Development and Regulation Committee

Committee Room 1, Friday, 27 January 10:30 County Hall, 2017 Chelmsford, Essex

Quorum: 3

Membership:

Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor K Bobbin Councillor M Ellis Councillor A Erskine Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Jowers Councillor S Lissimore Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves

For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 033301 34583 Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 176 Essex County Council and Committees Information

All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.

Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx

There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.

The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.

If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.

Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.

The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.

Please note that in the interests of improving access to the Council’s meetings, a sound recording is made of the public parts of many meetings of the Council’s Committees. The Chairman will make an announcement at the start of the meeting if it is being recorded. The recording/webcast service is not guaranteed to be available.

If you are unable to attend and wish to see if the recording/webcast is available you can visit this link www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council any time after the meeting starts. Any audio available can be accessed via the ‘On air now!’ box in the centre of the page, or the links immediately below it.

Page 2 of 176 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)

Pages

1 Apologies for Absence The Committee Officer to report receipt (if any).

2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct

3 Minutes 7 - 16 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2016.

4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speak ing To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.

5 Minerals and Waste

5.1 Sandon North Void 17 - 104 To consider report DR/01/17, relating to the restoration of the northern quarry void, the installation and operation of an inert waste recycling facility in the plant site for the production of secondary aggregate, followed by the restoration and the creation of an area of biodiversity compensation habitat. Land at Sandon Quarry, Molrams Lane, Sandon. Reference: ESS/08/16/CHL

5.2 Highwood Quarry, Little Canfield 105 - 118 To consider report DR/02/17, relating to 1, an application to vary the condition of the mineral permission which restricts operating hours of an existing operation originally permitted by ESS/65/06/UTT as amended by planning permission ref. ESS/52/13/UTT; and 2, a similar application, in respect of the planning permission ref. ESS/45/14/UTT, to vary the hours of waste importation/soil washing plant permission, in order to allow HGVs to leave the site from 6am. At Highwood Quarry, Old Ipswich Road, Little Canfield, Dunmow CM6 1SL. References: ESS/34/16/UTT and ESS/35/16/UTT.

6 County Council Development

Page 3 of 176 6.1 West Wood, East Thundersley 119 - 148 To consider report DR/03/17, relating to the construction of a flood alleviation scheme consisting of an attenuation bund with culvert and temporary attenuation area in the event of flooding, with construction and maintenance access via an existing track off Rayleigh Road. At West Wood (Ancient Woodland), East Thundersley, Essex. Reference: CC/CPT/42/16

7 Information Items

7.1 Little Warley Hall Farm - Appeal 149 - 166 To update members on the decision of the Planning Inspectorate following the re-hearing and re-determination of this case. Report DR/04/17.

7.2 Enforcement of Planning Control 167 - 172 To update members of enforcement matters for the period 1 October to 31 December 2016 (Quarterly Period 4). Report DR/05/17.

7.3 Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics 173 - 174 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. Report DR/06/17.

8 Dates of Future Meetings 175 - 176 To note Committee meeting dates, up to April 2018. Report DR/07/17.

9 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next committee meeting is scheduled for Friday 24 February 2017 at 10.30am.

10 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.

Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)

Page 4 of 176 To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.

In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

11 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.

______

All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.

Page 5 of 176

Page 6 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 1 ______Minutes of the meeting of the Development and Regulation Committee, held in Committee Room 1 County Hall, Chelmsford, Essex on Friday, 16 December 2016

Present : Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr J Abbott Cllr S Barker Cllr K Bobbin Cllr M Ellis Cllr A Erskine Cllr I Grundy Cllr J Lodge Cllr S Lissimore Cllr M Mackrory Cllr C Seagers

1 Apologies for Absence Apologies were received from Cllr C Guglielmi, Cllr J Jowers (substituted by Cllr C Seagers), Cllr Lady Newton (substituted by Cllr S Barker) and Cllr J Reeves (substituted by Cllr I Grundy).

2 Declarations of Interest Cllr Lissimore declared a personal interest in agenda items 6.1 and 6.2, in respect of Hogarth Primary School and Roding Valley High School respectively, as Deputy Cabinet Member for Education. (Items 6 and 7 below refer.)

3 Mi nutes The minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2016 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking Persons to speak in accordance with the procedure were identified for the following items: 1) To consider report DR/44/16, relating to the erection of a single storey building together with the extension of existing hard surface play area and car park, additional bicycle and scooter parking and additional landscaping/tree planting. At Hogarth County Junior School, Riseway, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 8BG. Reference: CC/ BRW/44/16. Applicant: Essex County Council Public Speaker: Nick Davey speaking for.

2) To consider report DR/45/16, relating to the proposed construction of a new two storey detached educational block to accommodate six classrooms, a library and ancillary facilities on the site of the existing school. At Roding Valley High School, Alderton Hill, Loughton, IG10 3JA. Reference: CC/EPF/51/16. Applicant: Essex County Council Public Speaker: Michael Benbow speaking against.

Minerals and Waste

Page 7 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 2 ______5 Hastingwood, North Weald The Committee considered report DR/43/16 by the Director of Operations, Environment and Economy. Members noted the Addendum to the agenda, particularly with reference to a response from the Local Member. It was noted that, as the application was to establish the lawful planning status of the land, no planning policies were applicable. Details of consultation and representations received were set out in the report. The Committee noted the key issue, which was whether the use of the land as described in the application had taken place continuously on the application site for the 10 year period. Certain points were noted by Members:

• The officer's recommendation was different to that requested by the applicant • Officers were not aware of any complaints having been received about this site to date • Concrete crushing was not included in this Certificate, but moving forward, the applicant would be able to carry out this activity on a piecemeal basis, subject to licensing by the local district council • This certificate in effect authorised industrial activity on a greenfield site located within the Green Belt.

There being no further matters raised by Members, the motion was proposed and seconded, and, following a unanimous vote in favour, it was Resolved That a Certificate of Lawful Use is issued for: The storage, screening and distribution of recycled of road planings (and use of associated plant and equipment) at land at Hastingwood, London Road, North Weald, Harlow as shown on plan titled Site Plan, drawing nos 216020DWG001 dated 15/03/16.

County Council Development

6 Hogarth Primary School, Brentwood The Committee considered report DR/44/16 by the Director of Operations, Environment and Economy.

Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report. Details of consultation and representations received were set out in the report. The Committee noted the key issues, which were:

• Principle of development • Loss of playing field • Sustainable transport and highways impact • Site layout and design • Loss of trees/ecology • Residential amenity.

Page 8 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 3 ______In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Nick Davey, as agent for the applicant. Mr Davey said:

• There is a growing need for school places in Brentwood, both through families moving into the area and rising birthrates; it is particularly acute in the primary sector, with current estimates putting demand at 600 places per year up to 2023 • Many Brentwood schools do not have the opportunity to provide for this need, being either restricted by space or other factors such as having restricted admission policies; but Hogarth's has room to develop, no entry restrictions and is also well placed within the area of greatest need • It will allow a second entry form and it will take six years before the school is fully used • The location best resolves issues relating to circulation and the design has the least impact on existing playing fields and playground • It represents best value to the authority and it can be delivered within budget • It is compliant with national and local planning policies and the NPPF suggests authorities should give great weight to school schemes that go to meet local need.

In response to points raised, it was noted:

• Several sites had been looked at; Hogarth had been considered well- placed relative to the need in the Brentwood area • A travel plan will be put in place, with measures to mitigate the impact of traffic on the area, to educate all parties and to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport. Scooter racks are featured in the plan, rather than cycle racks, as cycling proficiency tests are taken in Year 6, so most of the children would not be allowed to cycle to school; and there are existing cycle stands that are not well used. The hope is that children will develop the good habit of travelling to school by scooter and then cycle when they are older • One feature will be a regular survey of the situation, to see if any specific action needs to be taken. County Council officers will assist the school develop their travel plan on an ongoing basis • Figures suggest that about 50% of current pupils arrive by car. This figure is expected to increase with the increased intake but this will be spread out over a six-year period; and it is hoped that the measures implemented under the traffic plan will reduce the impact • There is a dropping off area designed into the scheme and this may be developed under the travel plan • Conditions relating to the replacement and upkeep of trees could be conditioned • The lighting of the car park facilities does not form a part of this application and may need a separate application at a later date • There were no details available on the ecological wall, which will face the south-east • The windows of the classrooms will face the south-west and the north-east • In general terms, it isalready necessary to have a special reason to impose

Page 9 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 4 ______pre-development conditions on an application and restrictions are likely to be tighter in future.

Members made several observations:

• The Parking Partnerships had education of parents and the public as part of its remit and it was suggested that the Partnerships should be made consultees of these schemes. This suggestion would be taken forward by the planning authority • It was noted that there was no reference to renewable energy in the application. Although there might be nothing within the Local Plan to require this, the County Council could still impose its own requirements. This matter would also be taken forward by the planning authority, in respect of future applications • The design of the building was poor, in that it did not blend in with the other buildings.

Members proposed the addition of:

• two conditions, requiring the replacement of trees and their maintenance • an informative relating to potential lighting requirements.

There being no further matters raised by Members, the resolution, including these additions, were proposed and seconded. Following a vote of eight in favour and two against, with Cllr Ellis abstaining, it was

Resolved That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of application reference CC/BRW/44-16 validated on 01 November 2016 Drawings: L-00-01 Site Location Plan L-01-02A Proposed Site Plan Designations L-01-00 Existing Site Plan L-01-01A Proposed Site Plan A-01-00 Ground Floor Plan A-01-01 Roof Plan A-02-01A Elevations A-02-02A Elevations A-03-01 Sections A-03-02 Sections A-07-01 Material Samples

Page 10 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 5 ______A-07-02A Scooter Storage L-01-10 Existing Pitch Capacity L-01-11A Proposed Pitch Capacity L-01-20A Construction Management Plan Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Preliminary Ecological Assessment) Prepared by t4 ecology Ltd, dated July 2016. Transport Statement, prepared by Waterman, dated 21 September 2016. School Travel Plan, prepared by Waterman, dated 22 September 2016 Planning Statement, prepared by The JTS Partnership LLP, dated November 2016 Design and Access Statement Rev. A, prepared by sixfoot studio, dated 21 September 2016 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by SES, dated 25th July 2016. and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

3 Prior to first occupation of the new building, a minimum of 3 covered bicycle stands and 60 scooter stands shall be erected at the locations indicated on drawing L-01-01A

4 Within one month of completion of the construction or within one month of first occupation of the proposed development, the temporary construction compound area shall be removed and the land reinstated to its previous condition as a playing field.

5 Details and samples of the materials to be used for the external appearance of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to installation of the materials on site. The details shall include the materials, colours and finishes to be used on all buildings. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

6 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the tree root protection and mitigation measures in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by SES, dated 25th July 2016.

7 Replacement of trees

8 Maintenance of replacement trees

The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 am and was reconvened at 11:42 am.

7 Roding Valley High School, Loughton The Committee considered report DR/45/16 by the Director of Operations, Environment and Economy. The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum, particularly with reference to conditions on working hours and on the use of wheel-washing equipment. Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report. Details of consultation and representations received were set out in the report.

Page 11 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 6 ______The Committee noted the key issues, which were:

• Principle of development • Site layout and design • Sustainable transport and highways impact • Residential amenity • Trees and landscaping

In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Michael Benbow, a local resident. Mr Benbow said:

• He speaks for 22 households near the school. 16 neighbours have objected to this, along with Epping Forest District Council, Loughton Residents Association and Loughton Town Council • The school owns a substantial amount of land, yet this building is to be squeezed into a recreation area between an existing building and the boundary, so spoiling the open aspect of Brook Road • He agrees with the District Principal Planning Officer's view, that 'the bulk, design and siting of the proposed building would not respect its setting and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the locality'. • The model initially used to demonstrate the proposals was misleading, showing the building 12 metres from the boundary • Three planning conditions are requested: 1) The building should be set back 13 metres from the boundary, both to protect the existing tree roots and to preserve the open aspect, as reflected by the private dwellings across the road; 2) all glass panels above the ground floor, facing Brook Road, should be obscure glass; 3) the boundary hedge should be maintained at a height of 4.5 metres.

In response to points raised, it was noted:

• The model presented by the school is indicative only; the drawings presented are accurate. It was not possible to move the building further back from the boundary • The distance between the school and the nearest residential building is 32 metres, whereas the minimum required distance for privacy is 22 metres; so it is not necessary to use obscure glass. This would be an unacceptable imposition on the users of the building in any case • The condition relating to hedgerows could be modified to require their maintenance at a minimum height • The assessment of other potential locations within the school grounds for the development • This school already has a high level of sustainable travel and it is not considered necessary to install additional cycle stands to the level of the Essex minimum standards; should these numbers prove inadequate in the future, funding may be available to add to them • The level of 350 additional pupils represents those arising from the extra entry class plus those in the increased sixth form • The brickwork will reflect that of the original school building, with some zinc

Page 12 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 7 ______panelling and a green roof.

Concern was also noted with regard to the possible impact of the building work on the trees and hedgerow.

There being no further matters raised by Members, the resolution, including the suggested additions relating to the height of the hedgerow and conditions relating to working hours and the use of wheel-washing equipment as part of a construction management plan, were proposed and seconded. Following a vote of seven in favour and three against, with one Member abstaining, it was

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of application reference CC/EPF/51/16 validated on 01 November 2016 Drawings 058-001 Location Plan 058-010 Block Plan as Existing 058-020 Site Plan as Existing 058-031 Site Section AA & BB as Existing 058-032 Site Section CC&DD as Existing 058-110/Rev. A Proposed Block Plan 058-220/Rev. A Proposed Site Plan 058-201 Proposed Floor Plans 058-210 Proposed Roof Plan 058-231 Proposed Section FF&GG 058-242 Proposed East Elevation/Street Elevation 058-243 Proposed South Elevation 058-244 Proposed Courtyard North & West Elevation 058-921 Proposed Cycle Shelter 058-931 Boundary Distance Diagram Design and Access Statement prepared by Barker Associates, dated September 2016 Daylight and Sunlight Assessment prepared by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 01 August 2016. and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

3 Prior to first occupation of the proposed building, a minimum of 30 covered bicycle stands shall be erected on site in accordance with drawings 058-921 and 058-220/Rev. A.

Page 13 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 8 ______4 Prior to commencement of development, a full Arboricultural survey and report in accordance with BS5837:2012 shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the County Planning Authority. The report shall include the following: a) a plan that shows the position, crown spread and root protection area in accordance with section 5.5 of BS5837:2012 of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars. The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on the plan. b) details of each surveyed tree in a separate schedule in accordance with section 4 of BS5837:2012 c) a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998:2010. d) details and positions of the ground protection in accordance with section 2 of BS5837:2012. e) details and positions of Tree Protection Barriers identified separately where required for different phases of construction work [e.g. demolition, construction, hard landscaping] in accordance with section 6.2 of BS5837:2012. The Tree Protection Barriers shall be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase. f) details and positions of the Construction Exclusion Zones in accordance with section 6.2 of BS5837:2012. g) details and positions of the underground service runs in accordance with sections 4.2 and 7.7 of BS5837:2012. h) details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground in accordance with paragraph. 5.4.2 of BS5837:2012. i) details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees [e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features, surfacing] in accordance with section 7.5 of BS5837:2012. j) details of the methodology to be employed with the demolition of buildings, structures and surfacing within or adjacent to the root protection areas of retained trees. k) details of the methodology to be employed for the installation of drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No- Dig” construction. l) details of the methodology to be employed for the access and use of heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant [including cranes and their loads, dredging machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc] on site. m) details of the methodology to be employed for site logistics and storage, including an allowance for slopes, water courses and enclosures, with particular regard to ground compaction and phototoxicity n) details of the method to be employed for the stationing, use and removal of site cabins within any root protection areas in accordance with section 6.2 of BS5837:2012. o) details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase in accordance with section 5.6 of BS5837:2012. p) the timing of the various phases of the works or development in the context of

Page 14 of 176 Friday, 16 December 2016 Minute 9 ______the tree protection measures. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved report.

5 No development shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of areas to be planted with species, sizes, spacing, protection and programme of implementation. The scheme shall also include details of any existing trees and hedgerows on site with details of any trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and measures for their protection. The scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following commencement of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.

6 Samples of the proposed external material finishes shall be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority prior to their installation on site. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved external material finishes.

7 The height of the perimeter hedgerow.

8 A construction management plan to be provided for approval and complied with during the construction of the development including provision for working hours and the use of wheel-washing equipment.

Information Item

8 Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics The Committee considered report DR/46/16, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Director of Operations, Environment & Economy. The Committee NOTED the report.

9 Date of Next Meeting The Committee noted that the next meeting would be held on Friday 27 January 2017 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 12.26pm.

Chairman

Page 15 of 176

Page 16 of 176

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 L000Page 19602 17 of 176

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

Page 18 of 176

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

Page 19 of 176 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

Page 20 of 176

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.

Page 21 of 176

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 ”.

Page 22 of 176

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.

Page 23 of 176

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

Page 24 of 176

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

Page 25 of 176

• 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

Page 26 of 176 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

Page 27 of 176 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 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.

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

Page 28 of 176 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.

Page 29 of 176

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

Page 30 of 176

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.

Page 31 of 176

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

Page 32 of 176 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.

Page 33 of 176

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.

Page 34 of 176

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.

Page 35 of 176

The assessments conclusion was that air quality would not be impacted through this application.

Noise and Vibration

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.

Page 36 of 176

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

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 Page 37 of 176

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 Page 38 of 176 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

Page 39 of 176

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”.

Page 40 of 176

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:

Page 41 of 176

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.

This policy includes aggregate recycling activities and seeks to collocate such activities at mineral and waste landfill sites where such material is used in

Page 42 of 176

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: Page 43 of 176

(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 ”.

Page 44 of 176

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.

Page 45 of 176

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 Page 46 of 176 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.

Page 47 of 176 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.

Page 48 of 176

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?

Page 49 of 176

• 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

Page 50 of 176 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

Page 51 of 176 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

Page 52 of 176

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 Page 53 of 176

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

Page 54 of 176

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.

Page 55 of 176

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 Page 56 of 176 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

Page 57 of 176 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

Page 58 of 176

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 Page 59 of 176 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

Page 60 of 176

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.

Page 61 of 176

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 Page 62 of 176 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

Page 63 of 176 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

Page 64 of 176

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 Page 65 of 176 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.

Page 66 of 176

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

Page 67 of 176 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: Page 68 of 176

(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.

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

Page 69 of 176

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

Page 70 of 176

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

Page 71 of 176

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

Page 72 of 176

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 Page 73 of 176

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).

Page 74 of 176

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.

Page 75 of 176

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 Page 76 of 176

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 Page 77 of 176

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

Page 78 of 176

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

Page 79 of 176

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

Page 80 of 176

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

Page 81 of 176

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;

(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

Page 82 of 176

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. Page 83 of 176

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)

Page 84 of 176

APPENDIX A

Replacement Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission

Table 17 - Sandon

Chelmsford

7ha - Sandon East

25ha - Sandon

40,000tpa- Inert Waste Recycling Capacity [This should have read 300,000 tpa as the 40,000 was an error. The amended figure has been included in the Proposed Modifications following the Examination in Public of the Replacement Plan]

1,000,000m3 (northern void)

East Sandon -Various extant mineral and waste planning permissions. Mineral processing plant has permission to remain until 2042. The mineral area beneath the plant is still to be worked.

Sandon - Various relevant mineral and waste planning permissions. ESS/30/11/CHL for the continuation of infilling of the existing southern void

Sandon East -Inert Waste Recycling Capacity

Sandon- Inert Landfill Capacity

A1114 Southend Road

Adoption of WLP (2017)

East Sandon - Permanent

Sandon - Full restoration within 5 years

This site making use of the existing haul road onto the A12 has a number of permitted waste/mineral activities with active landfilling in the western half. The following issues and opportunities are to be addressed:

• Improvements to the A1114 (Essex Yeomanry Way) /Southend Road southbound off slip road. [Consultation with the Highway Authority Officer has confirmed that such improvements would not be considered justified under the present planning application, ESS/08/16/CHL proposed traffic generation numbers; accident statistics for the locality have not flagged up any support for such improvements and that the original requirement for such provision to be considered was made on the anticipation that the Replacement Waste Local Plan allocation was addressing a potentially larger, and permanent, waste management facility]. • A traffic management/priority control system to manage the single width private haul road in the vicinity of the site access, orPage alternative 85 of 176 solution e.g road widening/passing bays. [The present planning application has addressed the use of the haul road and use. Were planning approval to be forthcoming a condition addressing haul road management would be recommended]. • A heritage assessment needs to: (1) identify those areas of the proposed site that have the potential to retain archaeological deposits; (2) Identify the nature of the archaeological deposits that are likely to survive and (3) identify the areas potential of surviving palaeo-environmental/ geo-archaeological deposits. Following on from the work above an intrusive evaluation will be required to assess for below ground archaeological deposits and to assess for geological and palaeo-environmental sequences within the site .[Archaeology has been addressed as part of the present planning application and should planning approval be forthcoming a condition to address archaeological investigation and recording would be recommended]. • The impacts from the proposal need to be addressed on the designated buildings on the edge of the application site (Sandon Hall and Mayes Farmhouse). Limits on duration (hours of operation) and noise standards would be required in the interests of protecting local amenity. [A Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken and recommendations made that informed the planning application. Appropriate conditions would be recommended were planning approval to be forthcoming to address amongst other matters, operation hours and noise generation]. • If the proposed site layout cannot accommodate the statutory easements (relevant to existing infrastructure on the site) the diversion of the existing assets may need to be considered.[The present application has taken onboard any necessary easements].

The following specific issues and opportunities are to be addressed for Sandon East:

• Existing on-site landscaping including southern and northern shelter belts should be retained. [Perimeter shelter belts are not proposed to be impacted as part of the present application]. • Control of total height of structure to be compatible with existing height of shelter belts.

[Proposed infrastructure heights have been addressed as part of this application in respect of landscape and visual impact].

The following specific issues and opportunities are to be addressed for Sandon West:

• Filling of the northern void (a County Wildlife Site) would require some form of biodiversity offsetting or compensation land (since mitigation is unlikely to be possible for the proposed damage to habitats ). [A Biodiversity Compensation Area has been proposed as part of the planning application]. • Dust mitigation measures, limits on duration (hours of operation) and noise standards (from noise sensitive properties) will be established in the interests of protecting local amenity.[Appropriate conditions would be imposed to address local amenity protection were planning approval to be forthcoming]. • Any activity that requires excavation should only proceed with caution, and the existing underground infrastructure must be supported and protected and not be put at risk from disturbance. [The present application seeks infilling and no excavation activities that would prejudice any existing underground infrastructure].

Page 86 of 176

Map 16 L(i)6 and W7 - Sandon and Sandon East

Page 87 of 176

Page 88 of 176 Appendix B ESS/08/16/CHL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR: 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

An Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted with the application and examines the potential impact of the proposal on the natural and built environment and considers, where necessary, ameliorative measures to reduce and minimise that potential impact. The EIA process has been undertaken with respect to that part of the site where there are proposed changes. The application site (area edged red) includes an existing access track and part of an agricultural field. The assessment has been undertaken according to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and through the consultation process the ES has been revised as required and mitigation measures introduced either by amendments to the proposal or as suggested planning conditions. The assessment covers the following:-

Ecology Transport Landscape Noise Dust/Air Quality Water – hydrology Flood Risk Cultural Heritage/Archaeology Slope Stability

A summary of the potential effects assessed in the ES are set out below.

Ecological Impact assessment

Page 89 of 176 (v) Breeding birds (vi) Invertebrates (vii) Water Vole and Otter (viii) 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 Local Wildlife Site (LWS) as described earlier in the report. The next closest site is just over 1kilometre north east.

The assessment described the habitats present with grassland, woodland the largest continuous piece 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 northern void would be provided through the creation of the BCA described earlier in the report.

The assessment found that for the habitats these 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 LWS 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

Page 90 of 176 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 would affect in 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.

The assessment was updated in respect of the revised location of the IWMF 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 IWMF was identified as having rough neutral grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, some individual trees some scrub and two small ponds previously identified as not having any protected species interest. A pond located to the south west of the proposed IWMF 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.

Comments

A Construction Environmental Management Plan: Biodiversity (addressing biodiversity interests during construction) together with a Biodiversity Management Plan (post development completion) could be secured through condition.

Transport

The assessment considered the baseline as being 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 have 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 Page 91 of 176 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 Routing Plan.

An assessment of environmental effects confirmed the proposed daily HGV generation as 164 movements (82 in/82 out), that the routing 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 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 0.3 and 9.0% in the PM peak hours. That 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 associated with quarry traffic movements.

A routing 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 generating some 594 HGV movements per annum. The HDM plant would produce some 66,000tonnes of HDM (utilising some 9,000 tonnes of water annually and sourced onsite) and generating 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. Page 92 of 176

The assessment considered that use of the existing access entrance and haul road were appropriate. That the routing plan for HGV’s 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.

Comment

Signage for route direction for vehicles and maintenance of the access road could be secured by condition and the routeing of traffic through a legal agrement.

Landscape

The assessment considered the baseline with a description of the landscape noting the Natural England countryside character listing as National Character Area 111 – Northern Thames Basin. At the county level the application land is within D3 Danbury Hills of the landscape character with its District level character recorded as F12 East Hanningfield Wooded Farmland Landscape Character Area. The assessment noting 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 having a high landscape value. And is not within any nationally important landscape designations. Land to the south west of the site to the 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.

Page 93 of 176 Visually the assessment noted that the Zone of Visual Significance (ZVS) is restricted to a very limited area. Visual receptors are considered to be the occupiers of properties with views of the site, and users of both the public rights of way and road with views of the site.

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 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. Although during operations there would be an adverse effect on tranquillity and scenic quality the long term would be beneficial. The provision of the BCA and after restoration the rest of the land would create new areas of key habitat and 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 site). The significance of the effect would decrease as restoration 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.

Page 94 of 176 In cumulative impact terms the assessment addressed the proposed HDM plant finding that its provision would not add to the impact being adjacent the recycling plant and screening provisions.

In conclusion there would be post restoration a long term beneficial landscape and visual aspect.

The LVIA was revisited to take account of the proposed re-siting of the IWMF and this identified that the revised location would be that the plant would not be visible from Mayes Lane. All other previously assessed landscape and visual effects were found to remain unchanged.

Mitigation measures: Measures for mitigation include the placement of the plant and site activities behind grassed screen bunds. A landscaping scheme to address the type, size, planting and management regime could be secured through condition

Noise

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 blow 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 noise effects are of negligible significance.

Page 95 of 176 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. 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 highway and main site haul road would be maintained.

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 HSDM plant and 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 IWMF would not affect the noise impacts previously assessed above.

Comments:

A scheme for undertaking monitoring and the setting of noise generation limits at locations representative of adjacent residential properties could be secured through condition.

Dust

The assessment noted that as a baseline the application footprint is already in agricultural use and that farming activities are an occasional dust generator.

Whilst dust is unlikely to be produced by the excavation itself or aggregate processing, there may be potential for some airborne dust during soil stripping and trafficking on unsurfaced areas. Subject to windspeed and direction any dust arisings would be considered very localised.

Page 96 of 176 The general wind direction is identified as South West so likely potential to carry dust towards Elmstead. Report noted that moisture content of mineral, bunding arrangements, good site practice and on site dust mitigation would be employed through use of a tractor and water bowser to minimise dust arisings.

The assessment noted that the final reservoir would be resoiled around its banks and grassed with additional landscape planting.

Comments Appropriate conditions could be imposed to secure dust management. The assessment reviewed the guidance in the Design Manuel for Roads and Bridges on the assessment of impact of road projects on local and regional air quality. Under the criteria set out in the Design document the assessment found there would be no changes to road alignments nor increase daily HGV traffic flows by 200 annual average daily traffic flows, nor increase 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 complaints. The haul road is concrete surfaced for its entire length to the weighbridge area.

Page 97 of 176 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.

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.

Conclusion that air quality would not be impacted through this application.

A scheme for undertaking monitoring of dust generation at locations representative of adjacent residential properties could be secured through condition.

Stability • 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. The restoration profile includes a south west slope of 1v10h 40m long with a 4metre 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.

Page 98 of 176 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.

Water – Hydrology

A hydrogeological and hydrological impact assessment was carried out. And 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 disused 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 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 and the Mayes Lane Landfill (commercial and household waste 1958 -1970) located to the north east of the plant site and within proposed BCA so would not be affected by proposed recycling activities. A further landfill identified on the EA website is recorded as being located some 50 metres south of the northern void. This is the restoration activity currently taking place at this void. 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 undertakes 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.

Page 99 of 176 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 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 experienced in 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 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 appears as ponds on the surface. 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). Page 100 of 176 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 whilst 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 likely to be modest and not affect significantly 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.

Page 101 of 176 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 IWMF and it found that the revised location would not require a flood risk assessment being undertaken.

Mitigation matters

Any spills or leaks from operations during the site activity would be mitigated. For example vehicle would by maintained and inspected, fuels stored correctly and materials labelled. Sewages and waste would be appropriately disposed of or stored.

Comments: Conditions would be imposed to protect groundwater from contamination from the operations and require on site groundwater monitoring, reporting methods and provision for addressing mitigation if necessary of any impact upon sensitive receptors.

Flood Risk

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was undertaken, as the application footprint was over the 1.5 hectare threshold for such assessment requirements. The FRA confirmed the application footprint as being within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and that as a result it was considered there would be a low to negligible risk of natural cause flooding. The application footprint topography was identified as mainly level farmland 34 - 35m AOD with ground level decreasing east and south east to approximately 20 - 25m AOD offsite.

In considering impacts it was assessed that during construction the use of a recharge trench designed to the parameters proposed would accommodate the volume of water from both ground water and incidental rainfall.

Post completion the reservoir would have suitable freeboard available to accommodate rainfall/climate change predictions incorporating a freeboard of 1 metre around the lip of the reservoir to accommodate a 1 in 100 year flood event; any surface water runoff arising from surrounding grassed areas. The design would also accommodate rainfall intensities as a result of climate change taking on board the National Planning Policy Framework advice to accommodate 5% rainfall intensity between 1990 – 2025 rising to plus 20% 2055 – 2085 which would represent the lifespan of the reservoir.

Page 102 of 176 The report noted that as no surface waters would be discharged off site the greenfield runoff rate (the situation as currently experienced) would not be exceeded and therefore the flood risk to surrounding area would not be increased.

Cultural Heritage – Historic Buildings

• 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.

Around the site, the Historic Environment Record identifies 14 records of finds within 1km of the site.

The assessment gave detailed consideration to The Rectory and Sandon Conservation Area. 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.

Page 103 of 176 In terms of noise and vehicle movements their potential impacts have been assessed as minimal in comparison to A12(T) movements and movements of vehicle sin the broader landscape is considered to have an adverse effect of low magnitude.

No specific mitigation measures are proposed.

Conclusion was that there would be no significant impacts on settings of designated heritage assets.

Comments A scheme to address archaeological investigation and recording could be secured by condition.

Page 104 of 176

AGENDA ITEM 5.2

DR/02/17

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Continuation of the winning and working of sand and gravel, erection of a concrete plant, workshop and ancillary buildings, and the importation and treatment of inert material to produce secondary aggregate and reclamation material for progressive restoration to landscaped farmland originally permitted by ESS/65/06/UTT as amended by planning permission ref. ESS/52/13/UTT without compliance with Condition 4 (Hours of operation) to allow heavy goods vehicles to travel off site between the hours 0600 and 0700 Monday to Saturday. Ref: ESS/34/16/UTT

AND

Proposal: Continuation of the Importation of 70,000m³ per annum of inert waste and the installation and use of a soils washing plant for the recycling of waste, together with associated access onto the highway and a separate silt press as permitted by planning permission ref. ESS/45/14/UTT without compliance with condition 6 (Control of vehicle movements) to allow heavy goods vehicles to travel offsite between the hours 0600 and 0700 Monday to Saturday and amendment to Condition 16 (Maximum heights) to regularise the plant height Ref: ESS/35/16/UTT

Location: Highwood Quarry, Old Ipswich Road, Little Canfield, Dunmow, Essex, CM6 1SL Applicant: Sewells Reservoir Construction Limited

Report by Acting Head of County Planning Enquiries to: Claire Tomalin Tel: 03330 136821 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning

Page 105 of 176

1. BACKGROUND

This report deals with two planning applications, both applications are for variation of conditions on the same site, but different permissions. The variation of conditions largely relate to a change in operational hours. As the issues are similar for both they are being addressed in one report.

Planning permission ESS/65/06/UTT was granted in 2011 for sand and gravel extraction with restoration through importation of inert waste to agriculture woodland and nature conservation. The application also included inert waste recycling. The planning permission was subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The permission was implemented in March 2012 and the quarry began exporting sand and gravel in November 2012.

ESS/65/06/UTT was varied in 2015 to allow crushing of oversize materials, such that the extant planning permission for mineral extraction and landfilling is ESS/52/13/UTT.

Also in 2015 planning permission (ESS/45/14/BTE) was granted for an additional volume of waste to be imported for processing and a soil washing plant allowing inert waste to be washed and screened to generate clean secondary aggregates. Planning permission was granted subject to conditions

There have been other minor applications with respect to provision of offices and car parking adjacent to B Lodge (an adjacent residential property used as an

Page 106 of 176

office).

In June 2016 it came to the attention of the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) were leaving Highwood Quarry before 7am in breach of the existing planning conditions, which restrict the starting time to 7am. The applicant has therefore made two planning applications one to vary the condition of the mineral permission which restricts operating hours and a second similar application to vary the hours of waste importation/soil washing plant permission, in order to allow HGVs to leave the site from 6am.

2. SITE

Highwood Quarry is located south of Little Easton village on the redundant Easton Airfield, west of Great Dunmow. The site is accessed from the south by a purpose built haul road and access is onto the roundabout junction of the B1256 and A120(T).

The nearest residential property to the site is Stone Hall (Grade II Listed Building) located approximately 360m to the south west of the application site within woodland. B Lodge lies to the south of the extraction and is being used as office facilities for the mineral/waste operator. Little Easton village lies to the north, the church being approximately 1.2km from the minerals and waste processing yard. Properties on Stortford Road, Little Canfield south of the A120(T) are approximately 1km from the application site. Existing properties to the west in Great Dunmow are approximately 1.35km away from the site, although new housing is proposed such that once these properties are built the nearest property east of the site will be approximately450m from the site entrance.

To the south east of the site and north east of the haul road is High Wood (SSSI).

Little Easton Footpath 24 lies just south of the processing/extraction area and crosses the haul road.

3. PROPOSAL S

The applications seek to vary conditions of two of the existing planning permissions on the site.

Planning Application – ESS/34/16/UTT Planning permission ESS/52/13/UTT is the main planning permission for the site for sand and gravel extraction with inert filling to achieve restoration and also includes the processing plant and weighbridge. The planning application seeks to vary condition 4 (hours of operation) of this permission.

Planning Application – ESS/35/16/UTT Planning permission ESS/45/14/UTT gave planning permission for the soil washing plant and some additional importation of inert waste. The planning application seeks to vary, conditions 6 (hours of operation) and condition 16 (height of plant) of the permission).

The details of the conditions are set out below.

Page 107 of 176

ESS/52/13/UTT - Condition 4 Except in emergencies to maintain safe quarry and landfill working (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority as soon as practicable):-

(a) No operations including temporary operations, other than water pumping and environmental monitoring shall be carried out at the site except between the following times:-

07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays

(b) No operations including temporary operations other than environmental monitoring and water pumping at the site shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays .

ESS/45/14/BTE - Condition 6 The total number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) movements associated with the development hereby permitted (when combined with the vehicle maximum permitted vehicle movements under planning permission ESS/65/06/UTT) shall not exceed the following limits:

312 movements (56 in and 56 out) per day (Monday to Friday) 312 movements (56 in and 56 out) per day (Saturdays)

No HGV movements shall take place outside the hours of operation authorised in Condition 5 of this permission.

A written record of daily HGV movements shall be maintained and kept for a period of 2 years and shall be provided to the Waste Planning Authority within 14 days of written request.

For reference condition 5 referred to in the condition above reads as follows:

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out during the following times:

07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays and at no other times, including no other times on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

ESS/45/14/BTE - Condition 16 No mineral or waste processing plant shall exceed a height of 94m Above Ordnance Datum.

The variation of condition 4 of ESS/52/13/UTT and condition 6 of ESS/45/14/UTT is to allow the site to open earlier and allow Heavy Goods Vehicles to leave the site from 6am in the morning, rather than the current start time of 7am. It is proposed

Page 108 of 176

that HGVs leaving the site from 6am would have been previously loaded the day before and there would be no operation of the mineral and/or waste processing plant and no operations in relation to the extraction/processing of minerals or the processing or landfilling of waste prior to 7am. Only those HGVs travelling westwards to the M11, i.e. towards London, would leave the site before 7am.

There would no increase in the total number of HGV movements per day.

In addition the application seeks to regularise an anomaly in the conditions of the waste importation and soil washing plant permission which permitted the soil washing plant to be to a height of 97mAOD, while condition 16 restricts the maximum height of plant to 94mAOD, a limit imposed previously being the maximum of height of plant on the original application (ESS/65/06/UTT).

4. POLICIES

The following policies of the Minerals Local Plan adopted 2014, the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan adopted 2001 (WLP), the emerging Replacement Waste Local Plan Pre-Submission draft March 2016 (RWLP) and Uttlesford Local Plan (ULP) adopted 2005 provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

5. Policy MLP WLP RWLP UDLP Sustainable S1 Development Traffic & Highways W10C 12 The Countryside & DM1 & S10 W10E 10 S7 & S8 Landscape Noise generation DM1 & S10 W10E 10 ENV11 Nature Conservation, DM1 & S10 W10E 10 ENV7 & Biodiversity ENV8 Good Neighbourliness GEN4

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For decision-taking the NPPF states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this NPPF indicate development

Page 109 of 176

should be restricted.

The NPPF combined and streamlined all planning policy except for waste. Planning policy with respect to waste is set out in the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW published on 16 October 2014). Additionally the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMPE) is the overarching National Plan for Waste Management is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The level of consistency of the policies contained within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan and the Uttlesford District Local Plan is considered further in the report.

6. CONSULTATIONS

UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL: (Both applications) No objection, but raise concerns regarding the potential impact on the amenity of nearby residents arising from the increase in hours for vehicular movements

NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection, but refer to Standard advice with respect to protected species

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: (Both applications) No objection subject to re-imposition of total HGV movements per day.

COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT: (Both applications) No objection. Movement of vehicles on the haul road and associated engine door opening and shutting of doors is not likely to give rise to unacceptable noise levels at the nearest residential property Stone Hall. It is suggested that a condition limiting noise to 42 dB L Aeq,1hr free-field at Stone Hall be imposed for the period 6am to 7am.

PLACE SERVICES (Ecology): No objection. Initially concern was raised, but this was addressed through the submission of additional information, which demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact upon species within the High Wood SSSI.

LITTLE EASTON PARISH COUNCIL: (Both applications) Object: residents in Park Road and Easton Lodge areas will suffer noise disturbance. Noise travels great distances in this otherwise tranquil setting and residents report regularly hearing that the vehicles start to move at 6.50am currently. It would be unreasonable to disturb the sleep of our residents in this way.

LITTLE CANFIELD PARISH COUNCIL: (Both applications) Object to vehicle movements from 6am because residents in Park Road and Easton Lodge areas will suffer noise disturbance from which they currently have protection from the planning conditions we fought long and hard to get. Noise travels great distances in this otherwise tranquil setting and residents report regularly hearing that the vehicles start to move at 6.50am currently. It would be unreasonable to disturb the sleep of our residents in this way

Page 110 of 176

TAKELEY PARISH COUNCIL- (both applications): Object for following reasons • Purpose the condition was to protect local amenity • Considerably more housing along B1256 since quarry permitted early hours will impact upon their amenity • Request an amendment to condition 5 requiring access and egress routing via A120

Comment: The purpose of the condition is to ensure vehicular access is only via the south and the B1256 and not from the north via Little Easton. The condition cannot refer to the A120 as it is not within the application area and therefore unenforceable. However, there is a proposal to restrict the vehicle routeing via legal agreement – see appraisal.

GREAT DUNMOW TOWN COUNCIL: (both applications) Object - It is unreasonable to expect people to be subjected to this noise from so early in the mornings; the sound will carry and disturb the residents of the Park Road and Easton Lodge areas.

LOCAL MEMBER – UTTLESFORD – THAXTED (majority of site): Objects; application earlier start time may cause noise disturbance to residents.

LOCAL MEMBER – UTTLESFORD – DUNMOW (access only): Any comments will be reported verbally

7. REPRES ENTATIONS

One property was directly notified of the application and no letters of representation have been received.

8. APPRAISAL The key issues for consideration are:

A. Need B. Traffic & Highways C. Residential Impact D. Ecology E. Legal agreement

A NEED

The applicant is seeking through the variation of conditions to amend the hours of operation, such that HGVs may leave the site at 6:00am, one hour earlier than currently permitted. Operation of the site including mineral processing, waste processing and mineral extraction and landfilling would not commence until 7am, as currently permitted. The hours imposed on the quarry are the standards hours for such operations Monday to Friday 7am to 6:30pm and Saturdays 7am to 1pm, no working Sundays or public holidays.

The applicant has requested the change to allow HGVs that have been loaded the day before to leave from 6am as opposed to from 7am, this would enable

Page 111 of 176

deliveries to London to be completed early in the morning, which would provide the operator more time during the day to focus on local deliveries. There would be no arrival of vehicles to the site prior to 7am, except those of staff vehicles.

The haul road for the site is onto the B1256 roundabout junction with the A120(T). Vehicles travelling to London would utilise the A120 towards London and as a result it is not necessary for HGVs to pass any residential properties. The nearest residential property to the site and access is Stone Hall which is located approximately 500m west from the weighbridge within the minerals/waste yard.

It is considered that to allow the operator greater flexibility of deliveries the principle of allowing earlier commencement of deliveries to London only is acceptable, subject to the proposals not giving rise to unacceptable environmental and residential amenity impacts.

The application also seeks to regularise an anomaly in the planning permission for the soil washing plant. The original planning permission for the site limited all plant to 94mAOD and the soil washing plant was limited as such. The soil washing plant was proposed at 97mAOD and the impact of this higher structure was considered acceptable and permitted. However, the condition limiting the maximum height limit of plant was re-imposed without amending the wording of condition to take account of the height of the soil washing plant; hence currently there is a conflict in the conditions, which the proposed variation seeks to correct.

B HIGHWAYS & TRAFFIC

While the application seeks to allow HGV movements earlier in the morning, the application proposes no increase in the total number of daily HGV movements from the site. The site would remain limited to 312 (156 in 156 out) HGV movements per day.

National and Local Plan policies seek to minimise adverse impact on highway safety and capacity.

The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application subject to the re- impositions of conditions to ensure all HGV movements arising from the site are limited to 312 HGV movements per day.

Subject to the imposition of such conditions it is considered there are no highway safety or capacity grounds to refuse planning permission and that the proposals with respect to highways and traffic are in accordance with MLP policy S11 and DM1, WLP policies W10C and W10E and RWLP policy 10 and 12.

C RESIDENTIAL IMPACT

National and local plan policies seek to minimise the impact of development on both residential and local amenity. Impacts on residential and local amenity includes, noise and visual impact.

The nearest residential property lies in woodland to the southwest of the site, approximately 500m from the minerals/waste processing area from which the

Page 112 of 176

HGVs leaving the site would travel. Due to existing vegetation and screening bunds, the HGVs leaving the site would not be visible from this or any other more distant properties. Other residential properties are located to the north of site in Little Easton approximately 1.2km from the site, existing properties within Little Easton to the south are 1 Km away and existing properties within Great Dunmow to the east are 1.35 Km from the site. It is acknowledged planning permission has been granted for residential properties to the west of Dunmow which will bring the edge of Great Dunmow closer to the site. The edge of the outline planning permission is 450m from the haul road. However existing screening bunds and exiting vegetation including High Wood screen views of the quarry processing areas and the access road to the B1256.

The most likely impact on residential amenity arising from the early leaving of HGVs would be with respect to noise.

Concern has be raised by Uttlesford District Council as to the potential impact through noise on residential amenity. Objections have been raised by Little Easton Parish Council, Takeley Parish, Great Dunmow Town Council and the Local County Member that the early leaving of HGVs is likely to give rise to unacceptable noise.

The application was accompanied by a noise assessment which concluded that the proposals would not give rise to noise levels that would impact the nearest residential property. The County’s noise consultant considered that the methodology of the assessment was acceptable and the predicted likely noise levels representative, such that the earlier leaving of HGVs would not give rise to unacceptable noise. However, the County’s noise consultant has suggested a condition is imposed limiting noise levels to 42 dBA at Stone Hall for the period 6am to 7am.

The application is for the movement of HGV vehicles only in relation to deliveries to London, such that HGV’s would not pass any residential properties. Local deliveries along the B1256 towards Dunmow or towards Takeley would result in HGVs passing residential properties and therefore the applicant is willing to agree to an additional legal obligation to restrict the moment of HGVs from the site between 6am and 7am to the A120 westbound and the M11.

In view of the concerns raised by local councils, while the noise information would suggest that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on residential amenity, it is considered appropriate that planning permission be granted for a temporary period of 1 year, to enable the noise monitoring in that period. In addition that the applicant be required to provide records of those HGVs exiting the site prior to 7am. To allow monitoring of the revised operational hours for HGVs to London and a review of the impacts that might arise.

Subject to the additional conditions with respect to noise and allowing the early exit for a trial period of one year and the additional legal obligation, it is considered that there is no justification to withhold planning permission. The proposal would be in accordance with MLP policy DM1, WLP policies W10E and W10F, RWLP policy 10 and UDLP policies S7, S8, ENV11, ENV13 and GEN 4.

Page 113 of 176

D ECOLOGY

The haul road is adjacent to the High Wood SSSI. As part of the permitted quarry a buffer of 20m was required between the haul road and the SSSI. In addition a new hedgerow has been provided on the edge of the haul road adjacent to the SSSI and the buffer planted with groups of trees.

National and local plan policies seek to protect nationally designated sites, protecting both habitats and species.

Initially concern was raised by the County Ecologist as to the potential impact of disturbance earlier in the morning. Additional information was provided with respect to habitats and species and the potential impacts and the County’s Ecologist is now satisfied there would be no adverse impact.

It is therefore considered that planning permission could not be withheld on ecology rounds and the proposals are in accordance with MLP policy DM1, WLP policy W10E, RWLP policy 10 and UDLP policy ENV7 and ENV8.

E LEGAL AGREEMENT

There is an existing legal agreement associated with ESS/52/13/BTE. In order for the legal agreement to remain associated with any new planning permission, a deed of variation would be required. The applicant has indicated willingness to adhere to an additional obligation to restrict HGVs leaving the site between 6am and 7am to be in respect of deliveries travelling on the A120(T) westwards towards the M11.

A deed of variation to the existing legal agreement would enable the original legal obligations to remain associated with any new permission and the additional obligation to be associated with both new planning permissions ESS/34/16/UTT and ESS/35/16/UTT, in the event that approval is granted.

9. CONCLUSION

The standard hours for mineral and waste operations within Essex are 7am to 6:30pm. The applicant seeks to allow vehicles which have been loaded the night before to leave westwards on the A120 towards London between 6am and 7am. As the access is located on the junction of the B1256 with the A120, HGVs leaving the site for London would not pass directly by any residential properties. The noise assessment has indicated that there would be no noise impact on the nearest residential property (Stone Hall).

However concern has been raised by local parish councils and the Local County Member that there might be unacceptable noise impact, it is therefore considered appropriate to ensure that only HGVs travelling to London should be permitted to exit the site as applied for, which could be secured through a legal obligation. In addition that the early hours only be permitted for a 1 year trial period, to allow a trial to assess the impact of the change.

Subject to the additional legal obligation and amendment of the appropriate

Page 114 of 176

conditions and additional conditions as outlined in the report, the proposals are considered acceptable and would be in accordance with MLP policy DM1 and Waste Local Plan policy 10 and Uttlesford Local Plan policy. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the development plan as a whole.

The NPPF refers to the 3 strands of sustainable development, social, economic and environmental. It is considered that the proposals would comply with the 3 strands allowing greater flexibility for the operator (economic) while protecting residential amenity (social and environmental).

10. RECOMMENDED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following:

a The prior completion of a d eed of variation to the existing legal agreement to address the following:

• To ensure the original legal agreement remains associated with new planning permission ESS/34/16/UTT

• To add an additional obligation restricting HGVs leaving the site to only use the B1256 junction with the A120(T) westwards to the M11, with no HGV traffic travelling east or west on the B1256, this obligation to be associated with both planning permissions ESS/34/16/UTT and ESS/35/16/UTT

And thereafter:

b That planning permission be granted s ubject to the following amended/additional conditions:

Planning Application ESS/34/16/UTT

Amended condition 4

Except in emergencies to maintain safe quarry and landfill working (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority as soon as practicable) and except for HGV movements as defined in condition 67:-

(a) No operations including temporary operations, other than water pumping and environmental monitoring, shall be carried out at the site except between the following times:-

07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays

(b) No operations including temporary operations other than environmental monitoring and water pumping at the site shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays .

For the avoidance of doubt ‘operations’ shall include the loading of vehicles.

Page 115 of 176

Additional Condition 67

For a period no longer than 1 year from the date of implementation of this planning permission, HGV movements shall not take place outside the following hours:

06:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 06:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays

No HGV movements shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, all HGV movements between the hours of 06.00 – 07:00 hours shall be limited to out-bound movements only.

For the purpose of this condition, each vehicle entering the site shall constitute one movement, and each vehicle leaving the site shall constitute a separate movement.

NB For the avoidance of doubt for the purpose of this planning permission a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) shall mean a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 7.5 tonnes or more

Additional condition 68

The free field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level [L Aeq , 1 hr] at Stone Hall or any other noise sensitive property, due to all permitted operations between 6am and 7am Monday to Saturday shall not exceed 42dB, when measured no closer than 3.5 metres from the façade of the property or other reflective surface and shall be corrected for extraneous noise.

Additional condition 69

Records shall be maintained of all HGV movements from the site between 06:00 hours to 07:00 hours . The records shall include the time the HGVs leave the site and the destination of HGVs. The records shall be submitted monthly to the Mineral Planning Authority from the date of implementation of the planning permission for 12 months.

Planning Application ESS/35/16/UTT

Amended Condition 1

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 1 year from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

Amended Condition 6

The total number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) movements associated with the development hereby permitted (when combined with the vehicle maximum permitted vehicle movements under planning permission ESS/65/06/UTT) shall Page 116 of 176

not exceed the following limits:

312 movements (56 in and 56 out) per day (Monday to Friday) 312 movements (56 in and 56 out) per day (Saturdays)

No HGV movements shall take place outside the hours of operation authorised in Condition 5 and condition 17 of this permission.

NB For the avoidance of doubt for the purpose of this planning permission a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) shall mean a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 7.5 tonnes or more.

Amended condition 16

No mineral or waste processing plant shall exceed a height of 94m Above Ordnance Datum, except for the soil washing plant which shall not exceed a height of 97m Above Ordnance Datum, as shown on drawing no. 14.103.D.004 entitled “Indicative Elevations of Proposed Plant” dated Sept 2014.

Additional condition 17

For a period no longer than 1 year from the date of implementation of this planning permission , HGV movements shall not take place outside the following hours:

06:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 06:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays

No HGV movements shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, all HGV movements between the hours of 06.00 – 07:00 hours shall be limited to out-bound movements only.

For the purpose of this condition, each vehicle entering the site shall constitute one movement, and each vehicle leaving the site shall constitute a separate movement.

Additional condition 18

Additional condition 19

Records shall be maintained of all HGV movements from the site between 6am to 7am. The records shall include the time the HGV left site and the destination of the HGV. The records shall be submitted monthly to the Mineral Planning Authority from the date of implementation of the planning permission for 12 months.

Page 117 of 176

And; c That any other relevant conditions attached to permission references ESS/34/16/UTT and ESS/35/16/UTT are updated and re-imposed as appropriate.

BACKGROUND PAP ERS

Consultation replies Representations

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)

The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within distance to a European site (name SAC/SPA).

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

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

In determining this application the Minerals Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant by assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies, all material considerations, consultation responses and any valid representations that may have been received. Issues of concern have been raised with the applicant and addressed through negotiation and acceptable amendments to the proposals. This approach has been in accordance with the requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

UTTLESFORD – Thaxted

UTTLESFORD - Dunmow

Page 118 of 176

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

DR/03/17

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017

COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Construction of a flood alleviation scheme consisting of an attenuation bund (127m in length and maximum 1.2m height above ground level) with culvert through Prittle Brook and temporary attenuation area in the event of flooding, with construction and maintenance access via an existing track off Rayleigh Road Location: West Wood (Ancient Woodland), East Thundersley, Essex Ref: CC/CPT/42/16 Applicant: Essex County Council, Local Lead Flood Authority

Report by Acting Head of County Planning Enquiries to: Gráinne O’Keeffe Tel: 03330 133055 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning

1. BACKGROUND

There is no relevant planning history on the site.

2. SITE

The development site area is stated as 2.5ha, located within West Wood (an ancient woodland of circa 32ha), in Thundersley in the District of Castlepoint.

The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The site is allocated as Public Open Space in the CastlePoint Proposals Map adopted 1998.

Bridleway PROW BENF_85 runs parallel to the northern end of the development site boundary and north of Prittle Brook.

The site is located within Flood Zone 1, as per the Environment Agency website, an area of low flood risk.

There is an existing pedestrian gate for public access from Rayleigh Road (A127) and an existing gated vehicular access for maintenance vehicles.

The nearest residential properties are located on Prittle Close and Rayleigh Road and adjoin the western site boundary.

3. PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the construction of a flood alleviation scheme consisting of an attenuation bund 127m in length and maximum 1.2m in height above ground level.

The bund would be constructed from imported inert soil and located on the route of the existing track through the woodland, reducing in height and merging with existing ground levels at the margins.

A clay core is also proposed underneath the proposed soil bund, to ensure structural stability of the bund. The clay core would ensure that lateral movement of water does not occur though the bund. The clay core would be excavated to a maximum of 1m deep by 1m wide and would run the entire length of the bund. The clay material proposed for the core is also proposed to be inert.

A culvert 900mm diameter over a distance of 16.2 metres is proposed for Prittle Brook.

The temporary attenuation area indicated to the west of the proposed bund would hold water in the event of flooding for up to 48 hours, the proposed storage capacity is 15,300m³.

The construction and maintenance access is proposed via an existing access and track off Rayleigh Road.

Page 120 of 176

The overall objective of the Flood Alleviation Scheme is to reduce flood risk to people and properties in the Critical Drainage Area of East Thundersley.

4. POLICIES

The following policies are of relevance to this application:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DCLG March 2012 Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Castle Point Draft New Local Plan 2016 (not yet adopted) submitted for Examination on 25 th August 2016. (The latest update is a letter from the Inspector to Castlepoint dated 05/01/2017, notifying the District that the duty to co-operate has not been complied with)

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states, in summary, that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF.

Having regard to the Inspectors letter dated 05/01/2017 recommending non- adoption of the New Local Plan under Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act, and in this situation the PPG advises that the most appropriate course of action is likely to be for the local planning authority to withdraw the plan under Section 22. Therefore at this stage no weight has been given to the Castle Point Draft New Local Plan 2016.

Castlepoint Local Plan (adopted 1998, saved 2007) Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

An NPPF Consistency Check was published by the District on 2 nd April 2013. It compares each of the saved policies in the Castle Point Adopted Local Plan 1998 with the NPPF, and indicates the degree of consistency between the two documents. Where necessary it indicates where additional consideration should be given to policies in the NPPF in order to ensure that decisions reflect the Government’s planning objectives and presumption in favour of sustainable development. The relevant policies that are consistent with the NPPF are listed below.

Policy EC7 Natural and semi-natural features in urban areas (Policy EC7 is generally consistent with para 74 of the NPPF. However, consideration should be given to those exceptions listed in para 74 when consideration applications for development on open spaces.) Policy EC22 Retention of Trees, Woodland and Hedgerow

Page 121 of 176

Policy EC38 Archaeological Sites and Monuments Policy RE12 Public Rights of Way

Essex Replacement Waste Local Plan (Pre-submission Draft March 2016) Policy 13 Landraising

Other Documents Natural England and Forestry Commission ‘Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and veteran trees’.

5. CONSULTATIONS

CASTLEPOINT BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING – no objections in principle to the proposals. In summary, hope there is satisfactory technical evidence demonstrating the adequacy of the scheme in surface water drainage terms, particularly covering the point that betterment in this location does not create problems elsewhere. Also trust that that there would be no adverse effect on matters of nature conservation interest, given the ecological sensitivity of the site concerned.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – The EA responded to inform the Planning Authority that they should not have been consulted as it is for a proposal that does not appear on the DMPO. They stated the description of the area as having critical drainage problems has been applied locally and not as a result of any notification from the EA. (Note: Notwithstanding the fact that the EA is not a statutory consultee on this application under the DMPO, as this is an Essex led development, the County Planning Authority has subsequently requested impartial advice from the EA – if received, this will be reported orally at Committee)

LOCAL LEAD FLOOD AUTHORITY – No objection We have received a request to comment since this is a major development. However, our criteria are that we can provide comments where impermeable areas are greater than 100m2. Therefore, this would not usually meet our criteria for comments. We are commenting since we have received a specific request from the case officer including some specific questions, responses to which are outlined here, and in our wider remit as LLFA to manage flood risk from local sources. Having reviewed the Planning Statement and the associated documents which accompanied the planning application, we do not object to the granting of planning permission based on the following:

Based on Figures 5 & 6 of the Planning Statement it appears that flood risk is only increased in the woodland behind the bund where water is proposed to be attenuated. The light blue areas in the urban area to the west of the wood, which are assumed to be the deepest areas, are removed in the post-scheme scenario. This is confirmed by Section 5.2 of the Planning Statement which states: ‘The height of the bund was limited by ground levels of properties upstream. The spillway heights and lengths had to be set to maximise the amount of storage provided while not increasing water levels upstream, which required an iterative process .’

Page 122 of 176

In considering alternative options, the planning statement says at 3.2 that other measures such as increasing pipe size, flow diversion and small scale attenuation features have been determined as ineffective in reducing the risk to properties. The most effective method is to attenuate water upstream by intercepting key flow paths in available open space.

Four potential bund locations were identified and the bund at land behind Queensmere was determined to no longer be feasible due to approval of a planning application at that location. The 3 proposed bunds are therefore the only locations where the flowpaths can be suitably intercepted to significantly reduce flood risk. A smaller bund could perhaps be located further west on the southern flowpath (landowner/other constraints permitting) but this would not attenuate as much flow as the proposed Bund 3 since the current bund is at the location where both flowpaths converge. Bunds were not considered east of West Wood since the restriction at the culvert behind properties at Westbourne Close is what causes the Prittle Brook to flow out of bank and form a flow path through residential areas which causes flooding (as mentioned in 3.1.1).

I have also had regard to the ‘East Thundersley Flood Alleviation Scheme Flood Risk Assessment’. This explains the modelling methodology which appears acceptable. It should be noted that the mapping included showing pre- and post- scheme flood depths is based on three bunds not just the one subject to this planning application. However, as also confirmed in Table 2 of this report Bund 3 only will result in properties being removed from being at risk during varying return events and will not increase flooding at upstream and surrounding properties. Given that the proposals will reduce risk to people and properties and will not increase flood risk elsewhere other than the woodland (which given it’s status is unlikely to be developable in the future) we have no objection.

LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT– No objection

NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection in principle - recognises the importance of this project to alleviate local flooding concerns, subject to informative regarding butterfly.

ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comment received.

FORESTRY COMMISSION ENGLAND – No opinion, information only. As a Non Ministerial Government Department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to an application, rather we are including information to help in your determinations.

Recently having visited the site and looking at the health of the trees I have concerns of the impact of prolonged time spent under water if the bund is built. The trees already show signs of decline which is due to competition and suspected continued waterlogging. The bund may increase the time the trees spend under water this would speed up their decline. This should be considered when reviewing the application.

Please also refer to technical information set out in Natural England and Forestry Commission’s Standing Advice on Ancient Woodland – plus supporting

Page 123 of 176

Assessment Guide and Case Decisions.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – Any comments received will be reported.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No comments received

PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – In principal objection in relation to loss of irreplaceable habitat in ancient woodland and paragraph 118 of NPPF.

PLACE SERVICES (Trees) - Support subject to conditions for tree protection.

PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) –Support subject to conditions relating to matching imported soil and bund seeding.

PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – No objection subject to condition relating to Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.

LOCAL MEMBER – CASTLEPOINT – Hadleigh. Any comments received will be reported.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

43 properties were directly notified of the application. Two letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:

Observation Comment Understand need to curb flooding but See appraisal ancient woodland are few and far between.

Recreational amenity of park.

Should not contaminate water or impact wildlife.

Care during construction.

No consultation with locals. See appraisal

Should be put on hold until full consequences area known.

7. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

A. Principle of Development in the Green Belt B. Principle of Development in Ancient Woodland C. Impact on Biodiversity D. Impact on Trees

Page 124 of 176

E. Flood Risk F. Archaeology G. Landraising

A PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT

The site of the proposed development is located within in the Green Belt. It is a core planning principle of the NPPF to protect the Green Belt (paragraphs 79-92 reproduced at Appendix 2).

As per paragraph 87 “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”

However, the proposed flood alleviation scheme, consisting of the construction of an attenuation bund, is considered to fall under ‘engineering operations’ and therefore having regard to paragraph 90 of the NPPF is “not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.”

First it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development preserves the openness of the Green Belt. Having regard to the scale and height of the proposed bund (127m x 1.2m) and the proposed location on an existing track within a mature woodland, it is considered that it would not visually obstruct the openness of the Green Belt, and would not prevent accessibility by the public through the woodland post construction. The development of the bund would result in the existing track through the forest being up to 1.2m higher than at present but with public access being maintained. The existing public right of way, a bridleway, to the north of the application site, would not be affected and the current use as public open space would be retained. Therefore it is considered that the openness of the Green Belt would be preserved.

Secondly, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development conflict with the purpose of including land in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 80 of the NPPF lists the 5 purposes of including land in the Green Belt as follows:- •to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas •to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another •to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment •to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns •to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Having regard to the nature of the proposed attenuation bund, as an engineering operation rather than a building, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with any of the 5 purposes of including land in Green Belt.

The proposed development of the attenuation bund would be appropriate in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 90 of the NPPF, as it is considered to be an ‘engineering operation’ that is considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.

Page 125 of 176

The proposed development is therefore in accordance with paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF.

Furthermore, Policy GB8 of the emerging Local Plan promotes positive uses in the Green Belt and states the Council “will consider proposals favourably which seek to positively enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, by providing opportunities for. sustainable flood risk management” subject to a list of criteria. The proposed development of a flood attenuation bund, is considered to represent sustainable flood risk management and would be a beneficial use in the Green Belt and would be in accordance with Policy GB8. However, this policy is given limited weight, given the current status of the Plan as outlined under item 4 above.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle in the Green Belt, subject to meeting all other relevant planning criteria.

B PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT IN ANCIENT WOODLAND

The site of the proposed development is located within West Wood, a designated Ancient Woodland, defined in the NPPF as “An area that has been wooded continuously since at least 1600AD”.

It is one of eight Ancient Woodlands within the District, listed in Appendix 8 of the CastlePoint, Adopted Plan 1998.

West Wood consists of ancient semi-natural woodland – defined as ancient woodland sites that have retained the native tree and shrub cover that has not been planted, although it may have been managed by coppicing or felling and allowed to regenerate naturally. The Tree Survey submitted in support of the planning application states “the majority of hornbeams have been historically maintained as coppices, with the oaks have been left to grow in their natural form.”

The development site area proposed is 2.5 hectares within the overall ancient woodland area of 32 hectares at West Wood.

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “ When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:” including ..”planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodlandunless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss,”

Having regard to paragraph 118, development resulting in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland, is not acceptable in principle, unless it meets the test set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

A further assessment regarding the potential loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat is carried out at paragraphs C (Biodiversity) and D (Trees) below.

Potential impacts on the Ancient Woodland have also been considered in accordance with the standing advice and assessment guide published by Natural

Page 126 of 176

England and the Forestry Commission. (Refer to Planning Officer’s completed assessment at Appendix 3).

If loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat is identified (at paragraphs C& D below), planning permission should be refused in accordance with paragraph 118, unless the need for and benefits of the flood alleviation scheme development in that location clearly outweigh the loss of irreplaceable habitat. This test is considered in more detail at paragraph H below.

C IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY

It is a core planning principle of the NPPF to “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment”.

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

• 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;

• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;

Policy EC7 of the adopted Local Plan 1998 states “Natural features, semi-natural features and open spaces within urban areas shall be retained and enhanced wherever possible in order to safeguard their physical, visual, recreational and wildlife value.

Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act 2006), public bodies have a duty to conserve ‘habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England’, commonly referred to as ‘Priority Habitats or Species’.

The site is located within West Wood, ancient woodland, containing the priority habitat ‘lowland deciduous woodland’.

The site is subject of a LoWS designation: CP24 West Wood. (Refer to Appendix 4 for extract from the Castlepoint Borough Local Wildlife Sites Review 2012)

There are no statutory designations on the site. Great Wood & Dodd's Grove, the closest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is located aprox. 1km away. Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified and has no objection regarding the SSSI.

Page 127 of 176

Natural England consider that identified impacts on a population of the nationally rare Heath Fritillary butterfly Melitaea athalia can be appropriately mitigated and advise monitoring of the butterfly and its food plant, Common Cow-wheat, should be carried out for at least 5 years following bund installation to assess any changes against baseline conditions and remedial measures must carried out where appropriate.

A Preliminary Ecology Appraisal has been submitted in support of the planning application. The report outlines the impacts on habitats and species at paragraph 4.3.

Direct impacts on habitats and species, are identified.

The report concludes the five hornbeams proposed for removal, have limited ecological value (intrinsically and for protected species) and the removal may benefit biodiversity by allowing more light to reach the woodland floor.

The report also concludes the removal of a small amount of scrub (aprox. 30sq.m) to the north east of Prittle Brook to be a minor impact and states scrub is of limited value to wildlife (with exception of nesting birds) and shades out other ground flora and loss is not considered to be significant.

Indirect impacts on habitats and species are also identified. The bund is designed to attenuate water west of the bund for up to 48 hours in a flood event before dispersing into Prittle Brook. Some habitats will therefore be inundated for a short amount of time. The report notes that West Wood already attenuates water informally in winter, most which collects along its eastern edge close to West Wood Gardens and within artificial scrapes. The report concludes “temporary attenuation is unlikely to cause permanent habitat change or loss, given that the areas in question already partialy inundated during winter months. It is assumed that trees area already somewhat adapted to damp conditions”

The bund would also require soil importation. The report states “soil profiles in ancient woodland are often relatively undisturbed and are vitally important for their fauna, flora and particularly fungal communities. Importing soils that are incompatible with ancient woodland profiles could result in the plant community structure being altered and incompatible species and weeds being introduced.” The report recommends soil testing to ensure appropriate soil match is achieved.

In conclusion, the development would result in some loss or deterioration of priority habitat, directly through the removal of 5 trees along the route of the proposed bund and limited scrub removal, and indirectly through water attenuation on land to the west of the proposed bund and from potentially from soil importation for the construction of the bund. There may also be impacts during the construction period.

The Council’s Ecology Consultant raises an in principal objection to development based on this loss of priority habitat.

Having regard to paragraph 118 of the NPPF, is necessary to consider the principle of avoidance, mitigation and as a last resort compensation.

Page 128 of 176

The applicant (LLFA) has stated that the woodland cannot be avoided, they comment as follows: “ Through investigations and modelling, the options of increasing pipe size, flow diversion and small scale attenuation features have been determined as ineffective in reducing the risk from surface water flooding to residential properties. To reduce the risk from surface water flooding, the most effective method is to attenuate water upstream by intercepting key flow paths within a catchment in available open space. Due to the heavily urbanised nature of the catchment, there is limited open space, restricting the location of flood defence features. To alleviate flooding experienced in the eastern section of the CDA, the only open space available to attenuate the water is West Woods. There are no other locations available to attenuation flood waters in the downstream end of the catchment.”

While the applicant states the woodland cannot be avoided in the provision of flood alleviation measures, it also aims to mitigate the impact of development and states: “The biodiversity value of the woodland resource is appreciated and therefore the scheme has sort a balance between disturbance to the woodland and increasing the resilience of the local community. Initially the attenuation bund was located along the eastern boundary of the wood. This was found to be unfeasible due to the location of a flow path, access for construction and would require a significant amount of trees to be removed in the ancient woodland; therefore the attenuation bund was relocated.

The attenuation bund is proposed along a section of a well-used semi-permeable based track creating surface for pedestrians and light machinery. The track runs from north to south, crossing the Prittle Brook. This path also forms the main vehicle access into the wood for maintenance purposes therefore clear of vegetation and minimal presences of trees. Due to the well-used nature of the track it is devoid of flora. Thus the proposal provides the best location to construct the bund with minimising disturbance to the wood. The attenuation bund is designed to store flood water temporarily and the woodland will only experience wetness from the attenuation bund during times of heavy rainfall. Temporary attenuation is unlikely to cause permanent habitat change or loss, given that the areas in question area already partially inundated during winter months. It is assumed that trees are already somewhat adapted to damp conditions. The scheme has been designed so that water will discharge within 48 hours. During normal condition the woodland will not be impacted by the attenuation bund. “

The applicant has submitted information in the Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that other options have been considered and that avoidance of the woodland is not possible.

Mitigation measures have been considered to minimise the impact on biodiversity, including the selection of the route on the footprint of an existing track through the woodland, as well as proposed trees and root protection measures. Compensation measures proposed include use of imported soils as close as possible to existing soils for the creation of the bund and seeding the bund with woodland plants.

Whether the impacts on biodiversity can be adequately mitigated needs to be

Page 129 of 176

considered in combination with the test regarding development in ancient woodland.

While the proposed mitigation measures may in other circumstances be considered adequate, in this specific case, further assessment is required due to the location of the site within ancient woodland.

Notwithstanding the mitigation measures proposed to minimise impact on biodiversity, the proposed development is likely to result in some loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat, and having regard to paragraph 118 of the NPPF, planning permission should be refused, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Furthermore, the proposal would not strictly conform with the aims of Policy EC7.

D IMPACT ON TREES

Policy EC22 of the adopted Local Plan 1989 states “In schemes for new development, existing trees, hedgerows and woods shall be retained wherever possible. Where development takes place, loss of existing tree cover and hedgerow shall be kept to a minimum. All trees and shrubs to be retained after development shall be suitable protected throughout the duration of construction.”

An ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Arboricultural Method Statement’ has been submitted in support of the planning application.

Five trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the construction of the bund. They are identified as T43, T61, T64, T65 and T69 (hornbeam) and stated to be category C.

T74 is proposed to be coppiced to prevent damage during the construction process.

The report does not record any TPO or Veteran trees within the vicinity of the proposed bund.

The bund would be in the root protection area (RPS) of many category B trees, mostly oak trees.

The exact location of the clay core, proposed underground, has not been defined and it is proposed that the exact route of the clay core would take the path of least impact to the woodland which would be informed by root radar information. (confined to red area indicated in appendix 2 – route of root radar in letter addendum 1.1 CAS 3 West Wood).

The Forestry Commission have raised concerns regarding the impact on trees from prolonged time spent under water if the bund is built. They state the trees already show signs of decline which is due to competition and suspected continued waterlogging. The bund may increase the time the trees spend under water and the Forestry Commission consider this would speed up their decline.

The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant does not raise an objection to the

Page 130 of 176

proposed development subject to adequate root protection being implemented.

The loss of trees to facilitate the development has been minimised to the removal of five category C trees over a distance of 127m and subject to conditions for tree and root protection during construction, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy EC 22 of the adopted Local Plan.

E FLOOD RISK

The site is located with Flood Zone 1, low flood risk, as per the Environment Agency mapping ‘Risk of flooding form Rivers and Sea’, where the land is assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%).

Notwithstanding the fact the proposal is for a surface water flood alleviation scheme, it is necessary to demonstrate that it will not result in flood risk elsewhere. A site specific flood risk assessment is required for proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1 (as per Footnote 5 of paragraph 103 of NPPF).

A site specific flood risk assessment has been submitted by the applicant. The report concludes “These options have been considered in detail to identify optimum bund levels and spillway arrangements to maximise the volume of attenuation storage provided while not increasing the water levels at upstream and surrounding properties.”

The South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP 2012) identifies six critical drainage areas in the Castlepoint District area. The proposed flood alleviation scheme is located within one of these critical drainage areas, named CAS 3:East Thundersley (Refer to Appendix 5 for extract from the SWMP)

The applicant (ECC Local Lead Flood Authority) is seeking to manage local flood risk to properties within the critical drainage area (CDA) of East Thundersley. They state that the proposed scheme would alleviate flooding from surface water, through attenuating water upstream of residential properties. This would be achieved through the implementation of strategically placed attenuation bunds, along key flow paths within the CDA. They state “The scheme is considered to be the most sustainable way of managing flood risk from surface water and providing a long-term economically viable solution. The scheme fulfils Essex County Council’s duties as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, to reduce local flood risk. The scheme also accords with the aims and objectives of Defra’s Making Space for Water. Works are in-line with the Environment Agency South Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan and Essex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.”

Table 2 of the Flood Risk Assessment has modelled that the proposed Bund 3, in combination with the two other Bunds 1 & 2 would reduce the flood risk to 46 properties in a 1:100 flood event. In isolation, the currently proposed Bund 3, would alleviate flood risk to 7 properties.

In conclusion, the proposed development is designed to alleviate flooding and having regard to the information submitted, it should not result in flood risk

Page 131 of 176

elsewhere. The development would be acceptable accordance with the principle of meeting the challenge of flooding, as per the NPPF.

F ARCHAEOLOGY

It is a core planning principal of the NPPF to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;”

An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment was submitted in support of the application.

The report concludes “The East Thundersley Flood Alleviation Scheme bunds are located in an area with identified historic environment assets. These comprise historic field boundaries related to the estate management with surviving tree lines on former or existing ditches and earthwork banks within West Wood. In addition, there is the possibility of further unknown below ground archaeology being present, particularly of the later Roman period. Archaeological deposits are both fragile and irreplaceable and the construction of the bunds has the potential to impact on archaeological deposits and landscape features.

Those areas which need mitigation as part of the proposed scheme include Bund 3:The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required”.

The Council Archelogy consultant comments “The Desk Based Assessment submitted with the application identified historic environment assets within the development area including historic field boundaries related to estate management with surviving tree lines on former or existing ditches and earthwork banks within West Wood. In addition, there is the possibility of further as yet unknown below ground archaeology being present, particularly of the later Roman period.” And “The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required.” They support the proposal subject to a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation for archaeological investigation.

In conclusion it is considered that subject to the condition outlined above, the development as proposed would conserve the historic environment in accordance with the NPPF and policy EC38 of the Local Plan.

G LANDRAISING

The construction of the proposed bund would involve land raising of approximately. 1.2metres over a distance of 127 metres.

Page 132 of 176

It is proposed to construct the bund from imported inert soil, rather than from waste material. Nonetheless, as often proposals such as often source ‘spoil’ (soil waste arising from construction developments) Policy 13 of the emerging Waset Local Plan should be considered.

As per Policy 13 states “Proposals for landraising with waste will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that there are no feasible or practicable alternative means to achieve the proposed development. Proposals will also demonstrate that: a. there is a proven significant benefit that outweighs any harm caused by the proposal; b. the amount of waste materials used to raise the level of the land is the minimum amount of material necessary and is essential for the restoration of the site; and c. in the case of land remediation and other projects, will provide a significant improvement to damaged or degraded land and/or provide a greater environmental or agricultural value than the previous land use. Proposals for landraising that are considered to constitute a waste disposal activity, for its own sake, will not be permitted.

The purpose of the proposed landraising is to create a bund for flood alleviation purposes and it is not considered to constitute a waste disposal activity for its own sake and it is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy 13 of the emerging Waste Local Plan.

8. CONCLUSION

1. In respect of the need for development when considered against the loss of irreplaceable habitat, having regard to the location of the site within an Ancient Woodland, and paragraph 118 of the NPPF, “planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;”

It has been assessed in the paragraphs above that the construction of the proposed flood alleviation bund would result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat in West Wood, ancient woodland.

The construction of the proposed bund would require the removal of five trees and is likely to impact on the root protection zones of existing trees adjacent to the proposed bund. The existing woodland and trees in the area for attenuation, west of the proposed bund would also be impacted by being under water for longer period than at present.

The Natural England and Forestry Commission Assessment Guide advises “If the final conclusion is, that despite the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed, an area of ancient woodland will still be lost or significantly deteriorated then the test set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework(2012) should be applied.”

Despite the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined in more detail in the

Page 133 of 176

paragraphs above, there would still be loss of five trees and potential deterioration to up to 2.5ha of woodland due to likelihood of being under water for longer period during a flood event. In considering the significance of this deterioration, the 2.5ha represents 7.8% of the overall 32ha ancient woodland at West Wood.

Therefore the test to be applied in considering this planning application is – does the need for, and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme at this location, clearly outweigh the loss of ancient woodland?

Therefore, the need for the flood alleviation scheme and the benefits for residential properties must be balanced against the loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitats and ancient woodland that is likely to result from the proposed development.

The applicant, the Local Lead Flood Authority, has provided evidence that other sites were considered but that due to the built-up nature of the surrounding land, locating the development within the Ancient Woodland is the only option available to achieve the required flood alleviation for existing residential properties. Within the Ancient Woodland, the bund is proposed on the footprint of an existing track to minimise impacts.

It is Officer opinion that the need for and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme would clearly outweigh the loss of priority habitat in the ancient woodland and would be in accordance with the aim of the NPPF to conserve and enhance biodiversity having regard to the principles set out in paragraph 118.

2. In conclusion, the proposed flood alleviation scheme is considered to be an ‘engineering operation’ and having regard to paragraph 90 of the NPPF would not be inappropriate in the metropolitan Green Belt, as it is considered that it would preserve the openness of the Green Belt (visually and by maintaining public access and use as open space) and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt (listed at paragraph 89 of the NPPF). Therefore the development proposed is considered acceptable in principle at this location in the Green Belt.

Notwithstanding the mitigation measures proposed, the development would result in some loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitat, specifically the removal of five trees along the route of the proposed bund and up to 2.5ha being under water for a longer period during a flood event. Having considered the benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme in reducing flood risk to residential properties and human occupants, it is considered that the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss, so as to satisfy the test set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

It has been demonstrated that in alleviating flood risk through the proposed development, it would not result in increased flood risk elsewhere and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

8. RECOMMENDED

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General

Page 134 of 176

Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of application reference CC/CPT/42/16 validated on 12/09/2016.

Drawings • Site Location Plan • Schematic Site Layout Plan, Version 1, dated 09/09/2016 • B3553M01-CAS3-C-DR-310-Rev. E Bund 3 Spillway Layout and Section • Tree Protection Plan, Appendix 4, Rev.1.3, dated July 2016, received 01/11/2016, prepared by Place Services • Tree Constraints Plan, Rev. 1.1, dated July 2016, prepared by Place Services

Documents • Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement, Version 1.5, dated 15/09/2016 prepared by Place Services and Addendum 1.1 dated 01/11/2016.

• Planning Statement, dated 01/09/2016

• Preliminary Ecology Appraisal, version 1.4, dated 09/08/2016

and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

3 No development shall take place (including any ground works and site clearance) until a method statement for the flood alleviation bund in West Wood has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

The content of the method statement shall include the: a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; b) survey baseline methodology and five year monitoring plan for Common Cow Wheat; c) adequate on-site monitoring and availability of advice over construction activities during sensitive periods or activities; d) detailed design and/or working methods necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, type and source of materials to be used); e) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans, including the areas which will be flooded; f) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the ecological requirements;

Page 135 of 176

g) persons responsible for implementing the works; h) initial habitat creation, aftercare and long-term maintenance; i) disposal of any wastes arising from works. j) restrictions on the removal of vegetation or earth moving within certain parts of the site; k) restrictions on the timing of the construction operations; l) restrictions on working areas through the erection of protective fencing and warning signs; m) controls over the destruction, removal or alteration of features used by protected species; n) the nature of the material to be used for the construction of the bund and confirmation that the soil/material type is compatible with the existing soil conditions of the woodland. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter. All species used in the planting proposals within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (9th August 2016), shall be locally native species of local provenance unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

6 Prior to commencement of development, tree protection measures shall be installed in accordance with the recommendations in BS5837:2012 and the Tree Protection Plan, Appendix 4, Rev.1.3, dated July 2016, received 01/11/2016, prepared by Place Services

7 The development shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998:2010 tree work – recommendations

8 No development or preliminary groundworks shall take place until a written scheme and programme of archaeological investigation and recording has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme and programme of archaeological investigation and recording shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted or any preliminary groundworks.

INFORMATIVES

1. Southend Airport advise that if you require a crane or piling rig to construct the proposed development, this will need to be safeguarded separately and dependant on location may be restricted in height and may also require full coordination with the Airport Authority. Any crane applications should be directed to [email protected] or 01702 538521

2. Natural England advise that monitoring of the butterfly and its food plant, Common Cow-wheat, should be carried out for at least 5 years following bund installation to assess any changes against baseline conditions and remedial measures must carried out where appropriate.

3. The proposed bund runs adjacent to existing earthworks located within

Page 136 of 176

West Wood. If the bund and its associated construction traffic remain on the present track there will be no threat to the earthworks. However, if a construction corridor is required adjacent to the track archaeological investigation of the features will be required

BACKGROUND PAPER S

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

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

In determining this planning application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

CASTLEPOINT – Hadleigh

Page 137 of 176

APPENDIX 1 – SITE LAYOUT PLAN

Page 138 of 176

APPENDIX 2 – Extract from NPPF Section 9: Protecting Green Belt Land

Paragraphs 79 to 92

79. The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

80. Green Belt serves five purposes:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

82. The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should:

• demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate • set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary • show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development • demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas • show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework

83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

84. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

85. When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should: Page 139 of 176

• ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development • not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open • where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period • make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development • satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period • define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent

86. If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt.

87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

• buildings for agriculture and forestry • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development

90. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are:

Page 140 of 176

• mineral extraction • engineering operations • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order

91. When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.

92. Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for recreation and wildlife. An approved Community Forest plan may be a material consideration in preparing development plans and in deciding planning applications. Any development proposals within Community Forests in the Green Belt should be subject to the normal policies controlling development in Green Belts.

Page 141 of 176

APPENDIX 3 – Forestry Commission and Natural England Assessment Guide for development in Ancient Woodland

1. Is the site of the ancient woodland the only possible place for this proposal? The applicant (Local Lead Flood Authority has put forward a case explaining the need for the flood alleviation scheme and the bund in this location, due to limited open space available in the critical drainage area. Therefore it is accepted that this is the only possible location for this proposal.

2. What size of ancient woodland will be affected? The overall site area is 2.5ha located within an overall Ancient Woodland of 32ha, the bund would be a linear feature over 127metres and the attenuation area to the west of the bund would hold water in a flood event for up to 48 hours.

The bund would be 127 metres long on an existing track which contains little vegetation although close to trees. Several semi- mature hornbeam trees would be removed, as well as an area of bramble. The proposal has tried to provide areas of woodland which would be the least damaging by using an existing track with little ground flora. No mature trees are to be removed. Potential impacts of construction –and associated recommendations- are set out in Table 4.1 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). Construction would be restricted to existing tracks and storage areas. Ecologically sensitive areas will be fenced off. Timing of construction will be restricted to prevent any potential impacts on legally protected species.

3. Will an area of woodland be lost? The bund would be 127 metres long on an existing track which contains little vegetation, although close to trees. Several young or immature trees would be removed, as well as an area of bramble.

4. How well connected is the woodland? The Council’s Ecology Consultant advises “Connectivity would not be damaged by the proposals.”

5. Will there be damage to the Root Protection Area of the woodland or individual trees? There is potential for damage to the root protection area of trees adjacent to the existing track through the construction of the bund and digging below ground level. Compaction of soil around trees is also possible from construction vehicles. The woodland within the proposed flood attenuation area, is likely to be underwater for longer or more frequent periods than it is currently.

6. Has a survey for protected species been included in the application? Yes, this is included in the Preliminary Ecology Assessment submitted in support of the Planning Application. CHECK??

7. Does the development have the potential to affect the woodland through changes to air quality or to ground water (through pollutants or changes in

Page 142 of 176

hydrology)? If so, has an assessment been carried out and appropriate mitigation proposed? The development of the soil bund is unlikely to result in changes to air quality or groundwater. The bund is proposed to attenuate surface water during a flood event.

8. Will access to the woodland increase? The woodland is currently accessible to members of the public for walking and horse riding and for maintenance vehicles along the existing access track. The proposed development would not result in any change in the current access to the woodland.

9. What is the current function, and planned function, of the land to be lost to development? The area of the proposed bund is already in use as an existing track used by members of the public and maintenance vehicles. The construction of the bund would result in the track being higher level (1.2m) and there is likely to be an impact on low hanging branches of adjoining trees. The area of the proposed flood attenuation is currently woodland that occasionally floods, this would still occur but for a possibly longer period during a flood event. The function of the land as woodland and open space would remain the same.

10. Does the landscaping scheme include native species of appropriate provenance? It is proposed to seed the sloping sides of the proposed bund.

Conclusion The construction of the bund would require the removal of some trees and is likely to impact on the root protection zones of existing trees adjacent to the proposed bund. The existing woodland and trees in the area for attenuation, west of the proposed bund would also be impacted by being under water for longer period than at present. Protected species are unlikely to be significantly affected.

The Assessment Guide advises “If the final conclusion is, that despite the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed, an area of ancient woodland will still be lost or significantly deteriorated then the test set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework(2012) should be applied.”

Paragraph 118 “planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;”

Having regard to the information submitted, it appears that the proposed development would result in loss or deterioration of Ancient Woodland. Therefore the test to be applied in considering this planning application is – does the need for, and benefits of the proposed flood alleviation scheme within the Ancient Woodland, clearly outweigh the loss?

This test is considered in more detail in paragraph 7H of the main report.

Page 143 of 176

APPENDIX 4 – Extract from Castlepoint Borough Local Wildlife Sites Review 2012

CPT24 West Wood (33.1ha) TQ805881 This predominantly ancient wood is bisected by Prittle Brook, with plateaus rising to north and south, and is little changed since the Middle Ages. To the north of Prittle Brook, all standards were removed during the Second World War and so those now present are all younger.

The canopy is dominated by Pedunculate and Sessile Oak (Quercus robur and Q. petraea ) with Downy and Silver Birch ( Betula pubescens and B. pendula ) and coppiced Hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus ) and Sweet Chestnut ( Castanea sativa ). Rowan ( Sorbus aucuparia ) is also present with an abundance of Wild Service-tree ( Sorbus torminalis ) and the understorey includes Holly ( Ilex aquifolium ), Hazel ( Corylus avellana ) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna ). There is a single very large Beech ( Fagus sylvatica ) to the south of Prittle Brook.

The ground flora is varied including the Essex Red Data List species Common Cow-wheat (Melampyrum pratense ), Woodruff ( Galium odoratum ) and Great Wood-rush ( Luzula sylvatica ) as well as many other species that are indicative of ancient woodland, including Wood Melick ( Melica uniflora ), Wood Anemone ( Anemone nemorosa ), Remote Sedge

Page 144 of 176

(Carex remota ), Bluebell ( Hyacinthoides non-scripta ), Wood Millet ( Milium effusum ), Hairybrome (Bromopsis ramosus ), Wood Sedge ( Carex sylvatica ), Wood Meadow-grass (Poanemoralis ) and Black Currant ( Ribes nigrum ), Hairy Wood-rush ( Luzula pilosa ), Bush Vetch ( Vicia sepium ) and Slender St John‟s-wort ( Hypericum pulchrum ). The wood supports the England BAP Priority species Southern Wood Ant ( Formica rufa ).

England BAP Priority Habitats Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland

Selection Criteria HC1 Ancient Woodland Sites

Rationale Documentary evidence for the ancient status of this wood is extremely clear.

Condition Statement Overall the wood is in good condition.

Management Issues The site is under active conservation management with a regular programme of coppicing that should preserve its diversity. The presence of non-native species should be monitored, especially that of Variegated Yellow Archangel ( Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. argentatum ), which is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Other undesirable species include a pink-sorrel ( Oxalis sp.) and Cherry Laurel ( Prunus laurocerasus ).

Review Schedule Site Selected: 1992 (W9) Reviewed: 1994 (W9), 2002 (CP24), 2007 (CP24), 2012 (CPT24)

Page 145 of 176

APPENDIX 5 – Extract from South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (2012) Critical Drainage Area CAS3: East Thundersley

Page 146 of 176

Page 147 of 176

Page 148 of 176

AGENDA ITEM 7.1

DR/04/17

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017

INFORMATION ITEM – APPEAL DECISION Proposal: Construction of an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odorising ring apparatus including associated equipment and container . Location: Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Green, Fairstead, Chelmsford, Essex CM3 2BG Ref: ESS/60/13/BTE Planning Inspectorate reference: APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003 and APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007 Applicant: C Humphreys and Sons

Report by Acting Head of County Planning and Director for Essex Legal Services Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong Tel: 03330136823 or email [email protected]

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

Page 149 of 176

1. BAC KGROUND AND SITE

At the March 2014 Development and Regulation committee meeting it was resolved that the application for the retention of the circular tank, de-odorising ring; equipment container; and associated hardstanding to facilitate the storage of abattoir wash water, together with the use of the existing agricultural access track to access the wash water tank be refused planning permission. The resolution was taken contrary to the officer recommendation.

The committee also resolved to take enforcement action in relation to the tank which had already been erected on site and was in use and an enforcement notice was issued on 7 May 2014. This required the use of the tank to cease and for the circular tank to be removed within one day of confirmation of the notice and for the container and all the equipment to be removed within 3 months.

The applicant appealed the enforcement notice on grounds (a) that planning permission should be granted and (f) that the steps exceed what is necessary to remedy a breach of planning control or remedy any injury to amenity.

The Planning Inspectorate issued a decision on 19 May 2015 upholding the county council’s enforcement notice and this decision was subsequently challenged by the appellant.

The site itself is located in Rank’s Green, circa 2km north-west of Fairstead, in a largely rural area (in terms of development and majority land use). Accessed from a lane off Mill Lane, the site is situated at the northern end of the farmyard with arable fields to the north, east and west of the site.

Residential properties line the lane from which the farm is accessed. The closest residential property is approximately 150m south of the development (the tank).

2. LEGAL CHALLENGE

A court application was made to the High Court (reference: Mr Paul Humphreys v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Essex County Council (2), CO/2987/2015 and CO/3254/2015).

The court application was made against the Secretary of State because it was the Secretary of State’s decision on appeal that was challenged and the County Council was joined into the proceedings as 2nd defendant.

The claim had been made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenge provisions (in sections 288 and 289) and the court hearing on the 24 November 2015 dealt with both claims.

The Secretary of State was unsuccessful in defending the Planning Inspector’s decision on the Enforcement Notice appeal and deemed planning application. The court ordered that the decision be remitted to the Secretary of State for re-hearing

Page 150 of 176

and re-determination (via the Planning Inspectorate process).

3. CURRENT POSITION

The matter was remitted for a fresh decision by a new Inspector. A hearing was held on the 6 th October 2016 at County Hall Chelmsford. The Inspector appointed to determine the case issued his decision on 10 th January 2017 and this is attached at Appendix 1.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement notice has been quashed. Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions attached as Annex 1 Schedule of Conditions to the decision at Appendix 1.

In the determination of the appeal and his subsequent report the Inspector considered the advice of the County Council and the Environment Agency and was satisfied that suitable and effective capping and odour control mechanisms could be installed on the tank such that the objections to its use would be outweighed. He considered that a suitably worded condition could be imposed on the grant of planning permission to ensure that the tank is provided with a means of capping and odour control, thereby overcoming any objections in relation to the harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to offensive odours. This is condition 2 on the Schedule of Conditions which requires submission of a scheme for approval before 9th April 2017, installation in accordance with the approved scheme and retention and use for the lifetime of the development.

Costs application

At the hearing of the 6 th October 2016 an application for costs was made by the applicant against Essex County Council and the inspector issued a separate report addressing this application. The Inspector had to consider whether the County Council’s behaviour was unreasonable.

The Inspector considered that the County Council’s reasons for refusal against officer’s advice were not substantiated by any evidence or justification except the submissions by local residents. One of the examples of unreasonable behaviour is failing to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal.

Whilst those submissions were given considerable weight in the determination of the appeal the imposition of a condition requiring the tank to be capped, as suggested by the appellant and acknowledged by the Environment Agency would address these concerns.

In summary, the inspector considered that the County Council could have granted planning permission subject to a condition requiring the installation of a cap to an approved design. The County Council acted unreasonably in refusing such planning permission, against officer advice, without reasonable justification.

It had been noted in the appeal redetermination that in the intervening period the

Page 151 of 176

County Council had granted planning permission for the bladder tank under ESS /33/15/BTE and at the re-hearing both the County Council and the Environment Agency confirmed that similar odour control mechanisms to those included in the approved bladder tank scheme could be applied to the appeal tank and that the mechanisms would prevent the emission of odours and successfully deal with the harm.

The Inspector concluded that the refusal of planning permission and hence the serving of the enforcement notice did, therefore, constitute unreasonable behaviour by the Council resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense on behalf of the appellant in pursuing the appeals. He considered that a full award of costs was justified and his reasoning is included at Appendix 2.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION: Braintree - Witham Northern

Page 152 of 176

Appeal Decisions Hearing held on 6 October 2016 Site visit made on 6 October 2016 by A R Hammond MSc MA CEng MIET MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 10 January 2017

Appeal A Ref: APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003 Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Green, CM3 2BG • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Mr Paul Humphries against an enforcement notice issued by Essex County Council. • The enforcement notice, numbered ESS/60/13/BTE – APPEAL, was issued on 7 May 2014. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without the benefit of planning permission the construction of an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odorising ring apparatus including associated equipment and container. • The requirements of the notice are to 1) Cease and do not resume the transferring of abattoir wash water into the storage tank. 2) Remove the abattoir wash water storage tank from the land. 3) Remove the container and all equipment and materials associated with the abattoir wash water tank from the land. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 1) Within one day. 2) Within three months. 3) Within three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended • This decision supersedes that issued on 19 May 2015. That decision on the appeal was remitted for re-hearing and determination by order of the High Court.

Appeal B Ref: APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007 Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Green, CM3 2BG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Paul Humphries against the decision of Essex County Council. • The application Ref ESS/60/13/BTE, dated 29 November 2013, was refused by notice dated 31 March 2014. • The development proposed is an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odorising ring apparatus including associated equipment. container and hardstanding • This decision supersedes that issued on 19 May 2015. That decision on the appeal was quashed by order of the High Court.

Page 153 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

Preliminary Matters

The High Court Decision

1. I have been appointed by the Secretary of State to re-determine these appeals. In a decision on 19 May 2015 the appeals were dismissed by another inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State following a site visit on 9 March 2015. That inspector dismissed the appeals and upheld the enforcement notice as issued.

2. That decision was the subject of an appeal to the High Court by the appellant and the Court ordered that the decision be remitted to the Secretary of State for re-hearing and re-determination.

3. The Courts have made it clear that appeals have to be determined ‘de novo’ and I have to re-determine the appeals in the light of the judgement of the Court, the representations originally submitted in respect of the appeal, the decision of the previous inspector and the further representations made at this hearing.

Decision Appeal A

4. The enforcement notice is corrected: by the deletion of the words "and do not resume" in requirement 1 of the notice.

5. Subject to this correction the appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the construction of an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odorising ring apparatus including associated equipment and container subject to the conditions attached as Annex A.

Decision Appeal B

6. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odorising ring apparatus including associated equipment container and hardstanding at Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Green, CM3 2BG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref ESS/60/13/BTE, dated 29 November 2013, subject to the conditions attached as Annex A.

Application for costs

7. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Mr Paul Humphries against Essex County Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The Appeal A Enforcement Notice

8. Requirement 1 of the notice reads “Cease and do not resume the transferring of abattoir wash water into the storage tank”. It was suggested at the Hearing that the words ‘cease permanently’ would be more appropriate than ‘cease and do not resume’. However, section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes clear that if any activity required to by an enforcement notice to cease is being carried on at any time after the end of the period for compliance, the person who is then the owner of the land is in breach of the notice and is guilty of an offence. The word ‘cease’ does not, therefore, need further qualification. No injustice would be cause to any party by the correction of the enforcement notice in this respect. Page 154 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

Procedural Matter Both Appeals

9. It became apparent that a supplementary report from the Environment Agency had not been provided to the appellant or local residents. Also not all the correspondence from local residents had been provided to me or to the appellant. Missing documents were re-submitted following the Hearing as detailed below and the appellant’s comments, as appropriate, were received by the Planning Inspectorate as written submissions. All documents were taken into account in the determination of the appeal.

Procedural Matter Appeal B

10. The application describes the proposed development as retention of the abattoir wash water tank. “Retention” is not development as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act. I have dealt with the appeal as relating to development already carried out under section 73A of the Act and have amended the description accordingly.

Reasons Appeal A Ground (a) and Appeal B

11. From the reasons for refusal and the reasons for issuing the notice the main issues in these appeals are whether the development is appropriately located having regard to the living conditions of local residents and, if appropriate, whether the installation of a suitable cap could be required by condition so as to mitigate any harm arising from the emission of offensive odours.

12. Ranks Green comprises a modest hamlet with a scattered group of farm buildings and dwellings, with some commercial uses including a farm shop and abattoir operated by the appellant at Blixes Farm, south of the road through Rank’s Green and some 500m east of the access to the appeal site at Little Warley Hall Farm. The tank is located some 250m north of the road near the northern edge of a working farmyard within an area of hardstanding. It is constructed of concrete segments secured together in a circular arrangement some 3m above ground and with a diameter of around 12m and a capacity of some 1.5 milli on litres. To the west of the tank is a container housing deodorising equipment and associated plant and materials.

13. The spreading of the wash water on the land, which predates the construction of the tank, requires a licence from the Environment Agency (EA) (a deployment) upon which conditions can be imposed. The deployment states upon which fields the spreading can take place and the appellant explained that, in order to keep odour impact to a minimum, it is desirable for the most part to spread on land to the north of the road when wind conditions are favourable. It was explained that locating the tank at Little Warley Hall Farm enabled spreading on the northern fields when wind and ground conditions were favourable, in the most efficient manner.

Policy

14. In addition to matters controlled by the EA matters of waste disposal are covered by policies of Essex County Council, as Waste Planning Authority, (WPA) and pertinent policies of Braintree District Council as Local Planning Authority.

15. Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (2001) (WLP) Policy W3A states that the waste planning authorities will:- Page 155 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

1. In determining planning applications and in all consideration of waste management proposals have regard to the following principles:

• Consistency with the goals and principles of sustainable development;

• Whether the proposal represents the best practicable environmental option for the particular waste stream and at that location;

• Whether the proposal would conflict with other options further up the waste hierarchy;

• Conformity with the proximity principle.

2. In considering proposals for managing waste and in working with the WDAs and WCAs and industrial and commercial organisations, promote waste reduction, re-use of waste, waste recycling/composting, energy recovery from waste in that order of priority.

3. Identify specific locations and areas of search for waste management facilities, and existing and potential landfill sites, which together enable adequate provision to be made for Essex, Southend and regional waste management needs as defined in Policies W3B and W3C.

16. WLP Policy W10E states that when granting planning permission for waste management facilities, the WPA will impose conditions and/or enter into legal agreements as appropriate to ensure that the site is operated in a manner acceptable to the WPA and that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

17. Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 (BLP) Policy RLP36 states that planning permission will not be granted for new development, extensions and changes of use which would have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area, as a result of a number of factors including smells.

18. BLP Policy RLP62 relates specifically to development likely to give rise to pollution, or the risk of pollution and requires adequate preventative measures to be taken to ensure that any discharges or emissions, including those which require the consent of statutory agencies, will not cause harm to land use, including the effects on health and the natural environment.

19. BLP Policy RLP90 states that the Council seeks a high standard of layout and design and sets out a number of criteria to be met.

Living conditions

20. The tank was constructed in 2012 for the purpose of holding wash water from the appellant’s abattoir at Blixes Farm prior to it being spread on farmland as a fertiliser by pumping. The wash water is brought by tanker from the abattoir and contains blood, animal faeces and small particles of flesh that have passed through a sieve.

21. Following the construction and bringing into use of the tank neighbouring residents complained of offensive odours. The EA conducted an investigation and reported in October 2013, with a revised report issued in January 2014. Both reports concluded whilst an odour was detected on several occasions it was at a level to be expected of a storage tank and that the storage of abattoir wash water would not be expected to be odour free at all times. Page 156 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

22. The background to the EA investigation was that there were 47 reports between 20 December 2012 and 10 August 2013 of odour believed to originate from the tank. The conclusion from the reports was that a maximum of 23 of these reports could have related to odour emanating from the tank or land spreading. Monitoring by ten different EA staff members was undertaken at six monitoring points between 10 June 2013 and 2 August 2013 and on 10 occasions the tank was identified as the probable source of odour.

23. Complaints about odour continued with residents stating that they were unable to spend time in the gardens. During the appeal process representations have been received from individual residents, both in relation to the original appeal process and following the quashing of the decision by order of the High Court, and via a planning consultant acting on behalf of a residents group.

24. Whilst it may be the case that a number of the reports of odour may have resulted from the spreading of wash water, as suggested by the EA, complaints only commenced in volume following the bringing into use of the tank whereas the spreading pre-dates this. Although there may be some overstatement by residents of the level and frequency of offensive odour, many of the complainants have lived in the area for a considerable time and are familiar with the smells characteristic of agricultural operations. I therefore give their views as to the effect on their lives of the tank considerable weight.

25. Furthermore I note that the EA accepts that the tank produces odour ‘at a level that would be expected of a storage tank’. At the time of my site visit there was a perceptible odour in the vicinity of the tank which was unlike other ‘farmyard’ smells. Whilst this odour was limited, both in intensity and range, it is likely that changes in air temperature, the precise make-up of the contents of the tank and the length of time that the waste water has remained in the tank would all influence the intensity and nature of odours.

26. It is reasonable to conclude that the use of the waste water storage tank as existing results, on occasions, in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents by virtue of offensive odour and therefore is in conflict with BLP Policies RLP36 and RLP62.

Location

27. Prior to the installation of the tank some of the waste water was spread on the fields but the remainder was taken further afield when ground or wind/weather conditions precluded local spreading. The provision of the tank facilitates temporary storage pending suitable conditions for re-use/recycling of the waste water within a few hundred metres of its source by spreading on the fields to the north. The use of the tank is, therefore, consistent with the long held proximity principle and other goals and principles as expressed in WLP Policy W3A.

28. However as concluded above, the tank as constructed and operated results in significant detrimental impact on living conditions of neighbours with regard to odours. In that respect the development fails to comply with WLP Policy W10E.

Other Matters

29. The appellant has indicated that waste water has to be taken from the abattoir before 06:00 but that there are unlikely to be more than six movements to the tank per week and that should the tank be full tankers will travel further afield Page 157 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

past the appeal site. Local residents disagree and claim that tankers registered to industrial waste companies visit the site. Little Warley Hall Farm is a working farm where a number of different farming activities take place resulting in lawful traffic movements which have the potential for causing disturbance. In the absence of any evidence as to additional movements of waste material to the tank I can give little weight to this matter which would, in any event, be a matter for the EA to consider.

30. The appellant provided information on technical matters and the operations of the business. I have taken these into account insofar as they are pertinent to the appeal. It is clear that spreading of abattoir wash water would continue, regardless of the outcome of the appeals and that tanker movements through the village would continue.

31. A number of local residents have made representations suggesting that the tank should be located elsewhere, specifically at the abattoir itself. In these appeals I am concerned only with the tank as built and not taken account of submissions relating to alternative locations. Similarly I have made no consideration as to whether the wash water is industrial waste or not and whether the storage is temporary or permanent for the purposes of the Environment Agency.

Mitigation

32. In its response to the planning application, the EA concluded that the current odour control mechanisms, namely the de-odourising ring and associated apparatus, were inadequate. This is borne out by the submissions by local residents who complained that the equipment just made matters worse. Nevertheless, the appellant reiterated at the Hearing that he was willing to install a cover on the tank to an agreed specification.

33. Whilst residents have expressed doubts as to whether an adequate form of capping could be provided, Essex County Council granted planning permission for the installation of a sealed rectangular plastic polyester coated fabric bladder tank complete with vent pipes and drum type activated filters, measuring 29.20m long x 25.6m wide x 2.80m deep of which 1.1m would be above ground level to facilitate the storage of abattoir wash water at slaughter house at Blixes Farm, Ranks Green Road, Fairstead, Essex CM3 2BH (Ref ESS/33/15/BTE). Both Essex County Council and the Environment Agency confirmed that similar odour control mechanisms to those included in the approved scheme could be applied to the appeal tank and that these mechanisms would prevent the emission of odours and successfully deal with the harm and conflict with development plan policy described above.

34. Given the advice of the County Council and the Environment Agency I am satisfied that suitable and effective capping and odour control mechanisms could be installed on the tank such that the objections to its use would be outweighed.

35. I am content that a suitably worded condition could be imposed on any grant of planning permission to ensure that the tank is provided with an approved suitable means of capping and odour control and that these mechanisms remain in place, thereby overcoming any objections in relation to the harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to offensive odours. Page 158 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

Conclusion Appeal A ground (a) and Appeal B

36. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Provided adequate odour control mechanisms are put in place, and retained, the provision of the abattoir wash water tank in its current location, for the storage of wash water prior to its spreading on land subject to an Environment Agency Deployment, would represent a sustainable form of development consistent with the general principles of waste management and with Development Plan Policy, including BLP Policy RLP90 which states that the Council seeks a high standard of layout and design.

37. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material planning issues raised Appeal A succeeds on ground (a) and Appeal B succeeds.

Appeal A ground (f)

38. Under ground (f) the appellant pleaded that in the event of the ground (a) appeal failing the tank could be used for an alternative agricultural purpose. Given the above conclusion on ground (a) it is not necessary to further consider the ground (f) appeal.

Conditions

39. A condition requiring the approval, implementation and retention of a scheme to install a cap and filtering system on the tank is necessary in the interest of residential amenity.

40. A condition requiring that any alterations to the tank be approved by the Waste Planning Authority is necessary to ensure that no alterations detrimental to residential or other amenity occur.

41. The Waste Planning Authority suggested a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a landscape scheme. The development is located within a working farmyard containing a variety of substantial structures. A condition requiring landscaping would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

42. The Waste Planning Authority also suggested a condition requiring the provision of wheel washing equipment. Vehicles leaving the appeal site would not have passed over ground where they would be likely to accumulate any significant amount of material which could be deposited on the highway. Therefore such a condition would be unreasonable.

43. A condition restricting the number of vehicle movements to the storage tank is unreasonable and unnecessary given that any additional movements of wash water from the abattoir would still pass through the village to a disposal point further afield.

44. A condition restricting the use of the tank to the storage and transfer of abattoir wash water is necessary to prevent any deleterious material being transferred to the land by spreading.

Andrew Hammond

Inspector

Page 159 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Stuart Rowe, The Planning and Design Bureau Ltd Mr Paul Humphries Mrs Lynn Humphries

FOR THE LOCAL WASTE AUTHORITY: Mr Glen Shaw Ms Zoe Wilson

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Mr Ralph Robinson Mr Mike Neale

INTERESTED PERSONS: Mr Richard Mabb, Mabb Planning for local residents (site visit only) Mr Alan Cooper. Local resident Cllr James Abbott Mrs Lewis. Local Resident Mrs J Cooper. Local Resident Mr A Cooper. Local resident Mr Colin Adams. Local businessman Mr Stuart Hills. Local resident Mr R Warner. Local resident Mr M Easey. Local resident

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING 1) Correspondence from Mr C Adams to the Planning Inspectorate 2) Letter from Ranks Green Residents in response to the Environment Agency Report 3) Response by the appellant to the EA report and above correspondence. PHOTOGRAPHS 1) Photograph purporting to show a leak from the tank, provided by Mr Cooper

Page 160 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decisions APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003, APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007

Annex 1 Schedule of Conditions

1) Except as required by condition 2) below no alterations to the development permitted shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

2) The use of the tank for the transfer and storage of abattoirs wash water hereby permitted shall cease and all structures, equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 30 days of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i to iv below: i. Within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the capping of the storage tank and the installation of filtering equipment shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and the scheme shall include scale drawings, an indicative guide of function during operation and a timetable for its implementation. ii. If within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. iii. If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv. The approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable.

Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be retained and remain in use.

In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

3) No liquids or materials other than abattoir wash water shall be deposited in the tank at any time.

End of Schedule of Conditions.

Page 161 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9

Page 162 of 176

Costs Decision Hearing held on 6 October 2016 Site visit made on 6 October 2016 by Andrew R Hammond MSc MA CEng MIET MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 10 January 2017

Costs application in relation to Appeal A Ref: APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003 and Appeal B Ref: APP/Z1585/A/14/2220007 Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Green CM3 2BG • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 174, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr Paul Humphries for a full award of costs against Essex County Council. • The hearing was in connection with an appeal against an enforcement notice alleging the construction of an abattoir wash water storage tank and de-odourising ring apparatus including associated equipment and container (Appeal A) and an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the same development (Appeal B). • The hearing was held following a decision dated 19 May 2015 on the appeal being remitted for re-hearing and determination by order of the High Court.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.

The submissions for Mr Paul Humphries

2. The application was made in writing, with additional points raised at the Hearing. The main points in the written submission being that the Council’s behaviour was unreasonable in that it refused permission setting aside the advice of professional officers without substantiating that position using evidence. The Council failed to substantiate the first reason for refusal, namely that the tank is located in an inappropriate location in terms of sustainable development. With regard to the second reason for refusal the Council raised odour nuisance as an issue despite the Environment agency’s objective assessment to the contrary and, in any event, any objection on such grounds could be overcome by conditions. The issue of the enforcement notice was unnecessary as planning permission should have been granted. As such the Council behaved unreasonably and the appellant was put to unnecessary expense in appealing against the refusal and the enforcement notice.

3. The Council had failed to respond to the terms of the High Court Judgement finding that the original inspector erred in concluding that she was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether a cover would provide a solution.

The response by Essex County Council

4. The Council also submitted their response in writing. The Committee decision was a matter of judgement concernPage 163ing of the 176 merits of the proposal and this was www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Costs Decision APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003

a judgement that the Committee was entitled to take. The Council accepts that it did not provide evidence to substantiate reason for refusal 2 but such evidence is provided by 3rd party submissions and in part by the Environment Agency report.

5. The Council contends that it acted appropriately with regard to the refusal of planning permission and the issue of the enforcement notice.

Reasons

6. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

7. A planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if they behave unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal. Examples include failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal and vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. In addition a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs in enforcement proceedings if it is concluded that an appeal could have been avoided by more diligent investigation that would have avoided the need to serve the notice in the first place.

8. With regard to the Council’s reasons for refusal against officer advice these were not substantiated by any evidence or justification except the submissions by local residents. Whilst those submissions were given considerable weight in the determination of the appeal they do not support the conclusion that the concerns could not have been addressed by the imposition of a condition requiring the tank to be capped, as suggested by the appellant and acknowledged by the Environment Agency.

9. The location of the tank complies with the proximity principle in that it is located close to both the source of the waste water and the area where it is spread. It is compliant with Council policy in this respect.

10. The Council could have granted planning permission subject to a condition requiring the installation of a cap to an approved design. This would have met the objections to the scheme and the Council acted unreasonably in refusing such planning permission, against officer advice, without reasoned justification.

11. The refusal of planning permission, and hence the serving of the enforcement notice did, therefore, constitute unreasonable behaviour by the Council resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense on behalf of the appellant in pursuing the appeals. A full award of costs is therefore justified.

Costs Order

12. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Essex County Council shall pay to Mr Paul Humphries, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

Page 164 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Costs Decision APP/Z1585/C/14/2220003

13. The applicant is now invited to submit to Essex County Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Andrew Hammond

Inspector

Page 165 of 176 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3

Page 166 of 176 AGENDA ITEM 7.2

DR/05/17

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017 ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL – INFORMATION ITEM

Enforcement update.

Report by Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth Enquiries to Suzanne Armstrong – Tel: 03330 136 823

1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM

To update members of enforcement matters for the period 01 October to 31 December 2016 (Quarterly Period 4).

2. DISCUSSION

A. Outstanding Cases

As at 31 December 2016 there are 20 outstanding cases. Appendix 1 shows the details of sites (9) where, after investigation, a breach of planning control is considered to have occurred.

B. Closed Cases

6 cases were resolved during the period 01 October to 31 December 2016.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

Countywide

Page 167 of 176 Enforcement Committee Report Location Nature of problem Action Result Remarks Braintree District Little Warley Hall Farm, Ranks Dirty water (waste) Suzanne Armstrong 09-jan-17 Green, Fairstead, Chelmsford, from abattoir and 08:53:02 Essex, CM3 2BG storage tank The appeal decision by the Secretary of State was under challenge by judicial review. The Secretary of State was unsuccessful in defending the inspectors’ conclusions on the Little Warley enforcement notice appeal and deemed planning application. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision by a new inspector. The WPA are awaiting the outcome of the hearing of the 6th October 2016. Further updates will be provided.

Brentwood Borough Land on the South Side of Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 04-jan-17 Church Road, (To the rear of 08:58:23 Lizvale Farm), Church Road, Navestock, Romford, RM4 Importation, deposition and spreading 1HB of waste materials, raising the levels of the land. A Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) was served on the land. Since the service of the TSN no further waste materials have been imported. A planning contravention notice has been served on persons requiring them to provide certain information about the interest in, and activities on the land. Ongoing investigation.

Brindles Farm, Hanging Hill Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 02-dec-16 Lane, Hutton, Essex, CM13 08:29:35 2HN A material change of use of the land to land used for the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials, (including soils, rubble and other similar waste materials) subsequently raising the levels of the land. An enforcement notice has been served for the removal of the waste, the notice has taken effect and full compliance is due by the 24th August 2017.

Page 168 of 176

Page 1 Of 4 09/01/2017

Lo ca tion Na tu re of prob lem Action Res ult Re marks Brentwood Borough

Waterworks Spring, Dagwood Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 07-dec-16 Lane, Doddinghurst, 11:27:19 Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0RX Without the benefit of planning permission, the use of the land for the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials (including soils, rubble and other similar waste materials), raising the levels of the land. A Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) was served on the 4th November 2016 and an enforcement notice on the 27th October 2016. The notice requires to cease and do not resume, the importation, deposition, storing and spreading of waste materials, to remove from the land all waste materials and restore the land. The notice has taken effect and full compliance is due by the 25th December 2017.

Spring Farm, Murthering Skip Company Suzanne Armstrong 09-jan-17 Lane (opposite Curtis Mill operating from land 09:00:39 Lane), Romford, Essex, RM4 1HL Importation, deposition, storing and processing of waste. A site visit has been carried out and a planning contravention notice is to be served on the land owner requesting further information relating to the current activities on the land.

Colchester Borough Gean Trees, The Causeway, Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 09-jan-17 Great Horkesley, Colchester, 09:53:56 CO6 4EJ The importation, deposition, processing and storage of waste subsequently raising the levels of the land. An ongoing Joint investigation by The Waste Planning Authority and the EA. An enforcement notice has been served. The notice took effect on the 28th September 2015 and compliance was due by the 28th January 2016. A site visit has confirmed that the enforcement notice has not been complied with. The WPA has commenced prosecution proceedings for non- compliance with the enforcement notice. The case is to be heard at Colchester Magistrates Court on the 31st January 2017. A further update will follow.

Page 169 of 176

Page 2 Of 4 09/01/2017

Lo ca tion Na tu re of prob lem Action Res ult Re marks

Maldon District Asheldham Quarry, Concrete batching Suzanne Armstrong 04-jan-17 Southminster Road, plant 09:38:55 Asheldham, Essex, CM0 7DZ Application ESS/25/15/MAL for the retention of the concrete batching plant was refused and as part of the original decision it was recommended an enforcement notice be served for the removal of the concrete batching plant. An enforcement notice was served on the 11th January 2016. The notice took effect on the 10th February 2016 and compliance was due by 10th July 2016. The applicants’ agent appealed the enforcement notice; however the Planning Inspectorate declined the appeal on the grounds of the application being out of time. A new application was submitted, for the retention of the concrete batching plant, with the applicant seeking to address the previous applications reasons for refusal, as well as providing a revised location along with additional infrastructure. The new application ESS/20/16/MAL was an application for a temporary permission with a number of amendments to the original application, including the relocation of the existing batching plant, some new development and some retrospective. Application ESS/20/16/Mal was refused on the 12th August 2016. An appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

Page 170 of 176

Page 3 Of 4 09/01/2017

Lo ca tion Na tu re of prob lem Action Res ult Re marks Maldon District

Rear of Greystones, Scraley Waste operations Suzanne Armstrong 09-jan-17 Road, Heybridge, Maldon, 08:57:38 Essex, CM9 8JA A waste transfer facility is operating from this land. The land owner has been advised that all waste operations should cease and the waste be cleared from the land. A timescale has been agreed and a follow up visit will be carried out to ensure compliance.

Uttlesford District New Farm, Elsenham Road, Importation of waste Suzanne Armstrong 04-jan-17 Stansted, CM24 8SS 09:40:39

Importation, depositing, storing and spreading of waste materials on the land. On the 5th October 2015 an enforcement notice was served. The land owner and tenant appealed the enforcement notice. The Planning Inspectorate issued their decision in relation to the appeal on the 1st July 2016. The appeal against the enforcement notice was allowed on ground (g) such that 12 months has been given for the removal of the waste and restore the land, which commences from the 1st July 2016. The removal is required by the 1st July 2017.

Page 171 of 176

Page 4 Of 4 09/01/2017

Page 172 of 176 AGENDA ITEM 7.3

DR/06/17

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION

Date 27 January 2017

INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics

Report by Director of Operations, Environment & Economy

Enquiries to Emma Robinson – tel: 03330 131 512 or email: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM

To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

None.

Ref: P/DM/Emma Robinson/

MEMBER NOTIFICATION

Countywide.

Major Planning Applications SCHEDULE Nº. Pending at the end of November 19

Nº. Decisions issued in December 4

Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 32

Overall % in 13 weeks or in 16 weeks for EIA applications or applications 100% within the agreed extensions of time this financial year (Target 60%)

Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 3

Nº. Section 106 Agreements pending at the end of December 8

Page 173 of 176

Minor Applications % of minor applications in 8 weeks or applications within the agreed 98% extensions of time this financial year (Target 70%)

Nº. Pending at the end of November 9

Nº. Decisions issued in December 4

Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 45

Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 2

All Applications Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in December 5

Nº. Committee determined applications issued in December 3

Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 109

Nº. of Submission of Details pending at the end of December 77

Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers in December 0

Appeals Nº. of outstanding planning and enforcement appeals at end of December 2

Nº. of appeals allowed in the financial year 0

Nº. of appeals dismissed in the financial year 0

Enforcement Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 20

Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 6

Nº. of enforcement notices issued in December 0

Nº. of breach of condition notices issued in December 0

Nº. of planning contravention notices issued in December 0

Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices issued in December 0

Nº. of Stop Notices issued in December 0 Page 174 of 176 AGENDA ITEM 8

DR/07/17

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 January 2017

INFORMATION ITEM Dates of Future Meetings

Report by Clerk to the Committee

Enquiries to Matthew Waldie – tel: 033301 34583 or email: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM

To inform Members of the proposed meeting dates to end of April 2018.

2. MEETING DATES

2017 Friday 24 February Friday 24 March Friday 21 April * Friday 26 May Friday 23 June Friday 28 July Friday 25 August Friday 22 September Friday 27 October Friday 24 November Friday 15 December *

2018 Friday 26 January Friday 23 February Friday 23 March Friday 27 April

* Third Friday

All meetings scheduled for 10:30 am, with Members’ training at 9:30 am.

Page 175 of 176

Page 176 of 176