Proposals for the transportation of waste by rail and/or water will be encouraged subject to other policies in this Plan. Where transportation by road is proposed. This will be permitted where the road network is suitable for use by Heavy Goods Vehicles or can be improved to accommodate such vehicles”.
Policy 12 sets a hierarchy for transport preference of the waste with the movement by rail or water at the top followed by access through an existing junction to the main road network via a suitable section of existing road. A final criterion for creation of a new road access is not relevant to this application.
National Policy Statements
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration.
The NPPF sets the scene for placing sustainable development at the heart of the planning system. The Government sets a series of core planning principles to be applied at both plan making, as well as at decision making and that these include in relation to this application:
(i) Seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity in relation to existing occupants of land and buildings. (ii) Supporting the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encouraging the use of renewable resources. (iii) Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.
The NPPF seeks the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system encouraging and supporting economic growth and that this is achieved through proactively meeting the needs of business.
The NPPF seeks to mitigate, through appropriate planning decisions, the potential for noise and other adverse impacts including air quality, arising from a development on health and quality of life.
National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW)
The National Planning Policy for Waste was published October 2014 and sets out the national case for the management of wastes. The Introduction to this document states that it is “the Government’s ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management. Positive planning plays a pivotal role in delivering this country’s waste ambitions through: delivery of sustainable development and resource efficiency ..”
The NPPW sets out under the heading of identifying waste management facility needs that Waste Planning Authorities in their preparation of local plans identify such opportunities to meet identified needs of their area for the management of waste streams.
Waste planning authorities should also:
• “undertake early and meaningful engagement with local communities so that plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and set of agreed priorities when planning for sustainable waste management, .; • drive waste management up the waste hierarchy .. recognising the need for a mix of types and scale of facilities, and that adequate provision must be made for waste disposal; • consider the need for additional waste management capacity of more than local significance and reflect any requirement for waste management facilities identified nationally; • take into account any need for waste management, including for disposal of the residues from treated wastes, arising in more than one waste planning authority area but where only a limited number of facilities would be required; • work collaboratively in groups with other waste planning authorities, and in two- tier areas with district authorities, through the statutory duty to cooperate, to provide a suitable network of facilities to deliver sustainable waste management; • consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need ”.
For the determination of planning applications the policy statement requires waste planning authorities to amongst other matters
• “consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B [this referred to appendix sets out locational criteria] and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies. Waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies;
• ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located;
• concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the Local Plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced ”
4. CONSULTATIONS
CHELMSFORD CITY COUNCIL – No objection. The City Council note the revised location of the recycling plant being further away from the Mayes Lane properties being designed to reduce potential impact on local residents amenity and that the revision would result in a small loss in biodiversity interest of 0.13%. The City Council state “ Overall, this Council remains of the view that the proposal is acceptable subject to compliance with “the issues and opportunities identified in Table 17 of Appendix B and other relevant polices of the Pre-Submission Waste Local Plan ”. [This referred to Table is set out in Appendix A of this report that contains the relevant extract from the Essex County Council Replacement Waste Local Plan Submission document referring to Sandon. The extract has been annotated in respect of the Issues and Opportunities items to clarify the present situation with comments added after each of the bullet points in “[ ]” brackets].
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA) – No objection. The EA comment under specific headings:
(i) Environmental Permitting - that the recycling facility would require permitting as would discharges to the watercourse. (ii) Water Framework Directive – That the recycling plant would be Permitted and the proposal is not likely to result in deterioration of the Water Framework Directive status of the Sandon Brook. It is noted that planting/retention of vegetation along the Brook would have a positive impact keeping the brook cool and providing woody debris to help with habitat diversity. (iii) Flood Risk – No activities would be taking place in Flood Zones 2/3 and stockpiles should not be stored in Flood Zones 2/3.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – Objects. The Trust noted, on the original application, the Local Wildlife Status of the land and the Trusts preference for no tipping. Whilst supportive of the habitat creation measures the Trust was unsure how the proposed water areas in the restoration scheme were to be maintained.
Were planning approval to be forthcoming the Trust would wish in line with national guidance to see a long term management plan in place to address the creation and enhancement of biodiversity.
In relation to the amended details for the repositioning of the waste recycling plant the Trust notes that the scheme would impact on protected species and that further translocation is proposed for these interests. The Trust objects to these proposals.
FORESTRY COMMISSION – No objection and note that although the aftercare would not be eligible for grants the Commission would be happy to advise on planting stock and design.
HIGHWAYS ENGLAND No objection subject to a condition requiring a Method Statement to be agreed prior to development commencing as to how site activities are going to take place alongside Highway England interests.
HISTORIC ENGLAND (HE) – No objection, HE advises that the application be determined in specific accordance with national and local policy guidance and Essex County Council’s specialist officers.
NATURAL ENGLAND (NE) - No objection, NE state “ Natural England is generally supportive of the proposed ecological mitigation and biodiversity enhancement measures incorporated within the proposals and has no objection to the proposed development”.
In respect of other areas of interest, NE note:
(i) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – no objection – no conditions requested. NE confirms that the application is not near any Sites of Special Scientific Interest. (ii) In terms of Protected Species NE have made no comment noting they produce Standing Advice and such advice needs to be addressed against each application. (iii) Biodiversity enhancements – the application presents an opportunity to incorporate features beneficial to wildlife into its design.
NATIONAL PLANNING CASEWORK UNIT – Any comments received will be reported
NORTHUMBERLAND WATER PROPERTY SOLUTIONS - Do have apparatus in vicinity of the application land and draws attention to their advice to applicants in relation to working alongside such apparatus.
RAMBLERS (BOTH AREA FOOTPATHS OFFICER AND AREA COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER) – No comments received.
UTILITIES: BRITISH TELECOM OPEN REACH INSTALCOM; INTEROUTE ; NATIONAL GRID; NORTHUMBERLAND WATER PROPERTY SOLUTIONS and VODAFONE – Do have apparatus in vicinity of the application land and draws attention to their advice to applicants in relation to working alongside such apparatus.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT (CNC) – No objection. The CNC has
been in close discussion with the applicants noise consultant and has confirmed: “With the additional assessment work undertaken, I am now satisfied that sufficient information has been provided and re-assessment work undertaken to demonstrate that noise and vibration emanating from the site are unlikely to exceed levels recommended by relevant guidance. This would be subject to conditions relating to compliance noise monitoring”.
Comment: Specific comments of the CNC have been incorporated into the appraisal section of the report. Should planning approval be forthcoming conditions addressing noise generation levels and monitoring would be recommended to ensure compliance.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT (CAQC) – No objection noting: “I would suggest conditions along the following lines for dust associated with the construction phase:
The risk of dust soiling and effects on human health and ecological receptors associated with construction activities for this development shall be detailed in the dust assessment for the site. Standard good practice dust mitigation measures measures appropriate for the identified likely level of risk shall be included in the Construction Code of Practice for the site, which shall be agreed with the Essex County Council.
I did not suggest a dust risk assessment or mitigation for the operational phase as the site would have a permit, however if there are concerns of dust nuisance during the operational phase then an operational dust impact assessment should be requested. Where the assessment shows that there is the potential for a dust impact which is significant basic good practice and site specific mitigation measures should be implemented such as those outlined in the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning (May 2016). Mitigation measures should be agreed with Essex County Council”.
Comments from the CQAC in respect of air quality aspects are awaited and any comments received will be reported.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S LIGHTING CONSULTANT – No Objection stating “It is considered that lighting is unlikely to result in adverse impacts to nearby receptors; however, insufficient information is available to be certain of this. Therefore to ensure potential lighting impacts are minimised I would recommend the following condition prior to installation of the lighting”.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (HA/Public Rights of Way) – No objection. The HA Officer notes that from a highway and transportation perspective the impact of the proposal is acceptable to the HA subject to the following comments and conditions:
i) Associated HGV movements and proposed traffic routeing are consistent with earlier planning approvals for the complex where larger vehicle movements have been generated.
ii) The present site traffic activities are subject to a vehicle routeing agreement.
iii) The existing haul road are to have chicanes to replace the sleeping policeman that will eliminate noise generated by HGV’s bumping over them.
“The Highway Authority has engaged with local stakeholders and the applicant regarding the future strategy for the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within the Sandon Quarry site on land within the control of the applicant. The in principle details are shown on the Restoration Proposals drawing 1910/005K for creation of new PRoW permissive Footpaths and Permissive Bridleways within the application site boundary. The drawing shows connections to the existing PRoW Footpath Network outside the development site boundary on land in the applicants control and on third party land.
[1] The public’s rights and ease of passage over PRoW existing footpaths no. 232_26 [this footpath runs parallel to the west of the A12(T)] and 232_7 [this footpath lies on a north to south line east of the northern void] shall be maintained free and unobstructed at all times. However if it transpires that the works will affect the two footpaths and a diversion is required then no development shall be permitted to commence until such time as an Order securing the diversion of the existing definitive right of ways to a route to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been confirmed and the new route has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the continued safe passage of pedestrians on the public rights of way and accessibility in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM11.
[2] The developer shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the new PRoW Permissive Footpaths and Bridleways shown in principle in drawing no. 1910/005K. Details to be agreed in writing by the Highway Authority prior to construction.
Reason: To ensure the continued safe passage of the public on the public rights of way and accessibility in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM11.
[3] Where the permissive Bridleways are coincident with existing PRoW Footpaths numbers; 232_5 [adjacent site haul road], 232_7, 232_21, 232_22 and 232_26 [21 & 22 on land to the south of application footprint], the PRoW Footpath surfaces, shall be maintained to a condition suitable for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Details to be agreed in writing by the Highway Authority prior to construction.
Reason: To ensure the continued safe passage of the public on the public rights of way and accessibility in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM11.
[4]. The developer shall enter into a long term agreement (by planning obligation or otherwise) to ensure that the permissive Footpaths and Bridleways shown in principle in drawing no. 1910/005K are available and maintained by the developer or landowner at no cost to the Highway Authority and to a standard acceptable to the Highway Authority for the lifetime of the development and thereafter as part of the long term site management plan and subsequent after care arrangements for a period of 25 years.
The above conditions are to ensure that the proposal conforms to the relevant policies contained within the County Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies, adopted as County Council Supplementary Guidance in February 2011”.
LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY – No objection noting that a hydrogeological and hydrological impact assessment including a flood risk assessment for the proposed development, surface water quality and quantity appear to be appropriately managed given the restoration by infilling with inert materials and the need for environmental permits for the waste recycling facility.
PLACE SERVICES (ABOROCULTURE) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to a condition for a scheme to address tree retention and protection.
PLACE SERVICES (ECOLOGY) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS No objection subject to conditions. The Ecology Officer (EO) notes “This development will involve the complete loss of the remaining areas of the Sandon Pit Local Wildlife Site (Ch104) which contains priority habitats.
The Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) is designated for its ‘brownfield’ habitats (also known as the priority habitat ‘Open Mosaic on Previously Developed Land’). The LoWS citation states: “Brown field sites such as this can be extremely important sites for a wide variety of invertebrates, including solitary bees and wasps, spiders, grasshoppers and bush-crickets. This site is one of the best examples of the vegetation types and associated fauna that can develop on such land.” It is the only site in mid-Essex to contain the nationally rare digger wasp (Cerceris quinquefasiata), a Red Data Book 3 and National BAP species.
Given that the proposal involves the complete loss of the remainder of the LoWS loss of priority habitats and some protected species are present, the planning application should firstly demonstrate that there is no alternative in order to avoid harm. The ‘mitigation hierarchy’ set out in Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that, “..if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;”.
Where a development cannot satisfy the requirements of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’, planning permission should therefore be refused. The following questions are relevant when applying the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ at paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework:
Information
• in cases where biodiversity may be affected, is any further information needed to meet statutory obligations as signposted in guidance published by Defra/Natural England • where an Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken, what evidence on ecological effects has already been provided in the Environmental Report and is this sufficient without having to undertake more work?
• is the significance of the effects clear? And • is relevant internal or external expertise available?
Avoidance – can significant harm to wildlife species and habitats be avoided for example through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts?
Mitigation – where significant harm cannot be wholly or partially avoided, can it be minimised by design or by the use of effective mitigation measures that can be secured by, for example, conditions or planning obligations?
Compensation – where, despite whatever mitigation would be effective, there would still be significant residual harm, as a last resort, can this be properly compensated for by measures to provide for an equivalent value of biodiversity?
Compensation should only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the development in that location is necessary and that it cannot be avoided or adequate mitigation provided. In case of this planning application, a comprehensive compensation scheme has been provided and I am broadly supportive of the approach taken, as it will be biodiversity led, providing that it is secured for the long term. In order to replace those habitats and species lost (including the Local Wildlife Site), the habitats to the east will be enhanced (called ‘Biodiversity compensation area’), and the northern void and plant site will also be restored to a mosaic of habitats, using the same guiding principles as the compensation area. Both areas should be considered to part of the final compensation scheme (including the Local Wildlife Site and priority habitats /species and protected species), the existing habitats to the east will be enhanced (called ‘Biodiversity Compensation Area’), and the northern void and plant site will also be restored to a mosaic of habitats, using the same guiding principles as the compensation area. All areas within the red line boundary should be considered to be part of the final compensation scheme.
Policy S12 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014- ‘Mineral Site restoration and After- use’ - establishes the context for biodiversity- led restoration and is supported by the Mineral Site Restoration for Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), June 2016. This lists six priority habitats for the restoration of mineral sites in Essex; Open Mosaic on Previously Developed Land is one of these six habitats. Habitat Management relating to Sandon- and all Essex mineral sites- should be in line with the details set out in the SPG”.[Biodiversity Restoration Minerals Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)]
There is an intention to have a long-term management plan in place for the whole of the area within the red line. This should be set out within a legal agreement and should cover a minimum of 20 years after the 5 year aftercare period. The management plan- or Biodiversity Enhancement Plan- should be consistent with the requirements of the SPG; recommended content of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan is set out on page 33 of the SPG.
As with the rest of the site, the northern void currently comprises a variety of habitats which collectively create “open mosaic habitat on previously developed land”, which is a priority habitat (and a Local Wildlife Site). The northern void habitats have naturally developed over time, with the previous phase 1 habitat survey from 2010 showing the site containing predominantly unimproved neutral grassland with secondary
woodland, open water, swamp and bare ground. The restoration habitat should ideally also comprise a mosaic of similar habitat types, essentially aiming to create ‘open mosaic habitat on previously developed land’ priority habitat. The biodiversity compensation area is described as needing to be created. However, it should be noted that open mosaic habitats have already developed in this area and the proposal will be to enhance them.
The dominant habitat proposed for the northern void is described as ‘species rich grassland’ (which is not priority habitat per se) and the intention is to probably graze it. I would draw your attention to the terminology within the Bioscan report (eg Vol 2 Bioscan report paragraph 7.3.20) and the ES, which proposes chalk grassland seeding for the northern void. I would have preferred to see a greater amount of natural regeneration for this area, in line with the advice within the Mineral Site Restoration for Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for ‘Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land’ and the method the existing habitats have developed. Please note that the biodiversity offsetting calculations have been amended through discussions with the applicant’s Ecologist from chalk grassland to reflect the existing open mosaic habitat on previously developed land priority habitat and the future restored habitat of a similar nature.
We have been advised by the applicant’s Ecologist that the reference to chalk grassland is a reference to use of a seed mix, not to the habitat that is intended to develop as a consequence of sowing that mix. There are no proprietary seed mixes fully reflective of the type of vegetation found on mixed substrates. However proprietary chalk grassland mixes share many of the same species, hence the suggestion that these are appropriate as a sowing resource.
As open mosaic habitat on previously developed land often develops as a result of natural regeneration, it does not require seeding at all (please see SPG for details). However, this difference in approach is not enough to object to the application and it is anticipated that the finer details can be agreed through management plan discussions, and prior to the implementation of the habitat creation.
The EO in considering the Environmental Statement noted under the Invertebrate and Great Crested Newt sections that
“The site contains low populations of GCNs and reptiles (grass snake, slow worms and common lizards) and it is proposed that they are translocated to an existing receptor site to the north, which is already being used for the previous GCN translocation relating to the southern void.
I agree that the work proposed in 7.3.4 Appendix ESG (December 2015) would be required. However, much of it should have been done under the existing GCN licence relating to development of the southern void. This licence is not being fully complied with and the habitat is not currently of an adequate standard. The applicant’s ecologist has provided assurance that this area will be improved for GCNs and reptiles, but it will need to be closely monitored. The grazing density must be specified prior to commencement, though it could be adjusted with the agreement of the MPA.
The receptor site would also need to be secured through a long term legal agreement (Section 106) and be managed appropriately according to the method statement
submitted with the licence. The current management of the area around the newt ponds shown as white space on the restoration plans (Figure S4) as it is part of the area under the existing GCN licence, within which maximum grazing stocking density is specified. It is proposed that, in the short-medium term, management will be addressed and secured through future GCN licences issued to cover implementation of the permission. The longer-term management of this area (i.e. beyond the term of the licences) is something that can be brought in to the aftercare management plan.
Despite the above concerns regarding the management of the existing receptor site, I would advise that this development is unlikely to affect the conservation status due to the relatively low numbers of GCNs affected by the current proposals and the mitigation proposed. Please see below for further details.
The species protection provisions of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, contain three "derogation tests" which must be applied by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to a person carrying out an activity which would harm a EPS [European Protected Species] . For development activities this licence is normally obtained after planning permission has been obtained. The three tests are that:
• the activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; • there must be no satisfactory alternative; and • Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.
Notwithstanding the licensing regime, the local planning authority (LPA) must also address its mind to these three tests when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development which could harm a EPS. A LPA failing to do so would be in breach the 2010 Regulations which requires all public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.
As GCNs are likely to be using the development site a derogation licence will be required which can only be obtained if planning permission has been granted ….
I advise that, from the information provided within the Ecological Impact Assessment for this site, the favourable conservation status is likely to be maintained. However, the Mineral Planning Authority needs to also make a judgement on the first two tests in considering whether to grant planning permission.
Should you decide that the three tests can be met and be minded to grant planning permission, I recommend that that the MPA imposes a condition in this respect ..
The receptor site would also need to be secured through a long term legal agreement (Section 106) and be managed appropriately according to the method statement submitted with the licence”.
PLACE SERVICES (LANDSCAPE) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to maintenance of the trees in the field north of the northern void.
PLACE SERVICES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY
AND HIGHWAYS – The Historic Buildings Officer (HB) recognises that a Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage Statement has been undertaken and that “Heritage Assets already have adequate natural screening, and that the setting is only marginally impacted. It should be recommended that this natural screening should be maintained for the life of the operation”
PLACE SERVICES (HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to conditions. The Historic Environment officer notes “A Heritage Assessment accompanies this application. This has concluded that all the ground within this application area has been disturbed. There is however still the potential for some undisturbed ground where the plant is going to be sited, with the potential for archaeological deposits to survive. This needs to be assessed for its potential. Cropmarks in the vicinity include potentially prehistoric features”. It is recommended that should planning permission be granted a condition be imposed to secure archaeological work and investigation.
PLACE SERVICES (URBAN DESIGN) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS - No comment to make.
SUSTAINABLE ESSEX INTEGRATION & WASTE MANAGEMENT - Any comments received will be reported.
DANBURY PARISH COUNCIL – (Adjoining Parish) Any comments received will be reported.
GREAT BADDOW PARISH COUNCIL (Adjoining Parish) – No comments to make.
SANDON PARISH COUNCIL – Comment “Sandon Parish Council recognise the need to restore the Northern quarry void, by infilling with inert waste, especially to support the integrity of the A12, and improve the rural landscape. We also recognise the restoration of the Southern void is being achieved in an efficient manner, and we feel confident this application should prove acceptable too.
We would like to see the Northern void give something back to the local residents - a place to walk, cycle and ride horses, in conjunction to the designation as a Local Wildlife site and agricultural site. There is a distinct lack of these amenities in the Sandon area. Local residents have put up with years of gravel extraction and southern void works and it seems only right that Brett’s, ECC and CCC give them a pleasant place to visit and exercise in return. The Public Right of Way 232_26 south west of the site to Plumping Bridge is accessed from the site by a very high stile, difficult for walkers, and we would like this to be changed into a bridle way with a suitable gate for equine and cyclist access as well as pedestrians between Howe Green and Sandon Village. The bridleway would need to be extended all the way to the Sandon Bridlepath and on to East Hanningfield Road.
We are concerned that the works will put sediment into Sandon Brook and the works must protect the integrity of this waterway.
We are concerned about the Recycling area on the Eastern side of Sandon Brook and the effect on local residents of Sandon and Mayes Lane with visibility, noise and vibration of heavy equipment (mobile crushing plant, screening plant and HBM). All
noisy equipment should be nearer the quarry than the rear of the Recycling area to modify the effects on residents. We understand the need to recycle waste rather than putting into landfill, as per the Local Waste Plan”.
LOCAL MEMBERS – CHELMSFORD - STOCK- Any views received will be reported. CHELMSFORD – GREAT BADDOW – (Adjoining Member) Any views received will be reported
5. REPRESENTATIONS
Site, press and neighbour notifications were undertaken. As a result 14 letters of representation have been received including one from a local resident responding in the capacity of the Essex Bridleways Association (EBA). Two letters were also received from the same above resident acting for 8 of the Residents living off Mayes Lane.
The representations relate to:
Observation Comment Residents of Mayes Lane first letter
The residents whilst supporting the scheme Noted note the emerging waste local plan that recycling is high up the waste hierarchy however whilst site may be a Preferred Location this does not equate to planning permission. Raise objections in respect of Policy 10:
a) local amenity – closest property is 98 See appraisal metres, there would be 80 lorries a day and no assessment of the noise of tipping or clanging of empty vehicles. How would noise levels be controlled?
In respect of dust – there is the impact of health on the public, contamination of pasture and respiratory problems of livestock. j) Public open space – there would be See appraisal conflict between HGV’s and users pf the footpaths.
m) Historic Environment – There are Grade Noted II Listed buildings Mayes Farm some 250 metres from recycling plant.
n) Character and Quality of Area – The Noted most suitable location for the recycling plant would be an industrial estate location. Potential impacts on wildlife
populate areas. Were planning approval to be forthcoming that conditions to revoke the IDO and to relocate recycling plant nearer the void be imposed.-
Residents of Mayes Lane second letter.
Note the revised recycling plant location and Noted that proposed vehicle numbers remain unchanged. Recycling plant location will have lesser impact than previous concerns remain on noise and dust and to what monitoring control would be in place for such arisings.
In respect of the processing plant there is See appraisal potential for dust to arise from vehicles visiting the plant, that the proposed stockpiles of 6 metres would be above height of proposed screen mounds at 3metres.Prevailing wind is south eastern towards Mayes Lane.
Request conditions to address operating Noted. Could be conditioned. hours being restricted to 0700 – 1800 Noise/dust surveys are usually weekdays. submitted as schemes required by All vehicles visiting site use white noise condition and have a process of alarms. consultation with the relevant Regular noise and dust monitoring reports interested parties such as the CNC, are submitted to and scrutinised by the Such submissions can be viewed by liaison committee. the public and this would be the most appropriate avenue with any report updates given at the relevant liaison meetings.
In respect of visual intrusion that all old plant Should planning approval be be removed from the plant area before forthcoming then a condition would construction of the new plant. address this matter.
All site lighting switched off when site not in Should planning approval be operation. forthcoming then a condition would address this matter.
Residents group have expressed previous Noted concerns over potential conflict of HGV’s and footpath users.
In the restoration that definitive bridleways Noted are created and upgrading of the footpaths to bridleways. Of footpaths accessing site in their landownership.
That the existing IDO permission is revoked. See appraisal
Conclusion that whilst supportive of the Noted restoration scheme that their comments above are addressed.
Other local residents (some also part of the Residents of Mayes Lane group referred to above have also written in individual capacity.
Are horse owners with field immediately See appraisal adjacent proposed plant area. Field used for their only source of summer grazing, horse is asthmatic and needs dust free environment. Presence of recycling plant detrimental to the horses. No information on affected parish and Neighbours were notified within 250 properties within 200 metres were not metres of application boundary. consulted. Appears this resident was apparently missed. However, their details were Supports the restoration scheme and picked up during the early period of benefits that would arise but object to the the submission and the omission processing of recycled materials and the rectified. potential detriment to enjoyment of local residents.
Supports the restoration scheme and Noted benefits that would arise but object to the processing of recycled materials and the potential detriment to enjoyment of local residents
6. APPRAISAL
The principal issues considered in respect of this proposal are:
A. Policy Background B. Amenity Impacts C. Highway Impact D. Nature Conservation E. General – Bridleway provision F. IDO.
A POLICY BACKGROUND
Appropriateness of the development
The applicant has justified the infilling on the grounds of removing the need for the
ongoing dewatering which it is considered unsustainable in the long term. Such infilling being on the basis of utilising non recoverable inert materials and restoring the land to a manner consistent with its surroundings and proximity to the A12 (T).
In policy terms Sandon Northern Void was one of eleven sites identified in the extant Waste Local Plan as suitable for receiving inert type waste and contributing over its life some 1 million cubic metres of void space. Of the ten other sites identified in the extant plan nine have been delivered (the tenth had SSSI designation interests that precluded further development). Such progress is a reflection of the Plans success as a vehicle for delivering such sites and addressing the need for inert waste handling facilities within the Essex area. The important capacity holding and deliverability of the Sandon North void has been recognised and its allocation status as a future handling facility carried forward into the Replacement Waste Local Plan submission.
As part of the Schedule of Proposed Modifications, following the Examination in Public, updated assessments of the construction, demolition and excavation wastes (CDE) arising and capacity gap of such handling facilities over the Plan period to 2023/24 have been included. This data shows there to be an additional (to existing permitted facilities) requirement for CDE management facilities to accommodate some 1.95mta (million tonnes per annum) either in recycling or disposal.
The importance of the Sandon North Void in contributing both to CDE recycling and disposal targets can be highlighted in the updated assessment identifying that as of 2015 (latest updated survey information) there was permitted CDE handling capacity of some 5.1 million tonnes. With the forecasted CDE arisings over the Plan period the allocations provide for some 640,000 tpa recycling and 14 million tonnes of landfill. The Plan recognises that even with these current and allocation capacities there would be a shortfall over the Plan period of some 7 million tonnes of inert waste requiring management.
The Replacement Waste Local Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is undergoing Examination in Public with hearing sessions taking place in September/October 2016. Of note is that the inclusion of the site did not raise any specific issues during the hearing sessions conducted by the Planning Inspector.
The allocation site already has policy support through the extant AWLP in terms of its suitability subject to all other planning considerations being acceptable and the late stage of the SRWLP adds support.
In terms of alternatives the applicant has acknowledged that the void exists as a result of previous mineral extraction activities. In the normal course of events such
voids would have a condition imposed requiring their restoration. In this particular case the Sandon northern void was subject to an early mineral permission where restoration requirements were not as stringent. The land could therefore remain in its unrestored and unproductive state.
The do nothing approach whilst leaving the status quo would require on-going dewatering which is recognisably unsustainable in the long term, does not put to rest a potentially long term problem of having drainage issues alongside an important trunk road and is also inconsistent with the policy allocation for the land. In sustainability terms the recovery and reuse of secondary aggregate from inert materials is a common-sense, sustainable and economically supportive activity especially where co-existence of recycling plant with a disposal facility alongside and a ready market directly linked on to the major highway network and in a location mainly isolated from sensitive receptors. Such a combination is not readily exhibited by most waste management locations.
In respect of alternative restoration scenarios, if it is taken that the void is suitable for infilling, the question should be to what level infilling takes place to. Should this be for infilling to take place to surrounding ground levels or a lesser level that could achieve the proposed beneficial afteruse consistent with A12(T) stability and drainage interests together with achieving nature conservation and public amenity afteruse. The applicant has stated their principal aim is to achieve a situation whereby pumping is discontinued. Infilling would therefore need to be above the groundwater level. If restoration were left at this level, there would still be a depression in the landscape not in keeping with the local landscape and unlikely to suitably afford a successful nature conservation let along public amenity afteruse to develop. Furthermore any depression in the land would need to deal with surface water inflow and having potential implications to the previously mentioned drainage implications.
Removal of the void by bringing the land back up to marry into existing surrounding topography would represent the most logical approach in keeping with the surrounding landscape and offering a more sustainable afteruse opportunity for the land and to the wider community.
The proposal would not impact on watercourse quality nor has it been demonstrated that flooding would be an issue.
In respect of considering the appropriateness of the complex to undertake various waste management activities such as infilling and recycling, the AWLP states that the development of waste management facilities at Sandon be integrated with proposals to restore the quarry without prejudicing its restoration timescales. Ensuring that restoration timescales are not prejudiced would be consistent with the Revised Preferred Approach of the RWLP and national guidance. The co-location of complimentary waste management facilities at the complex during the infilling period would present a sustainable use of resources, recovering recycled material and allowing non recoverable material to positively contribute to the infilling of an existing void. The applicant has confirmed that infrastructure would be removed
on completion of the infilling and clearance of remaining on site stockpiles. The location and infilling aspect would be consistent with AWLP Policies W3A; W8A; W8B; W10B; W10E and SRWLP Policies 1; 3; 6.and 10 and CBC AP2008 Policies CP9; CP10, DC4, DC16, DC21 or DC22; and the CCS Adopted 2013 Policies DC2.
B AMENITY IMPACTS
Noise and Dust
In terms of the infilling element of the application, site activities would be taking place within the void and below ground level. It is not considered that this side of the activities would introduce any noise generation aspects to impact on sensitive receptors. Likewise as activities come to the surface the applicants supporting noise report confirms that site activities would remain within acceptable levels. Indeed the noise of the A12 (T) remains the dominant noise source for the locality. The CNC
In terms of the haul road, the applicant has had discussions with the local resident living immediately to the south of the site entrance to address their concerns relating to maintenance of the haul road and removal of some of the installed sleeping policeman to mitigate potential noise sources arising from site vehicle traffic. An existing bund between the residents property and haul road entrance already provides a screening element.
The siting of the processing plant in the plant area has been revised since the submission of the application as a result of discussions with Officers and the views of the parish and local community representees living along Mayes Lane. The revised location, within the western end of the plant site, would accommodate the processing plant and stockpiles. Visual mitigation of this facility from outside vantage points would be assisted through separation distance and the provision of a 3 metre high screening mound around the processing plant area. The proposed stockpiling height of up to 6 metres, whilst higher than the screen mound height, would itself act as an additional visual/noise barrier to the processing plant.
The original scheme had the proposed plant site activity area extending along the southern half of the plant site area right up to the eastern boundary. The revised location would ensure a wider buffer between the Mayes Lane properties and allow the buffer area to be dedicated to nature conservation at the site of site activities. The CNC has not objected to this aspect of the proposal.
The Mayes Lane residents in their representation also sought restrictions to be imposed on the operating hours of the site and use of “white noise reversing alarms”. The CNC has stated “With regard to the residents query over requesting restrictions on hours of operation, my comments relate to those hours proposed in the application. Therefore, I do not see the need for the recommended restrictions. The ‘safeguard’ is the compliance noise monitoring which I think we should insist includes a Saturday period”.
In terms of reversing alarms, the applicant has confirmed that vehicles under their control would be fitted with white noise reversing alarms. It is recognised that vehicles of third parties are outside the control of the applicant. However, provision could be made in any approval being forthcoming for the applicant to design the
internal traffic routeing such as to minimise the need for vehicles to be reversing towards sensitive outside receptors.
In respect of potential dust generation the applicants are proposing to undertake a standard type of activity of infilling within a void and carrying out recycling activities with standard types of plant and infrastructure. The applicant has proposed the siting of the processing elements of the activities in a location at distance from and screened both by bunding and vegetation from the nearest sensitive residential properties.
The applicant has proposed recognised practices to address dust generation including water suppression, screening bunds, minimising drop heights (i.e. from conveyor to stockpile), limiting vehicle speeds and good site practices of management and maintenance of the haul roads. Appropriate conditions could be imposed to ensure a dust control plan being in place and for regular dust monitoring surveys were planning approval to be forthcoming. The local residents have requested the reporting of dust surveys to the site liaison meetings [these already take place as part of the southern voids infilling permission]. Whilst such reports are usually part of formal submission of details required by planning condition, the regular reporting of the surveys at such liaison events is a useful mechanism for interested parties to be kept informed of ongoing activities and for issues to be raised and addressed.
Whilst local residents have raised concerns over potential dust arisings affecting their interests, the site activities have been assessed and planned with inputs from the applicant’s noise and air quality consultants. The proposals have not been objected to by either the Environment Agency nor Chelmsford City Council. The CAQC whilst not objecting has sought clarification on various air quality related aspects. The applicant has responded on these and the CQAC re-consulted. Their recommendations will be reported to the committee and whilst it is not considered there will be specific objection it is anticipated that there would be condition requirements for dust control; suppression and monitoring.
To provide comfort to local residents as regards controlling stockpiling heights, it would be considered appropriate for a height restriction to be imposed such that stockpiles do not exceed the 6 metre height proposal. Stockpiles would be generally limited to the height of the conveyor system installed such conveyor heights can be adjusted within certain parameters and the type of screener/crusher involved. However, for all round comfort and avoidance of doubt, a physical height indicator could be installed, such as a marked telegraph pole, within the processing area to give a physical and readily visible check for when heights were being approached.
It is considered that were planning approval to be forthcoming, appropriate noise and dust control and monitoring conditions could be applied and overall noise or dust generation is not considered to conflict with AWLP Policies W10A; W1OB; W10E; W10F or SRWLP Policies 6 &10 and CBC AP2008 Policies DC4 and the CCS Adopted 2013 Policies DC2 and DC29.
Landscape/Visual
As with noise, the principal activities presented by this application would take place either below ground level or behind screen bunding. As an example of such working arrangements taking place close to outside sensitive receptors is the juxtaposition of Sandon Hall to the infilling activities in the southern void which are much closer than would occur for similar activities in the northern void. Proposed infilling in the northern void would take place at greater distance, separated by both topography, perimeter vegetation and the existing industrial estate. There are transient views of site activities from public rights of way already for the southern void activities and these would remain for the proposed activities. Users of the public rights of way network would not experience cumulative impact of both voids working at the same time as the southern void would be restored prior to activities beginning in the northern void. Likewise traffic movements would remain similar to existing and where the haul road and footpath coincide suitable intervisibility for both parties exists. The County Footpaths Officer has not raised an objection in terms of the visual impacts or relationship of the footpath network with site activities. As discussed earlier the applicant has revised the siting of the processing plant such that it is further away from Mayes Lane. Whilst the original location could have been considered not to have offered environmental impacts, the perceived closeness to sensitive receptors was an issue. The revised location allows the retention of the existing regenerating land to act as a “buffer” setting the plant further away from sensitive receptors and with the provision of the screen bund restricting visibility of the plant activities from Mayes Lane. The revised location would present the smallest footprint necessary for the proposed activities. The buffer would also benefit the nature conservation aspect and is considered a positive benefit mitigating perceived closeness of site activities. Any views likely to exist of the processing plant presence could be the tops of the conveyor arms although these in themselves would be static and non noise generating.
Any views existing of the IWRF from public rights of way would be mitigated through the retention of the existing mature vegetation and would be transitory. Should planning approval be forthcoming it would be recommended that a condition be imposed to safeguard perimeter vegetation to support visual mitigation.
Neither the County Landscape officer nor Natural England have raised any objections in respect of the visual aspects.
Restoration of the land would be beneficial securing the long term value by integrating the site into the adjoining landscape characterised by agriculture and nature conservation.
In terms of heritage assets the proposal is sufficiently distance from the heritage interests such as not to require specific Heritage Impact Assessment and is therefore considered not to affect heritage setting considerations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Neither Historic England nor the Historic Buildings Officer have raised objection on the heritage asset aspect.
In terms of archaeological interests, safeguarding of any archaeological potential under the proposed recycling facility location could be addressed through appropriate conditioning to address investigation and recording of any finds.
Overall landscape aspects are not considered to conflict with AWLP Policies W3A; W8B; W10A; W1OB; W10E and SRWLP Policy 10 and CBC AP2008 Policies CP9, CP14 and D18 and the CCS Adopted 2013 Policy DC2.
C. HIGHWAY IMPACT
The principal concerns relate to the noise generated from visiting traffic at the IWRF affecting near neighbours and potential conflict with PRoW users. The noise aspects are addressed in the noise assessment part of this report and assessed by the CNC with recommended conditions. The re-siting of the IWRF further away from properties off Mayes Lane is seen as further minimising the potential for disruption on the amenities of local residents.
The applicant has approached the local resident living adjacent to the site entrance and discussed the concerns raised as set out earlier in this report.
In respect of representee comments on potential traffic/public conflicts these relate to that within the public open space context. Once the site is restored use of HGV’s would cease and any potential for such conflict would be removed. In terms of ongoing HGV use, there has been continuous co-existence of HGV traffic along the haul road with users of the footpath network where the haul road/footpath link. Intervisibilty as it exists is considered appropriate and continued use of the haul road with the existing PRoW layout is not seen as introducing any change to thinking in that respect. It is noted that previous permitted vehicle generation numbers have been higher than those now being proposed. To date there has been no known conflict arising that has been brought to the attention of the WPA.
Overall traffic issues are not considered to conflict with AWLP Policies W3A; W8A; W8B; W10A; W1OB; W10E and SRWLP Policy 6; 10.and 12 and CBC AP2008 Policies CP13 and DC28 and the CCS Adopted 2013 Policy DC41.
D. NATURE CONSERVATION
The Northern Void has been designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) since around 2015. Although the formal LoWS designation had been slow in forthcoming, it had long been recognised as being intrinsically important for wildlife and contains priority habitat. [‘Species of Principal Importance’ and ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ are
the terms used under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act). ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’ is the term used in the NPPF. The section 41 (of the NERC Act) list of habitats and species is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the NERC Act (2006), to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions]. There had similarly been a nature conservation interest in the land within the Southern Void footprint at the time of consideration of that particular application. As compensation for the proposed destruction of this habitat through the infilling of the southern void area, a biodiversity compensation area was created on land to the west of the A12(T); whilst for Protected Species interests further ponds and suitable habitat provision was created on land to the north of the northern void area in the form of ponds with features for terrestrial and hibernating interests
This present application seeks provision of biodiversity compensation land within the plant area being available prior to the start of site activities and becoming enlarged once the processing plant is removed at the end of infilling. Additional land would be available in and around the wildlife ponds to the north of the Northern Void area. The existing wildlife ponds themselves whilst established are considered by the CE as requiring better management and maintenance and this application includes commitments to achieve this.
Essex Wildlife Trust has objected to further translocation of protected species. At the time of the allocation of the Northern Void in the SRWLP it was recognised that there were nature conservation interests although they were not seen as being such as to ultimately preclude the allocation site from going forward. At the time of the Southern Void approval the applicant entered into a Habitat Management Plan for the present biodiversity compensation area. This Plan involves annual site meetings to monitor progress and management arrangements. The impact of the proposal on the LoWS has been considered by Natural England, Environment Agency and the County’s Ecologist who subject to requirements have not raised objection.
The CE has drawn attention for the need to consider in the determination process that of the European Protected Species Interests in light of the implications of the Habitats Directive and the associated three derogation tests. These tests are ones that the planning authority and ultimately Natural England need to have been satisfied upon before making any determination on an affected application or in the latter’s case as the body responsible for granting Derogation Licences.
In considering these three tests from a planning aspect they are:
• the activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety;
Were this a new proposal set on a greenfield site that had a LoWS designation and this was threatened by the proposal then such loss would be considered a significant negative aspect in its own right. This particular LoWS has developed within the context of an active mineral/landfill site with the southern element of the nature
conservation interests having been destroyed following the grant of the southern void infilling activities. A Biodiversity Compensation Area was made available for the southern void application on land to the immediate west of the A12 (T) and for the protected species through the pond and habitat provision on the land to the north of the northern void.
The remaining element of the LoWS occupies the footprint of the northern void in which it has been recorded low populations of Protected Species and that the habitat which is still developing is still at a stage that could be re-creatable elsewhere.
The recognition of the nature conservation interest within the site has not precluded the continuation of the allocation status within the Local Development Framework, however, given the potential for Protected Species to be impacted raises the threshold for the environmental aspects of any application to be judged against.
The inclusion of this particular allocation site within the Local Development Framework supports an overall public benefit through its immediate availability, and contribution to, the future capacity requirement for Essex to handle its inert waste type arisings.
• there must be no satisfactory alternative;
As part of the applicant’s Environment Statement the applicant has considered, as required by the statutory guidance on applications made as environmental statements, the alternative aspects. The applicant has confirmed that the site is in their ownership, it is an existing mineral void space with no commitment for securing restoration and is a site that has been through the allocation process and is within the waste local plans referred to earlier as a site suitable for future waste management activities. The applicant has confirmed that the specific nature of the site as a void is not replicated in the vicinity and as such there is no similar suitable alternative location. In planning terms and set against the test it would be considered that this particular site has no practical alternative location to be available.
• Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.
The ecological reports and assessments consider that the applicant has within their landholding interests the ability to provide a BCA of a similar areal extent during the working period of the application. As a result of the removal of the inert waste recycling facility infrastructure at the completion of the infilling activities the footprint of the former recycling area would become available for inclusion within the adjacent BCA. Such a combined area would represent an increased compensatory area of land than was lost during the northern void infilling. This area combined with the rest of the application footprint (northern void and newt pond location included) would offer a significantly enlarged area for nature conservation gain. In respect of the Protected Species interest, the applicant’s ecologist has identified that the existing receptor ponds located to the north of the northern void would be suitable to accommodate, during the period of site activities, these interests.
In their assessment of the condition of the existing pond areas the applicant’s ecologist has recognised that enhancements are necessary particularly for the
planting species which require reinstatement. The County EO has expressed concern that the protected species ponds are not being maintained as they should be for the existing protected species moved as part of the development of the southern void. Should planning approval be forthcoming, then an appropriate Biodiversity handling and management programme would be recommended that would need to be closely monitored.
Aftercare on mineral and waste sites where there has been a previous mineral interest is limited by statute to 5 years post restoration. However, it is considered appropriate in this particular case given the complexity of the mosaic of landuses being proposed in the restoration/aftercare programme; the need to ensure the biodiversity aspect is maintained and that the Protected Species interests are secured and managed that an extended aftercare period be required and secured through a legal agreement should planning approval be forthcoming. The County Ecologist advises that a period of 25 years (5 years statutory aftercare and 20 years additional) is appropriate in this case and would allow for the management and maintenance are fully set out and that careful monitoring over this period would be fully met and achieved. Such long term management would cover the whole site footprint. Furthermore the extended aftercare period would secure the delivery of those particular habitats identified in the SPG.
In terms therefore of the derogation tests, it is considered that the application meets those specific tests.
Overall, the proposal relating to nature conservation interests are not considered to be in conflict, subject to appropriate conditions and legal agreement, with AWLP Policies W4A; W4B; W8B; W10A; W10E and SRWLP Policies 6 and 11 and CBC AP2008 Policy CP12
E. BRIDLEWAY PROVISION
Through their joint “petition letter”, a number of residents along Mayes Lane together with the Sandon Parish Council and EBA, expressed a wish for bridleway provision to be incorporated as part of the creation of public rights of way linkage as part of the Northern Voids restoration proposals.
During the consultation process both the Highways Authority and PROW Officers had concerns that whilst the public rights of way proposals were welcome, the creation of bridleways across the site could not reasonably be pursued by the Council themselves as Highway Authority. Whilst there was sympathy to the aspirations for local bridleway access, this proposal was considered an isolated scheme with no wider connectivity links available. Also, given the proximity of the site to the busy A1114 Southend Road an isolated bridleway route could encourage horse riders (using the site haul road) into an area of the highway network where currently they are rarely seen. It was considered, on the proposals as they were then being presented, that there was little benefit in having bridleways created within a site that
had no similar linkage to access the site either across the applicants or third parties surrounding landholdings. Access would only be available from off the public highway system a situation that the Highways Authority could not support on safety grounds.
The applicant has engaged during the consultation process with the community, through the site liaison meeting and with residents directly to address and where appropriate accommodate their concerns. As a result of the views of third parties the applicant has designed a revised restoration proposals plan that provides for the inclusion of a circular permissive bridleway link within the footprint of the northern void area. The applicant has also extended, outside of the application footprint but still within their landownership, the permissive bridleway status on to an existing footpath to enable bridleway access to be gained into the Sandon complex from the south.
The provision of permissive routes is welcome albeit it would remain remote from the wider definitive bridleway network. It is understood that the Highway Authority are pursuing the bridleway connectivity within this greater area, however for various reasons including third party landownership issues this network is unlikely to become a reality in the near future. This present application if approved would see site operations continuing for a number of years yet and the public rights of way provision would not become available until the land becomes restored. By that time the situation in respect of opportunities for the bridleway connectivity status may well have improved.
Whilst acknowledging the permissive status of the proposed bridleway links, local residents have expressed concern that the landowner could remove the right to use these at any time. Whilst this is true of any permissive route, there are no grounds for considering that the applicant is not genuine in its intentions of trying to accommodate local community aspirations towards public use of the application land and their surrounding wider landownership interests.
Whilst still of limited functionality in respect of any larger scheme developing, this proposal forms a start and it is to be welcomed. Recognition however needs to be made that the wider process of facilitating the network connectivity is one outside the remit of this application.
It is understood that the EBA have raised with the applicant the potential enhancements of the links being offered however these are outside the planning application footprint and not a matter for this report
The provision of the public rights of way links would be new and so not conflict with Policy. The supporting text to Policy W10G acknowledges that rights of way and haul roads do coincide and subject to users frequency and design would normally be acceptable. It is not considered that this proposal introduces any further impacts on the existing public rights of way over and above what occurs at present. Following restoration, users of both the existing and proposed additional linkages would enjoy an area of restored countryside reinstated to a mix of grassland/woodland and nature conservation.
In respect of the HA comments their requirements concern the PRoW network both within the application footprint and on adjoining land. This larger network consideration includes upgrading of existing rights of way for use as permissive bridleways and has been proposed by the applicant as the landowner. The HE recommendations can therefore be accommodated either through incorporation into the recommended conditions or in respect of those PRoW aspects which fall outside the application footprint but still within the applicants landownership through the proposed legal agreement. Where comments have been made in respect of potential development affecting PRoW then this would be put into any decision notice as an informative given that other legislation requirements would be affected.
Overall, the public rights of way aspects are not considered to be in conflict, subject to appropriate conditions and legal agreement on future maintenance, with AWLP Policies W10A; W10G and SRWLP Policy 10 and CBC AP2008 Policy CP12.
F. INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDER (IDO)
The granting of the earlier IDO represents an uncertainty to the local community that the mineral resources beneath the plant area could be removed at some future date and that such activities could potentially have greater impacts arising from visual, noise and disruption of the nature conservation interests that have developed in the area.
Notwithstanding any surface restoration as proposed by this application, the right to extract mineral would remain on the land. The applicant has acknowledged this uncertainty and confirmed that should planning approval be forthcoming that a requirement to revoke the IDO would be acceptable. Such a provision could be achievable through a legal agreement.
7. CONCLUSION
This application is being made on the basis of securing, and contributing to the future continuation of, recycling of inert materials in the Essex area. The application land is a recognised allocated site within the adopted and pre submission versions of the county’s waste local plans. These plans acknowledge the Sandon site as being suitable for accommodating both inert waste infilling and its recycling. The waste plans also recognise the potential for the infilling of the northern void area. The application recognises that the proposal would be a temporary development securing an outlet for waste arisings within the locality ensuring through the recycling facility the recovering of recyclable material whilst enabling the void to be infilled with only non-recoverable materials. The application would be considered as contributing to
the availability of suitable facilities in line with the waste plan strategy into the future.
From a landscape aspect, the proposal would be self-contained and the infilling element would be screened from the nearest residential properties by topography, distance, intervening vegetation and the existing industrial units. The report finds that the revised siting of the IWRF would similarly be screened by distance, bunding and existing vegetation. Appropriate conditions could be imposed to secure restrictions on any stockpiling height aspects.
The report finds that the reinstated landform would marry into the adjoining landscape character preserving the afteruse provisions that are complimentary to the surrounding agricultural and nature conservation aspects.
The development has been supported by a Heritage Assessment the conclusions of that report finding that the proposal would not have any long term impact on the setting of the nearby heritage assets.
From a traffic perspective the proposal makes use of an existing haul road of suitable standard linking the site with the strategic highway network.
The report notes that the opportunity has arisen through this application to secure the revocation of the extant mineral permission that would give comfort to the local community that future mineral extraction would not take place within the site complex and that the integrity of the restored land would be maintained in the future.
The report acknowledged that the haul road is used not only by HGV’s but also members of the public where the haul road serves in places as part of the definitive footpath network. Both HGV and members of the public have co-existed in using the road without any apparent conflict in the past. Previous mineral traffic use of the haul road has been of a higher generation number than now being proposed. The haul road already has passing bays and intervisibiltiy visibility for users is not considered to require any further road improvements measures from this aspect. Overall traffic generation is not considered to impact with PROW such as to be considered unacceptable and the level of traffic would be suitable for the designated highway capacity and would not, subject to appropriate routeing restrictions be considered unacceptable.
From a noise and dust generation aspect the proposal whilst close to sensitive residential properties is not considered to introduce activities that are not already of a known nature, technology or operating practice that appropriate conditions could not control.
Overall, the proposal is seen as meeting sustainable development goals of the NPPF, NPPW, AWLP/SRWLP nor Chelmsford City Council Policies.
RECOMMENDED
That for ESS/08/16/CHL planning permission be granted subject to:
(1) The prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to provide for:
(a) The revocation of the Interim Development Order Consent ref no: IDO/GHL/2/92A in respect of the remaining mineral underneath the processing plant area.
(b) Management and funding for the care and maintenance of the afteruse and features of the application land as depicted on the Drg no: 1910/005/K entitled “Restoration Proposals” dated March 2012 for a period of 20 years beyond the statutory 5 year aftercare period, i.e. a total of 25 years.
(c) For the Public Rights of Way interests those comments raised by the Highways Authority in particular:
i) Where the permissive Bridleways are coincident with existing PRoW Footpaths numbers; 232_5 [adjacent site haul road], 232_7, 232_21, 232_22 and 232_26 [21 & 22 on land to the south of application footprint], the PRoW Footpath surfaces, shall be maintained to a condition suitable for horse riders.
ii) The developer entering into a long term agreement for a period of 25 years to ensure that the permissive Footpaths and Bridleways shown in principle in drawing no. 1910/005K are available and maintained by the developer or landowner at no cost to the Highway Authority and to a standard acceptable to the Highway Authority.
And:
(2) Following completion of the legal agreement [referred to in (1) above] that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
Commencement and Duration 1. At least seven days written notice shall be given, to the Waste Planning Authority of the commencement of site preparation works (for the purposes of this requirement site preparation works shall include the ground preparation works of any ground clearance for the proposed exposures, habitat provision and replacement of drainage ditches within either the Biodiversity Conservation Area or Newt Pond area north of the northern void; replacement of the site offices and additional car parking locations). 2. All operations authorised or required by this permission shall cease, and all plant, machinery equipment, structures, buildings, stockpiles and other above ground infrastructure associated with the development, approved as part of this permission, less the access track and bridge over the Sandon Brook subject to the other condition requirements below, shall be removed and the site restored in accordance with the conditions of this permission not later than 10 calendar years from the date of notification of the commencement of site preparation works as notified in accordance with Condition 1. Natural England licence
3. No site preparation works shall take place as defined in Condition 1 of this permission until a copy of the licence issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 authorising the development to go ahead has been received by the Waste Planning Authority. Approved Details 4. Except as may be modified or required by the other conditions to this permission by the Waste Planning Authority, none of the uses, operations and activities associated with the development hereby approved shall be carried out other than in accordance with the details as set out in the application letter from MJCA dated 11th December 2015 and accompanying: a) Planning Application form from Brett Aggregates Ltd dated 11 th December 2015 b) Planning Statement and Environmental Statement Volumes 1 and 2 dated December 2015. c) Drwg No: BGL/SA/10-15/18940 entitled “The Layout of Sandon Quarry” dated 08/12/15. as amended by: d) The letter from MJCA dated 23 rd December 2015 and accompanying: i) Arborocultural Survey and Constraints Report (Report ref tr-1221-15 entitled “Arborocultural Survey and Constraints” dated 14/12/15). e) The letter from MJCA dated 5 th February 2016 and accompanying Drg no: BGL/SA/02-16/19201 entitled “Cross section showing the existing topography and the proposed restoration profile” dated 5th February 2016. f) The email from MJCA dated 10 th August 2016 and accompanying: i) Statement entitled “Addendum to planning application reference ESS/08/16/CHL to amend the location of the proposed inert waste recycling facility at Sandon Quarry”. Reference: BGL/SA/ABW/1659/01/S dated August 2016. g) The e-mail from Dominic Woodfield dated 22 nd December 2016 to Emma Simmonds and accompanying Bioscan report entitled “An Ecological Impact Assessment to accompany the application for planning permission for the northern quarry void and inert waste recycling facility at Sandon Quarry, Essex including the restoration of the northern quarry void using inert materials to nature conservation interest with new public rights of way, the installation and operation of an inert waste recycling facility for the production of secondary aggregate followed by the restoration of the inert waste recycling facility to nature conservation interest and the creation of an area of biodiversity compensation habitat. Assessment of changes to ecological impacts associated with
proposed amendment to the location of the inert waste recycling
facility. Revised version December 2016”.
h) E-mail from Guy Titman to Terry Burns dated 23 rd December 2016 and attached Drg nos: i) 1910/005/K entitled “Restoration Proposals” dated March 2012. ii) BGL/SA/12-16/19749 entitled “Cross Section through the Proposed Inert Waste Recycling Facility and adjacent areas” dated 23/12/16. Availability of Plans 5. A copy of this permission, including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with any conditions of this permission shall be kept available for inspection at the site during the prescribed working hours. Protection of Existing Trees and Perimeter Vegetation 6. Existing hedgerows and trees within, and on the perimeter of, the site and identified for retention shall be retained and shall not be felled, lopped, topped or removed without the prior written consent of the Waste Planning Authority. Any vegetation removed without consent, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased (at any time during the development or aftercare period) shall be replaced with trees or bushes of such size and species as may be specified by the Waste Planning Authority, in the planting season immediately following any such occurrences. 7. No infilling of the northern void or replacement of the bridge over the Sandon Brook shall take place until a scheme for the provision and protection measures of the standoff/buffer for the protection of river side trees has been submitted to and received the written approval of the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for: a) Measures to demarcate the standoff from any affected trees. b) Maintenance of the demarcation measures during the life of the site activities. c) Programme of works to achieve a) and b) above. For clarification all trees should be protected in accordance with BS: 5837 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. Timing sequence for Northern void infilling 8. No infilling shall take place within the northern void until the infilling of the southern void has been completed and the land form brought to the required level to receive subsoil. Scheme of Working 9. No infilling of the northern void; replacement of the bailey bridge over the Sandon Brook or delivery onto the former processing plant location of the inert waste recycling plant shall take place until a revised scheme of working has been approved in writing with the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall
make provision for: a) Details and elevations of the improvements to the site offices and car parking as provided for on page 19 of Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement and Drg no: BGL/SA/10-15/18945 entitled “Proposed improvements to the site reception area”. b) Bailey Bridge replacement details. c) Inert waste recycling plant together with cross section plans to demonstrate its visual mitigation from vantage points outside the planning application boundary. d) Provision of a permanent (during life of recycling activities) visual indicator such as a marked telegraph pole to be positioned adjacent to stockpiling area to delimit the 6 metre high stockpiling height limit. e) HGV routeing layout within the proposed inert waste recycling area to avoid vehicles reversing in direction of outside sensitive receptors. f) How areas/phases of the application land are to be identified, based on Drg no: BGL/SA/10-15/18946 entitled “Proposed phasing plan of the restoration of the northern quarry void at Sandon Quarry” for the purposes of enabling qualified ecologists to survey for protected species and release those areas as the site develops. g) Silt handling arrangements. h) Measures, such as having the land prior walked and checked for bird nesting, to be undertaken for when grass cutting and weed control on any storage mound takes place during the bird breeding season. Slope Stability 10. No infilling of the northern void shall take place until a scheme to address slope stability of the northern void and the proximity to the A12(T) has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The slope stability scheme shall be implemented as approved. The scheme shall make provision for: a) A detailed review of the historical and current site situation, information and previous assessments undertaken at the site and the preparation of a detailed conceptual model based on the available information. b) Further site investigation and monitoring to fill any gaps in the detailed conceptual model. c) The preparation of a detailed design including quantitative risk assessment of the slope stability and hydrological considerations during the proposed phasing of the restoration scheme. Boundaries and Site Security 11. The operator shall maintain and make stock proof the perimeter hedges and fences and protect the same from damage. Where the site boundary does not coincide with an existing hedge or fence line, the operator shall provide and maintain fencing where necessary for the duration of the development and aftercare period. Ecological Interest
12. Prior to entry into any phase of infilling as depicted on Drg no: BGL/SA/10- 15/18946 entitled “Proposed phasing plan of the restoration of the northern quarry void at Sandon Quarry” or the clearance of the footprint for the installation of the inert waste recycling facility, written confirmation shall be made to the Waste Planning Authority from a qualified ecologist that there are no protected species interests within the site areas/phases or inert waste recycling footprint. Such confirmation shall relate to a period not more than 6 days prior to entry of the above locations. Bird Nesting 13. No vegetation shall be physically disturbed during the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless the vegetation identified for removal has been surveyed to confirm the absence of active bird nesting. Archaeology 14. No ground surface disturbance within the plant processing area, as identified on Drg no: BGL/SA/12-16/19749 entitled “Cross Section through the Proposed Inert Waste Recycling Facility and adjacent areas” dated 23/12/16 shall take place until a mitigation scheme to address archaeological investigation and recording has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for: a) The recording of archaeological features which are revealed during site operations. b) Procedures for post excavation analysis including production of an archive and report of findings made and c) The conservation of any artefacts which are recovered and deposit of such artefacts at a suitable museum. Processing Plant 15. No processing plant shall be brought onto the application land until the existing above ground redundant plant and infrastructure located within the former plant processing area to the east of the Sandon Brook has been removed from the applicants Sandon landownership area as depicted on Drwg no: ES2 entitled “The Site and Surrounding Area”. Topographical surveys 16. A survey of site levels within the northern void area shall be carried out at intervals of not less than every 12 months, starting from the date on which infilling of the northern void commences. A copy of the survey shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within 14 days of being undertaken. Vehicle Routeing 17. A written record shall be maintained at the site office of all movements in/out of the site by HGVs. Such records shall contain the vehicle’s registration and operating company’s identity and time/date of movement. The records shall be made available for inspection by the Waste Planning Authority if requested and retained for the duration of the life of the development permitted. 18. No site preparation works shall take place as defined in Condition 1 of this permission until a Transport Plan for the routeing of HGVs to and from the site has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for: i) Monitoring both visual and written of the approved arrangements during the life of the site of the Transport Plan.
ii) Ensuring that all drivers of vehicles under the control of the applicant are made aware of the approved arrangements,
iii) Routeing map for use by drivers;
iv) Site access signage restricting right turning traffic.
v) The disciplinary steps that will be exercised in the event of default by drivers.
Highway Cleanliness 19. No mud or dirt shall be carried out onto the public highway by vehicles using the site. Haul Road maintenance 20. No importation of inert material for either use in the infilling of the northern void or for processing through the inert waste recycling facility shall take place until the upgrading of the internal haul through removal of the sleeping policeman and provision of chicane system to control HGV traffic movements has been completed and confirmed in writing to the Waste Planning Authority. Thereafter the internal haul road shall be maintained with a hard bound surface and maintained in good condition throughout the life of this permission. HGV Movements
21. The total numbers of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements entering or leaving the site during any single day shall not exceed the following overall limits: Mondays to Saturdays: 164 movements (82 in/82 out)
Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays: None
Sheeting Vehicles
22. All loaded HGVs shall be sheeted with fully serviceable covering before leaving the site.
Vehicle Maintenance
23. No servicing, maintenance or testing of vehicles or plant shall take place other than within the northern quarry void or plant area. (For the purposes of this condition the restriction shall not apply to unforeseen vehicle breakdowns).
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP): Biodiversity 24. No site preparation work, as defined in Condition 1 of this permission, shall take place until a scheme of working has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall make provision for:- a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones; c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements); d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; f) Responsible persons and lines of communication; g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person; and the h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP: Biodiversity shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the construction period of the development hereby approved.
Time limit on development before further surveys are required
25. If the development hereby approved does not commence (or, having commenced, is suspended for more than 12 months) within three years from the date of the planning consent, the approved ecological measures secured through Condition 24 of this permission shall be reviewed and, where necessary, amended and updated. The review shall be informed by further ecological surveys commissioned to:
i) establish if there have been any changes in the presence and/or abundance of habitats and/or species and ii) identify any likely new ecological impacts that might arise from any changes.
Where the survey results indicate that changes have occurred that will result in ecological impacts not previously addressed in the approved scheme, the original approved ecological measures will be revised and new or amended measures, and a timetable for their implementation, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Works will then be carried out in accordance with the proposed new approved ecological measures and timetable.
Sale of Secondary Aggregate 26. There shall be no retailing or direct sales of soils or bagged aggregates to the public from the application land.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Hours of Operation 27. a) No operations authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out on the site except between the following times:- 0700 – 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays. 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays. b) There shall be no working on Sundays or Bank/National Holidays. c) This condition shall not apply in cases of emergency when life, limb or property is in danger or for water pumping activities. The Waste Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, as soon as possible after the occurrence of any such emergency. Rubbish 28. All rubbish and scrap materials generated on the site shall be collected and stored in a screened position within the site area until such time as they may be properly disposed of to a suitably licensed waste disposal site. Burning 29. No waste or other materials shall be burnt on the site. Lighting 30. No artificial external lighting, whether free standing or affixed to infrastructure, that may be required to be provided within the application site shall be installed until a scheme of lighting at the site has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved. The submitted scheme shall make provision for: a) Lighting point location. b) Lighting design details. c) Proposed Illuminance coverage. d) Assessment of sky glow and light spillage outside of site boundary. Noise – Monitoring 31. No site preparation works shall take place, as defined in Condition 1 of this permission, until a scheme of site noise monitoring has been submitted to, and has received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and shall make provision for: a) A programme of implementation to include the noise monitoring locations identified in Condition 33 of this permission and as identified on the attached plan no: ESS/08/16/CHL/A entitled “Noise Monitoring Locations” during the life of the development. b) Noise monitoring at three monthly intervals. c) Monitoring during typical working hours with the main items of plant and machinery in operation. d) Monitoring to be carried out for at least 2 separate periods and for at least a total of 30 minutes at each monitoring location during the
working day which shall include Saturday periods whilst typical site operations are occurring. e) The logging of all weather conditions including wind speed and direction. f) The logging of both on site and off site noise events occurring during measurements with any extraneous noise events identified and, if necessary, discounted from the measured data. g) The results of the noise monitoring to be made available to the Waste Planning Authority no later than 7 days following the date of the measurement. The location of monitoring points may be varied with the written approval of the Waste Planning Authority as the site develops and noise levels shall correlate with those levels in Condition 33 of this permission. Noise – Temporary Operations
32. For temporary operations, the free field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq,1hr) at noise sensitive properties as listed in Condition 33of this permission shall not exceed 70dB LAeq,1hr. Measurement shall be made no closer than 3.5m from the façade of properties or other reflective surface and shall be corrected for extraneous noise.
Temporary operations shall not exceed a total of eight weeks in any continuous 12 month duration. Five days written notice shall be given to the Waste Planning Authority in advance of the commencement of a temporary operation. Temporary operations shall include site preparation bund formation and removal, site stripping and restoration and any other temporary activity that has been approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority in advance of such a temporary activity taking place.
Noise - Normal Levels 33. Except for temporary operations, the free field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (LAeq,1hr) at noise sensitive premises adjoining the site, due to operations in the site, shall not exceed 1h, the LAeq levels as set out in the following table and identified on the attached plan no: ESS/08/16/CHL/A entitled “Noise Monitoring Locations”: Receptor Location Criterion / dB LAeq,1hr Bridge Cottages 55 dB Hall Lane 55 dB Bridge Farm 55 dB Mayes Bungalow 55 dB Sandon Hall 55 dB
Measurements shall be made no closer than 3.5m to the façade of properties or other reflective surface and shall have regard to the
effects of extraneous noise and shall be corrected for any such effects. Loudspeakers 34. No sound reproduction or amplification equipment (including public address systems, loudspeakers etc) which is audible at the nearest noise sensitive location shall be installed or operated on the site without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority. Reversing alarms 35. Only white noise emitting reversing alarms shall be employed on vehicles and plant engaged in site activities and transport on and off site and in control of the applicant. Dust 36. No site preparation works shall take place, as defined in Condition 1, until a scheme for dust monitoring/mitigation at the site has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved, in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall make provision for: a) A dust control plan. b) A dust monitoring plan to include: I. The location(s) of dust monitoring points. II. The type of monitoring equipment to be used, the pollutant to be monitored and the standard to be monitored against. III. A programme of monitoring to commence prior to site preparation works as defined in Conditon 1 of this permission to provide a baseline against which to compare future monitoring. IV. A programme of implementation to include frequency of monitoring and locations during the various infilling phases and inert waste recycling activites. V. A log of complaints from the public and a record of the measures taken to be kept and submitted to the Waste Planning Authority on request. VI. The results of dust monitoring over each three month period shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within 21 days of the end of each three month monitoring period. Groundwater monitoring 37. No site preparation works shall take place, as defined in Condition 1, until a scheme for monitoring/reporting ground water levels at the site during the period of infilling works as provided for in Paragraph 6.3 of the MJCA Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment report dated December 2015 has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved, in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The
submitted scheme shall make provision for: A programme of site monitoring including method of monitoring, locations and frequency covering the infilling activities and reporting methods and timescales.
Surface Water Drainage and Pollution Protection 38. Any oil, fuel, lubricant, paint or solvent within the site shall be stored so as to prevent such materials contaminating topsoil or subsoil or reaching any watercourse. 39. a) Any fixed or free standing oil or fuel tanks shall be surrounded by a fully sealed impermeable enclosure with a capacity not less than 110% of that of the tanks so as to fully contain their contents in the event of any spillage; b) If there is multiple tankage, the enclosure shall have a capacity not less than 110% of the largest tank; c) All filling points, vents and sight glasses shall be within the sealed impermeable enclosure; and d) There shall be no drain through the impermeable enclosure. (The applicant’s attention is drawn to the requirement set out in BS 799 Part 5: 1987.)
40. All foul drainage shall be contained within a sealed and watertight sealed drainage system fitted with a level warning device constructed to BS 6297 “Design and Installation of Small Sewage Treatment Works and Cesspools” (1983). 41. No drainage from the site, or from areas immediately adjoining the site, shall be interrupted either partially or fully by the operations hereby approved unless already provided for in the approved working scheme. 42. No foul or contaminated surface water or trade effluent shall be discharged from the site into either the ground water or surface water drainage systems except as may be permitted under other legislation. Fixed Plant and Buildings 43. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Part 19 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended, no plant/structures whether fixed or static, lagoons, stocking of wastes or other materials or other structures shall be erected or placed on the site, except as provided for under other conditions of this permission. Handling and Storage of Soil and Soil Forming Material 44. Prior to the stripping of any soils from the site, excess vegetation shall be removed from the areas to be stripped. The term 'excess vegetation' in this condition means all vegetation above a height of 154mm (6") above ground level. 45. No movement of any soils or soil-making materials shall take place except when the full depth of soil to be stripped or otherwise transported is in a 'suitably dry' soil moisture condition. Suitably dry means the soils shall be sufficiently dry for the topsoil to be separated from the subsoil without difficulty
so that it is not damaged by machinery passage over it. For clarity, the criteria for determining "suitably dry soil moisture conditions" and "dry and friable" is based on a field assessment of the soils wetness in relation to its lower plastic limit. The assessment should be made by attempting to roll a ball of soil into a thread on the surface of a clean plain glazed tile (or plate glass square) using light pressure from the flat of the hand. if the soil crumbles before a long thread of 3mm diameter can be formed, the soil is dry enough to move. The assessment should be carried out on representative samples of each major soil type. 46. All suitable soils and soil-making material shall be recovered where practicable during the infilling operations and separately stored. 47. Any topsoil, subsoil, and soil-making material mounds shall be constructed with only the minimum amount of compaction necessary to ensure stability and shall not be traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery except during stacking and removal for re-spreading during the restoration of the site. They shall be graded and seeded with a suitable low maintenance grass seed mixture in the first available growing season following their construction. The sward shall be managed in accordance with correct agricultural management techniques throughout the period of storage. 48. Any soil storage mounds that may be required and insitu for more than 6 months, shall be kept free of weeds and all necessary steps shall be taken to destroy weed at an early stage of growth to prevent seeding. Restoration 49. Within four years of the date of this permission, a revised restoration scheme based on Drg no: 1910/005/K entitled “Restoration Proposals” dated March 2012 shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall then only be implemented as approved, or as may subsequently be approved, in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall make provision for:- a) Design details for the ground features including ponds and substrate exposures. b) Reinstatement programme including soil profiles for the area identified for “Proposed species rich grazed grassland”. c) Removal of all site structures. d) Barrier provision on the bailey bridge to safeguard nature conservation interests within the Biodiversity Compensation Area. e) Site water drainage. f) Layout and construction of the Public Rights of Way. Landscaping 50. No site preparation works shall take place, as defined in Condition 1, until a scheme of landscaping, based on Drg no: 1910/005/K entitled “Restoration Proposals” dated March 2012 has been submitted to the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as
approved, in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall make provision for: a) A landscape management plan. b) Husbandry management of the existing mature trees. c) Ground preparation works, including soil assessment, ripping, fertilising etc. d) Planting species including berry bearing shrubs, size, density, numbers and location. e) Grass seed mixes and rates. f) A programme of implementation to include the provision for planting during the first available season following restoration. g) A programme of maintenance. Trees, shrubs and hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme shall be maintained and any plants which at any time during the life of this permission including the aftercare period, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.
Biodiversity Management Plan
51. No site preparation work, as defined in Condition 1 of this permission, shall take place until a Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted to, and received the written approval of, the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall make provision for:- a) A description and evaluation of features to be managed;
b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;
c) Aims and objectives of management;
d) Appropriate management options for achieving the aims and objectives of the project;
e) Prescriptions for management actions;
f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period);
g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan;
h) On-going monitoring and remedial measures.
The Plan shall include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that
conservation aims and objectives of the Plan are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.
Amenity Aftercare 52. Within four years of the date of the commencement of site preparation works as provided for by Condition 1 of this permission an amenity aftercare scheme providing for such steps as may be necessary to bring the land to the required standard for use as nature conservation habitat and public amenity shall be submitted for the approval of the Waste Planning Authority. The amenity aftercare scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved in writing, by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall specify the steps to be carried out and their timing within a five year aftercare period, or such longer period as may be proposed, and shall make provision for:-
i. a management plan and strategy; ii. a programme to allow for monitoring the establishment of the Biodiversity Compensation Area and former Northern void and Protected Species Ponds which shall provide for:
a) such works as necessary to enable the establishment of i) above; and
(b) maintenance arrangements to include such amendments to drainage patterns, and replacement and/or control of plant species as required to achieve the objectives;
(c) management and maintenance of the Public Rights of Way network.
(d) For the woodland area the: cultivation practices; post-restoration secondary soil treatments; soil analysis; fertiliser applications, based on soil analysis; drainage; tree planting and maintenance; weed control;
(e) annual meetings with representatives of the Waste Planning Authority and landowners to review performance.
All areas the subject of amenity aftercare shall be clearly defined on a plan together with the separate demarcation of areas as necessary according to differences in management.
The period of amenity aftercare for the site or any part of it shall commence
on the date of written certification by the Waste Planning Authority that the site or, as the case may be, the specified part of it has been satisfactorily restored.
Cessation 53. In the event of infilling and/or inert recycling site operations being discontinued for six months in the period specified in Condition 2 of this permission then the land as disturbed within the application footprint shall be restored in accordance with a scheme submitted by the developer which has the written approval of the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted not later than one month from the Waste Planning Authority’s issue of written notice that it is of the opinion that infilling and/or inert recycling has not taken place in the six month period and shall include the requirements of Conditions 49 - 52 inclusive of this permission. The scheme, as approved by the Waste Planning Authority, shall be commenced within three months of notification of determination of the scheme and shall be fully implemented within a further period of 12 months or such other period as may be approved by the Waste Planning Authority.
6. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITA TS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within distance to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
The Waste Planning Authority has engaged with the applicant prior to submission and during the consultation process for the application, advising on the validation requirements and likely issues. As a result of engagement through the encouragement and assistance of the Waste Planning Authority the applicant and third parties have been involved in negotiations over various aspects of the application resulting in beneficial aspects relating to provision of public access and nature conservation as set out in the report.
Throughout the determination of the application, the applicant has been kept informed of comments made on the application and general progress. Additionally, the applicant has been given the opportunity to address any issues with the aim of providing a timely decision.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
CHELMSFORD – STOCK CHELMEFORD – GREAT BADDOW (ADJOINING MEMBER)