Site Location

Application Area

Site location

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected] Application Area

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

20 .10 Gy 1 119 1 119.73 .37 8 .

1 1 19 Bg .76 118.90 1 118.63 1 Sp 1 119.01 11 118.69 18.5 9.1 8.68 2 5 118.84 118.33 .56 11 118 118.40 8. 118.64 118.19 1 81 Application Area 1 118.45 118.32 11 9 .37 Gy . 1 118.78 Bg 118 8. 7 18 08 5 . 118. 65 65 .59 Sp Gy 118 Fl 1 118.78 Fl Tp 1 Tp 118.64 ICU 8 . 118.34 0 1 Tp 1 0 119.07 1 ICU Tp 1 8 118.81 8 1 . 118.49 . 119.16 9 3 2 119.25 118.92 6 118.66 1 0 Ep 1 . 1 117.99 1 1 7 1 Stay . 1 8 8 Stay 118.48 119.71 4 . .72 118.59 9 117

1 3 117.71 19 119.38 1

. 1 9 8 4 119.38 118.80 .9 118.18 0 118.24 1 118.26 1 1 118.31 7 1 1 118.16 . 1 1 9 8 Sp 7 3 5 . . 118.63 6 118.20 . 6 9 119.29 2 1 4 1 117.98 1 1 11 8 118.28 7 . .57 1 1 5 1 9 2 0 9 . 118.62 6 117.96 .0 18 . 6 1 7 119 1 .25 1 118.76 117.86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 118.77 8 7 9 1 1 1 . . 117.58 . 9 5 7 8 3 8 1 9 0 . . 5 . 5 7 1 1 0 9 9 0 118.93 1 3 . 118.39 7 1 1 3 . 1 3 117.47 17.57 118.62 1 1 0 1 118.22 9 . 8 117.49 117.74 6 1 . 3 9 1 1 8 118.25 3 1 . 1 5 8 1 8 1 118.37 . 1 2 8

6 7 . 2 . 11 1 4 4 1 1 7

8. 1 7 8 . 118.20 6 4 5 . 8 0 2 . 4 2 9 6 3 1 117.43 . 1 1 0

9 1 0 7 4 1 6 . 7 . 118.08 . 1 4 1 2 8 117.79 . 118.16 3 1 2 1 117.55 0 1 1 1 2 118.00 117.55 7 1 . ICU 2 118.22 3 8 118.041 1 Bg 6 1 . 1 117.93 Bg 8 1 2 8 1 . 1 2 . 118.05 1 0 1 1 1 2 7 117.55 3 7 . 1 9 3 1 . . 117.89 1 8 118.18 2 8 117.84 7 . 1 9 2 7 6 7 1 7 117.40 2 . 117.55 . 9 8 1 9 8 117.65 6 .55 1 7 1 . 1 11 7 1 1 120.14 7 1 1 5 6 9 1 . . 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 . 7 4 1 4 7 .54 . 117.81 17 1 1 2 . 0 7 117.63 7 117.42 6 0 7 . 117.81 5 8 1 1 120.17 . 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 7 1 1 0 7 . . 117.28 1 0 1 4 1 . 1 0 . 7 7 1 117.41 7 1 8 1 1 9 . . 1 7 1 MH 1 1 0 1 8 5 1 7 6 6 120.02 . 119.25 1 . 1 1 . 9 1 6 4 7 1 6 8 7 1 . . 7 9 9 Sp 2 . 117.08 1 118.02 7 1 6 117.78 1 117.39 1 7

1 . 2 6 116. 4 117.27 99 . 117 0 8 .6 3 1 1 117.57 . 1 1 8 117.12 1 1 16 1 5 117.42 . . 117.12 9 78 1 1 117.64 6 Sv 1 1 7 7

117.36 . . 5 4 1 4 5 1 1 1 7 1 117.84 1 . 6 0 117.87 7 1 116.94 . 1

. 1 0

1 6 3 3 . 7 1 1 1 117.12 1 1 5 6

. . 1 1 9 6 1 117.11 7 3 1 117.40 6 MH 7 . . 0 2 1 117.24 1 116.96 6 6 1 1 6 117.42 6 116.76 1 . . 1 7 7 2 Bg 1 7 . 0 117.18 6 . 17 0 1 117.01 7 117.10 1 116.89 1 1 7 1 . 1 0 1 17 6 8 1 .1 . 1 1 0 8 6 1 .7 0 117.42 5 6 . 6 1 3 0 1 . . 2 0 1 1 7 1 1 1 6.4 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 116.50 6 1 7 .8 1 6 3 1 93 1 6 1 6. . 117.25 7 117.00 1 0 . 1 . . 1 9 4 7 7 5 4 9 9 0 . .7 9 116.43 116.76 6 8 1 116.58 1 6 1 1

3 9 1 1 . 1 4 1 7 7 . 6 6 1 .1 7 . 1 0 . 1 117.74 1 7 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 8 5 1 . . 2 1 3 . 4 1 9 1 116.87 1 1 7 6 7 7 6. 3 6 1 116.91 1 0 4 1 1 .

. 9 5 . 6 7 . 1 8 116.22 3 1 7 . 1 1 3 0 1 116.92 3 118.08 Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2011 All rights reserved. 117.81 117.25 1 1 1 1 6 Licence number 0100031673 6 1 . 1 116.41 1 . 1 1 2 Sp 7 1 5 1 1 2 6 . 5 1 116.02 9 . 1 5 6 1 . 6 1 0 7 1 117.81 2 1 2 116.44 . . 5 7 3 1 5 . 6 6 0 . 8 8 1 1 . 3 116.02 8 0 1 1 2 6

. 3 5 1 6 .

7 116.02 117.45 1 116.38 1 118.16 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 116.12 1 5 116.92 . 1 1 6 1 7 . 5 8 5 2 6 0 . . 2 . . 116.40 6 7 6 4 1 7 3 0 11 1 15 116.55 8.1 116.74 6. 1 11

1 3 1 5 8 1 . . 1 6 8 5 1 .5 5 5 6 5 . . 1 5 49 1 1 116.57 1 8 1 117.13 115.55 115.48 1 1 8 117.13 1 15 .1 116.15 1 .5 1 5 5 116.55 1 .6 6 3 1 7 . 1 115.51 5 5 1 1 . 1 1 9 116.57 1 6 1 1 1 116.19 7 1 1 6 . . 1 5 . 1 6 6 6 . 8 2 5 115.55 1 . 0 3 0 1 .4 9 117 1 1 1 5 1 1 115.48 1 .4 1 6 5 6 1 1 1 . . 115.85 1 3 5 15 Sp 0 5 115.11 0 3 . .6 . 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 6 6 1 7 . 6 . . 5 116.19 1 4 115.73 1 2 11 2 . 0 1 6 4 4 116.03 115.97 . 9 Biffa Waste Services Ltd. 1 1 0 1 Portland House 1 Mkr 5 1 1 . 1 1 89 1 Bickenhill Lane 5 1 5 5 . . 5 . 7 0 Birmingham 0 . 1 9 8 9 8 114.83 1 1 1 Tel. 0121 6616710 15 11 114.81 4 .5 5 . Fax. 0121 7828754 3 1 .49 6 1 0 5. 1 61 1 5. E-mail [email protected] 1 14 15 .16 1 1 1 15 6 4 . 6 . 48 . 9 4 2 115.59 114.55 11 1 4.39 1 1 Bg 1 Sv Mkr 5 1 1 . 1 115.43 5 1 5 1 . Sv 5 5 5 1 2 Mkr . 1 7 4 114.37 Sp 1 3 . 3 5

115.19 4 1 114.45 . 114.25 4 1

8 4

115.18 8 4 Sp 4 . 5 1 114.21 1 1 BH 1 115.40 5 1 . 15 3 . 7 41 37 5. 11 114 17

Bg Gy Application Area Sp Gy Fl Fl Tp Tp ICU Tp ICU Tp Storm Water Drainage Ep Foul Drainage

Stay Stay Water Overhead Electricity Underground Electricity Telephone Sp

ICU Bg Bg

oned) Aband ewer ( Foul S MH

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Mkr Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected]

Bg Mkr Sv Sv Mkr Sp

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

5. AIR QUALITY AND ODOUR

This chapter presents the findings of the air quality assessment. The chapter includes a description of the proposed Soil Treatment Facility (STF) and the legislation and policy framework relating to air quality and odour issues associated with soil remediation facilities of this type. It also establishes the current air quality conditions within the defined study area and describes the methodology used to assess the potential air quality effects. The assessment has been undertaken to identify whether there could potentially be any significant effects associated with emissions to air from operation of the soil treatment facility, and to ensure that these can be properly addressed in the design and operation of the proposed facility.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Scoping and Key Issues, the assessment is set against a baseline of no permitted development at the site. The term “Proposed Development” refers to the development of the approved 29,999 tonnes per annum facility as described in Chapter 4 Development Description.

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Emissions to air

A full description of the STF and remediation process is provided in Chapter 4 Development Description. During operation, the STF will have a number of potential emission sources to air which may give rise to emissions of dust, including fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), odour and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). There are several potential sources of these substances throughout the STF process; these are as follows:

¡ Dust generated during the construction process could potentially cause a nuisance to local residents, unless properly controlled.

¡ Plenum (area between the pipes and soil typically consisting of pea gravel to maintain airflow) storage area (fugitive dust);

¡ Storage of the soil additive (nitrogen fertiliser) (fugitive dust, odour and VOCs);

¡ Initial soil placement and establishment of biopiles on treatment pads including the division of contaminated soil into lots (fugitive dust, odour and VOCs);

¡ Soil treatment process including soil turning (fugitive dust, odour and VOCs); and

¡ Biofilter treating air from the biopiles (odour and VOCs).

Throughout the year there will be approximately 1,600 deliveries of soil. This is equivalent to a daily average of less than five deliveries of soil per day and therefore less than 10 additional daily vehicle movements. The impact on air quality due to these additional movements can be screened out as insignificant and does not need to be considered in this assessment.

5.1.2 Incorporated Mitigation

In view of the potential for adverse environmental effects, the design and operation of the STF is intended to ensure that fugitive emissions of dust, odour and VOCs are minimised.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-1

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

The main source of emissions from the STF will be from the soil treatment process itself. The bioremediation process that will be employed at the STF requires the soil to have a high moisture content, which directly reduces the risk of fugitive dust and reduces the volatilization of VOCs. In addition, the biopiles may also be covered with a tarpaulin where necessary – this being dependent on factors such as contamination type and meteorological conditions in accordance with an operations method statement.

The biopiles will be placed upon the soil treatment pads, which are large impermeable areas of hardstanding with perforated aeration pipes at the bottom used to draw air through the contaminated soil to maintain the aerobic bacterial activity at its optimal level.

This operating system creates a vacuum in the biopile by drawing air through the pile. This puts the pile under negative pressure drawing more air into the soil and preventing air from escaping from the biopile. After being drawn through the soil, water is separated from the air, which then passes through a biofilter, which treats biodegradation products and removes potentially odour compounds from the air, before being vented to atmosphere.

In addition to the biofilter, daily visual monitoring and sniff testing around the site will be carried out to determine if the various storage areas / process materials need to be damped down further to reduce any fugitive emissions of dust, odour and VOCs, or whether the biopiles need to be covered by tarpaulins.

5.1.3 Scope of Study

An environmental risk assessment has been carried out to determine if the proposed mitigation measures, as described above, are sufficient to reduce the risk of impact at nearby sensitive receptors.

As described in Section 5.1.1 the impact of emissions from the additional traffic accessing the development has been scoped out and does not required further assessment.

5.2 Legislation and Planning Context

5.2.1 Policy

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Statement 23 (Planning and Pollution Control) 1 sets out the Government’s core policies and principles in relation to planning and pollution control. It affirms that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. Accordingly, the planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than seeking to control the processes or emissions themselves. It advises that quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to an impact on health, are potentially material considerations. The policies in this statement and the advice in the accompanying Annex 1: Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality should be taken into account when making decisions on individual planning applications.

1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004). Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23) Planning and Pollution Control

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-2

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

Regional Planning Policy

On 6 July 2010, the Secretary of State announced in a Parliamentary statement that all Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) in place at that date were revoked. On 10 November 2010, following a claim for judicial review brought by Cala Homes in relation to the South East RSS, the High Court held the decision announced on 6 July 2010 was unlawful, in relation to the South East RSS; the judgment applies with equal force on all RSSs. On 19 November 2010, Cala Homes issued a second claim for judicial review against the Secretary of State. This challenged a statement made by the Secretary of State on 10 November 2010 in a letter written by the government's chief planner sent to all local planning authorities. This stated that, when determining applications for planning permission in the period before RSSs are revoked, regard should be had to the government's commitment to abolish the regional tier of development plan policy through legislation. That intention was to be a material consideration for the purposes of section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). The High Court rejected Cala's submission that the government's intention to abolish RSSs could not amount to a material consideration under the TCPA 1990. The Court stated that material considerations could include a government's intention to reform the existing system, even if the intention was to remove an integral element. However, the weight that decision-makers afford to provisions of RSSs, pending the government's intention to legislate to abolish them, is for the decision maker to decide.

Cala Homes subsequently lodged an appeal in the Court of Appeal against this decision. On 5 April 2011 the Government announced that an environmental assessment of the revocation of regional spatial strategies will be undertaken. The process of environmental assessment will be carried out during the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament. In its decision of 27 May 2011, the Court of Appeal held that the Government’s intention to revoke could be a lawful material consideration in planning decisions. However, it is also noted that the intention to revoke may only be worthy of weight in very few cases given the indeterminate legal obstacles to be cleared in the Parliamentary process and strategic environmental assessment process before regional strategies could legally be revoked. Therefore, the RSS does form part of the development plan.

Policy QE4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (RSSWM) 2 Greenery, Urban Greenspace and Public Spaces point C states the following:

“Local authorities and others should also encourage patterns of development which maintain and improve air quality...”

Chapter 8 of the policy covers the Quality of the Environment which contains a section on air quality. The section states that air quality in the region is improving however air quality reviews and action plans will need to be completed at local and sub-regional levels where appropriate in order to identify areas where air quality may be an issue.

Local Planning Policy

The saved Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan3 seeks to ensure that any adverse environmental effects are minimised. This will include the impact on air quality.

The structure plan states that the framework for sustainable planning should:

2 Government Office for the West Midlands, Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands, January 2008 3 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011, saved policies, explanatory memorandum.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-3

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

“conserve both the cultural heritage and natural resources (including wildlife, landscape, water, soil and air quality) taking particular care to safeguard designations of national and international importance”.

Policy D2 of the Structure Plan is also designed to ensure that the adverse environmental impact of development is minimised. This includes the following statement:

“the siting of industrial development should be such that air pollution or other harm is minimised.”

The Stafford Borough Local Plan (SBLP) was adopted in 2001 and is the current development plan for Stafford Borough containing policies directing development proposals and promoting appropriate land-use. Policy E & D1 of the SBLP require that Proposals for the development of buildings should ensure that they are designed, sited and grouped, so as to incorporate effective amenity safeguards.

Conformity with Policy

This assessment confirms that air quality has been taken into account within the design proposals for the proposed STF.

This assessment has been carried out to assess whether the proposed STF is likely to have an impact on local air quality and therefore complies with the national, regional and local planning policies.

5.2.2 Legislation

A focus on local air quality is reflected in the air quality objectives set out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Devolved Administrations Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 4 , which, although not mandatory, represents Government policy on air quality. The UK Air Quality Strategy (AQS) stipulates a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) with respect to ambient levels of air quality. These have been established for both the protection of human health and also the protection of vegetation and include the requirements of the relevant EU Directives5 6 7 8. The AQOs for ambient air quality are laid down in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 No. 10019.

The AQS was updated in July 2007 when a non-statutory, annual average, target 3 for PM2.5 of 25 µg/m , to be achieved by 2020, was included. The strategy also introduced a target of a 15% reduction in concentrations of PM2.5 at urban background locations between 2010 and 2020.

The Air Quality Objectives (AQO) relevant to this study are given in Table 5.1.

4 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2007). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, July 2007 5 First Air Quality Daughter Directive. Council Directive 1999/30/EC 6 Second Air Quality Daughter Directive. Council Directive 2000/69/EC 7 Fourth Air Quality Directive. Council Directive 2004/107/EC 8 Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe 9 Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1001. Environmental Protection. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-4

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

Table 5.1 Air Quality Objectives Relevant to this Assessment

Concentration Pollutant Measured as (µg/m3)

40 Annual mean Particles (PM10) 24 hour mean not to be exceeded more than 35 times 50 th per year (equivalent to the 90.4 percentile)

Particles (PM2.5) 25 Annual mean Benzene* 5 Annual mean Note: Benzene has been selected as this has the most stringent environmental assessment level of VOCs.

5.2.3 Guidance

Local Air Quality Management

Under the Environment Act 1995 local authorities are required to review air quality and assess whether the air quality standards and objectives, set out by the National Air Quality Strategy, are being achieved. This process is referred to as Local Air Quality Management (LAQM).

As part of the LAQM process, Stafford Borough Council (SBC), has found that no Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) are required within its area, suggesting that air quality concentrations within the borough comply with the relevant air quality standards and objectives. This air dispersion modelling carried out by SBC as part of the LAQM process confirmed that no monitoring of PM10 is required in the borough.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has produced relevant technical guidance in relation to LAQM10. This document provides useful guidance for use in the assessment of individual developments to ensure that the findings are aligned for integration into the LAQM process.

H1 Risk Assessment

Environment Agency Guidance Note H1 Annex (a)11 provides guidance on assessing the amenity and accidental risks from installations and waste operations. This guidance includes the assessment of odour and fugitive emissions.

Dust Deposition

There is no statutory air quality criterion for dust nuisance in the UK, or published by the European Commission or World Health Organisation. However, in the UK, a “custom and practice” limit of 200 mg/m2/day (over a calendar month) is used for measurements with dust deposition gauges (providing results in mass per unit area per unit time). This guideline is used widely in environmental assessments12.

Odour Management

10 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2009). Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09), Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 “Local Air Quality Management: Technical Guidance,” 11 Environment Agency. (2010). H1 Environmental Risk Assessment, Annex (a) Amenity and accident risks from installations and waste operations, April 2010 12 Environment Agency, Technical Guidance Document (Monitoring), M17: Monitoring of Particulate Matter in Ambient Air around Waste Facilities, March 2004

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-5

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

The Environment Agency Guidance Note H4 Odour Management sets out guidance for the management of odours at installations. The guidance also contains benchmarks for odour concentrations based on the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations. These odour benchmarks are given in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Odour Relevant to this Assessment

Concentration Odour Category 3 Measured as (ouE/m )

Most offensive 1.5 Moderately 3 98th percentile of hourly averages offensive Less offensive 6

For odour generated by the biopiles and storage area an odour benchmark of 3 3 1.5 ouE/m would be the most relevant. An odour benchmark of 3 ouE/m would be assigned to odours generated from the biofilter.

5.3 Assessment Methodology

5.3.1 Outline Approach

The assessment has been carried out through systematically reviewing existing potential hazards, and identifying those control measures and procedures in place which act to mitigate the probability of occurrence or severity of impact.

The method follows the approach provided in the risk assessment methodology in the Environment Agency H1 Annex (a) 11 guidance note.

The H1 Environmental Risk Assessment gives a four-step process for assessing the activities such as waste operations. These include:

1) Identification of the risk; 2) Compete a risk assessment for each risk; 3) Identify appropriate mitigation measures to control these risks; and 4) Present the findings.

This risk assessment will consider the environmental risk due to odour and fugitive emissions from the proposed STF.

As part of the risk assessment for each of the identified risks the assessment will consider the following:

The steps taken to manage the risk;

The chances of causing harm; and

How serious could the harm be.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-6

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

5.3.2 Assessing the Risk

A procedure of rating the assessment of environmental risks has been adopted for the risk assessment to facilitate a consistent approach. The rating of risks is based on potential accident hazards as defined in the following equation.

Risk Rating = Probability of occurrence x Severity of occurrence

Each accident hazard presented has been assessed using the probability categories in Table 5.3 and the severity categories in Table 5.4.

Table 5.3 Probability Categories

Probability Description Almost Certain Occurs at least once a day Very frequent Occurs at least once a week Frequent Occurs at least once a month Probable Occurs at least once per year Unlikely Occurs between once per 10 years and once every year Very Unlikely Occurs between once per 100 years and once every 10 years

Table 5.4 Severity Categories

Consequence Description Severe widespread environmental damage, irreversible National media interest and adverse publicity Catastrophic Loss of over £50,000 and litigation certain Site Shutdown Severe widespread environmental damage, irreversible Major National media interest and adverse publicity Litigation certain Large-scale environmental impact beyond site boundary, irreversible Severe Local media interest, careful public relations required Litigation expected Moderate environmental impact within and outside the facility but no lasting environmental damage Significant Potential for adverse publicity Complaints and litigation possible Noticeable nuisance / impact off-site Noticeable A notification to the EA Complaints likely Nuisance on site only (no off-site effects) Minor No outside complaints Positive environmental improvement, reduced environmental impact Positive Good for stakeholder relations

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-7

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

The risk ratings have been assessed according to the following score categories provided in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Risk Magnitude Scoring System

Consequence Catastrophic Major Severe Significant Noticeable Minor Positive Very Unlikely Unlikely Probable Frequent Very Frequent Almost Certain Probability

Key

Positive impact - minus score

Low impact - scores 1-6

Medium impact - scores 8-16

High impact - scores 18-36

5.3.1 Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors include members of the public who may be exposed to releases arising from the operation of the proposed STF. Exposure is normally considered at locations such as domestic dwellings, hospitals and schools. A number of the closest potentially sensitive receptors have been identified within 2 km of the STF. Sensitive receptors located further away are less likely to be impacted by the development. The sensitive receptors are given in Table 5.6 and shown in Figure 5.1. The direction and distances given in Table 5.6 are estimated from the centre of the proposed development.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-8

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

Table 5.6 Sensitive Receptor Locations

Location Approximate Approximate Reference Description distance direction Easting (m) Northing (m) from site (m) from site 1 Residential property on Cotes Lane 384473 334642 1,400 Northwest 2 Pilstones Cottages 385213 334555 890 North 3 Swynnerton Grange 386286 334794 1,300 Northeast 4 The Highlows 386527 333737 990 East 5 Beatty Hall 386574 333492 1,060 East 6 Meadow Butts Farm 386497 333055 1,170 Southeast Residential property on Fieldside, 7 386330 332986 1,080 Southeast Yarnfield 8 Orbital Industrial units 385510 333067 660 South Residential property on South 9 385560 332802 930 South Road, Coldmeece 10 Meece House 385361 332675 1,070 South 11 Brookside Business Park 384558 332218 1,800 Southwest Residential property off Old Hall 12 383668 333182 1,950 Southwest Lane, Millmeece Residential property off Old Hall 13 383651 333252 1,950 Southwest Lane, Millmeece 14 New Birch House Farm 384204 333978 1,360 West

5.3.2 Meteorological data

Meteorological data for the dispersion modelling study were obtained from the Met Office. The most appropriate meteorological station to represent weather conditions at the site is the Shawbury weather station. This station is located approximately 33 km to the southwest of the site and is located in a similar rural location to the proposed site.

Five years of hourly sequential data recorded from 1999 to 2003, inclusively, at the Shawbury weather station have been used in this study. A wind rose for this period is shown below.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-9

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

5.3.3 Dust during Construction

The release of dust from the construction processes has the potential to impact on air quality, due principally to vehicle movements on site, haul routes and the storage and transfer of materials. The movement of plant (e.g. excavators, dozers and dump trucks) will also have the potential to contribute towards the generation of dust within the vicinity of the site, especially during dry and windy conditions. The excavation, storage, handling and movement of potentially dusty materials are also potential sources for release of dust during construction.

This assessment was carried out by considering the distance to the closest sensitive receptors and specifying the dust management measures that will be implemented to prevent or minimise fugitive dust generation where required.

5.4 Baseline Conditions

The proposed STF site is located in a rural location and located within the boundary of Biffa’s Meece landfill site on land adjacent to the landfill void.

As noted in Chapter 2 Scoping and Key issues, the landfill gas engines associated with the Meece landfill site are located approximately 600 m to the northwest of the proposed STF. Given the typical size of gas engines and the distance between the engines and the proposed STF there are not likely to be any cumulative impacts associated with VOC emissions from the landfill gas engines and the proposed STF.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-10

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

The baseline air quality data selected for use in this assessment for PM10 and PM2.5 were taken from background maps of air quality produced Defra for LAQM and 13 available through the UK air quality archive . The closest PM10 monitoring location is the urban background monitoring location in Stoke. This monitoring station is located approximately 14 km from the proposed site. This is not representative of the assessment area, as it is located in an urban area and some distance from the site. Therefore, there are no suitable baseline air quality monitoring data available for the study area or which would be representative of baseline concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed STF. The baseline air quality concentration for benzene is also available from the background maps.

The baseline air quality concentrations used in this assessment are summarised in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 Baseline concentrations of air pollutants

Substance Value (μg/m3) Data Source Defra annual average background map value for 2011. This is the value 13.3 from the 1 km grid square that the site lies in

PM10 Annual mean PM10 concentration for the 1 km grid square that the site lies 21.5 in, factored to the 90.4th percentile of 24-hour mean concentrations using a factor of 1.62 (derived from the Stoke on Trent automatic monitoring station) Defra annual average background map value for 2011. This is the value PM 8.2 2.5 from the 1 km grid square that the site lies in Defra annual average background map value for 2010. This is the value Benzene 0.22 from the 1 km grid square that the site lies in

There is no background monitoring data available for odour.

13 DEFRA, UK Air Quality Archive, accessed at http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/, Accessed September 2011

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-11

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

5.5 Impact Assessment and Results

5.5.1 Risk Assessment

Table 5.8 Risk Assessment - Odour What do you do that can harm and what could be Managing the risk Assessing the risk harmed What is the Hazard Receptor Pathway Risk management Probability of exposure Consequence overall risk? Odour Very unlikely – Soil additive is unlikely to be odorous. Given Regular sniff testing will be carried out around the Odours emanating from the the size limited quantity of Local site. If odour is detected and the storage of the soil storage of the soil additive Air storage required and the Minor Low Risk population additive to the identified source then this will then be (nitrogen fertiliser) distance to the closest sensitive covered using tarpaulins location is over 600m from the site Sniff testing will be carried out during the placement Odours from the initial soil of the soil to determine if this part of the process is a Unlikely - As the distance to the placement on treatment pads Local Air source of odour. If it is then the soil will be damped closest sensitive location is over Minor Low Risk including the division of the soil population down during the transfer process and covered by 600m from the site into biopiles tarpaulins following placement.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-12

Air will PROPOSEDbe drawn through SOIL TREATMENT the biopile FACILITY to attempt – MEECE to keep it under negative pressure. This air will then pass through a biofilter to abate the odour emissions before being released to atmosphere. Probable - given the risk In addition the regularly sniff testing around the site management options in place Odour from the soil treatment Local Air boundary will identify if odour is detected at the site and the distance to the closest Noticeable Low Risk process including soil turning population boundary. property is over 800m from the site If odour is detected, water will be added to the biopile to damp it down and tarpaulin is available to cover the biopiles to further reduce the risk of odours

Table 5.9 Risk Assessment - Fugitive Emissions What do you do that can harm and what could be Managing the risk Assessing the risk harmed What is the Hazard Receptor Pathway Risk management Probability of exposure Consequence overall risk? Fugitive Emissions Very unlikely - Given the size Regular visual monitoring will be carried out around limited quantity of storage Fugitive dust emissions from the Local the site. If dust is found in the vicinity then the Air required and the distance to the Minor Low Risk Plenum storage area population plenum storage area will be damped down and/or closest sensitive location is over covered with tarpaulins 600m from the site Very unlikely – the soil additive is very unlikely to generate Regular visual monitoring will be carried out around fugitive dust and VOCs. Also Fugitive dust and VOC from the the site. If dust is detected and the storage of the Local verly unlikely given the size storage of the soil additive Air soil additive to the identified source then this will Minor Low Risk population limited quantity of storage (nitrogen fertiliser) then be damped down. and/or covered with required and the distance to the tarpaulins closest sensitive location is over 600m from the site

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-13

What do you do that can harm and what could be ManagingPROPOSED the risk SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECEAssessing the risk harmed What is the Hazard Receptor Pathway Risk management Probability of exposure Consequence overall risk? Regular visual monitoring will be carried out around Initial soil placement on treatment Unlikely - As the distance to the Local the site. If dust is detected during the placement of pads including the division up of Air closest sensitive location is over Minor Low Risk population soil then water will be added to be damp it down the soil into biopiles 600m from the site and/or the piles will be covered with tarpaulins

The soil treatment process requires the soil to be damp; any sign of dust is an indication that the moisture content is too low. If dust is detected water will then be added to the biopile to prevent proliferation of dust and to maintain humidity at an appropriate level to enhance the biodegradation. Probable - given the risk For the odour mitigation, air will be drawn through management options in place Soil treatment process including Local the biopile to attempt to keep it under negative Air and the distance to the closest Minor Low Risk soil turning population pressure. This air will then pass through a biofilter sensitive location is over 600m to abate the odour emissions before being released from the site to atmosphere. This will also help to reduce the levels of dust and VOCs being released.

Tarpaulins will also be available to cover the biopiles to further reduce the risk of dust and VOC emissions if needed.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-14

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY – MEECE

5.5.2 Dust during construction

The dust generated during construction phase will typically drop out of the air within 100 m - 200 m of the source. The closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 600 m from the site boundary and therefore dust generated during construction is not likely to be significant at the closest sensitive receptors.

In order to ensure fugitive dust emissions are controlled to acceptable levels, regular visual inspections around the site boundary will be undertaken during the construction phase. Where signs of dust are identified prevention measures (such as covering stockpiles and wheels washing etc) can be implemented.

5.6 Cumulative Impacts

As discussed in Section 5.4, given the distance between the proposed STF and the landfill gas engines there are not anticipated to be any cumulative impact due to emissions from both of the sites.

5.7 Further Mitigation, Monitoring and Follow Up

Section 5.1.3 describes the Incorporated Mitigation that will be part of the design and operational procedures for the STF. These mitigation measures have been taken into account in the odour and fugitive emissions Risk Assessment and they contribute to the overall low risk of the proposed STF. The daily visual monitoring and sniff testing will identify if further damping or covering of the storage areas and biopiles is required.

5.8 Residual Effects and Conclusions

5.8.1 Potential Air Quality Issues

The proposed STF has the potential to generate fugitive emissions of dust, VOCs and odour. These emissions will be controlled using the incorporated mitigation measures in place, including a biofilter. Therefore, with these incorporated mitigation measures and taking into account that the closest sensitive human location is over 600m away from the site, there is unlikely to be any significant impact on local air quality due to fugitive emissions from the site.

5.8.2 Overall Conclusion

It is concluded that, provided the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the design and operational procedures and are carried out in practice, then the potential for impact on air quality and odour is considered to be low risk and therefore can be classed as insignificant.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 5-15

Application Area

13 12

11 Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected]

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings of an analysis looking at potential landscape and visual impact issues in relation to the proposed development of a Soil Treatment Facility (STF) at Meece Landfill, Swynnerton. The analysis establishes the baseline context of the site and assesses the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development. Landscape impacts are defined as changes in the landscape resource and perception of the landscape, and differ from visual effects which relate to the appearance of these changes and the resulting effect on visual amenity.

6.2 Overview of Proposed Development

The key components of the proposed development (in relation to potential landscape and visual impacts) comprise two tarmac pads at ground level, on which contaminated soils would be placed for treatment to form ‘biopiles’. The length of each biopile depends on the quantity of material being treated, but would not exceed the length of the treatment area to ensure the material is contained. Under standard treatment biopile heights will generally be 3m but during soil receipt and mixing of amendments the biopile height can be up to 5m but will not exceed 6m (which is the maximum height that a 20t excavator arm and bucket could reach). It should be noted that that irrespective of the height the volumes of soil treated at the STF will not exceed 29,999 tonnes per annum.

Ancillary elements would comprise a single story building (a site office, modular building (light grey/grey in colour), approximately 18m x 4.2m and 3m in height, a weighbridge, storage area and a wheel washing area. The proposed development would not be constantly lit at night.

The proposed STF will incorporate mitigation to reduce the potential landscape and visual impacts associated with it. The STF has been placed to ensure a strip of woodland between the site and road to the east is retained. It is also proposed to plant additional native vegetation within this land to provide an under storey that will restrict potential views to the proposed development. It is also proposed to construct a 2m high closed board timber fence along the eastern site of the STF. While this will not prevent visibility of all aspects of the proposed development it will reduce it by restricting views of low level elements.

Further details of the proposed development are provided in Chapter 4 Development Description and the associated figures.

6.3 Method and Approach

6.3.1 Approach

The landscape and visual assessment, has been based on guidelines provided in the following publications:

¡ Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment, 2nd Edition, 2002); and

¡ Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (The Countryside Agency and SNH, 2002);

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-1

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

The general approach to the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) includes the following key tasks:

¡ Desk study;

¡ Baseline assessment (consisting of desk study, field survey and reporting);

¡ Assessment of impacts on the perception of the landscape; and

¡ Assessment of potential impacts on visual amenity.

The assessment is focussed on an area extending to approximately 2km from the proposed development. This has been defined based on the scale, context and likely visibility of the proposals.

As part of the desk study, the baseline landscape and visual resource has been defined within this study area and the main users of the area, key viewpoints and key features were identified. Existing map and written data about the application site and its environs within the study area were reviewed, including:

¡ England, National Character Areas; Character Area 61 National Character Area 61: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain;

¡ Planning for Landscape Change (landscape character assessment for Staffordshire);

¡ Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan 1998-2011 (adopted);

¡ Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026 (publication version September 2011);

¡ Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (saved policies version);

¡ Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001;

¡ Ordnance Survey map data; and

¡ Plans and details of the proposed development.

The desk study also identified and classified potential visual receptors according to their associated activity (residents, footpaths, recreational resources, roads etc.) The aim of the baseline visual assessment was to ensure that a representative range of viewpoints were considered. The potential extent of visibility of the proposed development was identified by reference to Ordnance Survey map data and observations made in the field. Following this, potential visual receptors likely to be affected by the proposed development were identified and a preliminary selection of viewpoints was made to ensure that the viewpoint assessment included a representative range in relation to the following criteria:

¡ Type of receptor – based on the factors mentioned above, and including different landscape character types;

¡ Elevation;

¡ Distance of receptor from proposed development; and

¡ Direction of the receptor from the proposed development, with the aim of achieving a distribution from different compass points around the application site.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-2

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

The desk study provided the basis for subsequent field survey work. It enabled the identification of landscape character types within the study area (based on published assessments), analysis of the potential zone of visibility, and identification of the principal viewpoints and receptors, which were subsequently confirmed during the field survey.

The field survey was undertaken during October 2011 to assess the landscape setting of the site and study area and gain a full appreciation of the relationship between the proposed development and the receiving landscape.

Analysis and reporting of the baseline assessment took place after completion of the desk and field surveys. The baseline assessment provides a description of the landscape and visual resource. This provides a basis from which to assess the potential visual impacts of the proposed development and advice on the development's acceptability in principle.

The impact assessment aims to:

¡ Identify the potential impacts on the landscape resource;

¡ Identify the potential visual impacts of the proposed development, taking account of the proposed mitigation measures;

¡ Predict and estimate the magnitude of impacts as accurately as possible; and

¡ Assess the significance of any impacts in a logical and well–reasoned fashion.

6.3.2 Assessment Criteria

The aim of the assessment is to identify, predict and evaluate potential key impacts arising from the proposed development. Identified impacts are quantified wherever possible. However, the nature of landscape and visual assessment requires an element of interpretation using professional judgement. In order to provide a level of consistency to the assessment, the prediction of magnitude and assessment of significance of the visual impacts have been based on pre–defined criteria.

The sensitivity of the landscape is not absolute and varies according to the existing landscape, the nature of the proposed development and the type of change being considered. The determination of the sensitivity of the landscape to changes associated with the proposed development, defined as high, medium, low or negligible, is based on professional interpretation of a combination of parameters, such as landscape characteristics, landscape scale, the nature of view and landscape value.

The sensitivity of visual receptors is based on an interpretation of a combination of parameters such as the location of the viewpoint, context of the view, activity of the receptor and frequency/duration of the view. Visual receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium, low or negligible as follows:

Table 6.1 Definition of Visual Receptor Sensitivity

High Residents; users of footpaths, cycle routes or rights of way, whose attention may be focused on the landscape; important features with physical, cultural or historic attributes; picnic areas. Medium People travelling through or past the landscape on roads, train lines or other transport

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-3

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

routes. Low People engaged in outdoor sports or recreation (other than appreciation of the landscape), commercial buildings or commercially engaged pedestrians, whose attention may be focused on their work or activity rather than the wider landscape; people travelling through the landscape on major roads e.g. motorways. Negligible Views from heavily industrialised areas.

The magnitude of change arising from the proposed development at any particular viewpoint is described as substantial, moderate, slight or negligible based on the interpretation of a combination of largely quantifiable parameters, as follows:

¡ Distance of the viewpoint from the development;

¡ Duration of impact;

¡ Angle of view in relation to main receptor activity;

¡ Proportion of the field of view occupied by the development;

¡ Background to the development; and

¡ Extent of other built development visible, particularly vertical elements.

Definitions of magnitude are given within Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2nd Edition 2002) and within the Scottish Natural Heritage Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment (2002). Table 6.2 below provides the definitions of magnitude used for the purposes of this assessment.

Table 6.2 Definitions of Magnitude

Level of Magnitude Definition of Magnitude Total loss or major alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline conditions such that post Substantial development character/composition of baseline would be fundamentally changed. Partial loss or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline conditions such that post Moderate development character/ composition/ attributes of baseline would be partially changed. Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features/ characteristics of the baseline conditions. Change arising from the Slight loss / alteration would be discernible but underlying character / composition of the baseline condition would be similar to pre development circumstances / patterns. Very minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements/ Negligible features / characteristics of the baseline conditions. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the “no change” situation.

The significance of any identified visual impact has been assessed as major, moderate, minor or no impact. These categories have been determined by consideration of the visual sensitivity and the predicted magnitude of change as

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-4

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

described above, with the following matrix (Table 6.3) used as a guide to correlating sensitivity and magnitude to determine significance of impacts.

Table 6.3 Correlation of Sensitivity and Magnitude of Impact to Determine the Significance of Impacts

Landscape/Visual Magnitude of Change Sensitivity Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible Major/ Moderate/ High Major Moderate moderate minor Major/ Moderate/ Medium Moderate Minor moderate minor Moderate/ Low Moderate Minor Minor/none minor Moderate/ Minor/ Negligible Minor Minor/none minor none

Where the visual impacts have been classified as major or major/moderate, this is considered to be a significant impact referred to in The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. It should be noted that significant impacts need not be unacceptable, or necessarily negative, and may be reversible. The potential impacts associated with the proposed development are referred to as adverse, neutral or positive where applicable.

The matrix is not used as a prescriptive tool, and the methodology and analysis of potential impacts at any particular location must make allowance for the exercise of professional judgement. Thus, in some instances a particular parameter may be considered as having a dominant impact on the analysis.

6.4 Baseline Situation

6.4.1 Site Location and Context

The proposed STF will be positioned on the eastern side of Meece Landfill. It lies to the south of the village of Swynnerton (approximately 1.6km) and to the north and North West of Coldmeece and Yarnfield (approximately 700m and 900m respectively).

The site currently comprises an area of relatively level ground (approximately 118mAOD to 115mAOD) that is peripheral to Meece Landfill and predominately comprises woodland and grassland/ruderal vegetation. The site also includes an area of hardstanding, a metalled track and two concrete structures associated with the former military use of the site.

To the north west of the proposed STF lies Meece Landfill Site. To the south/south west is Swynnerton Defence Training Area. To the north, north east, east, and south east is a gently undulating rural landscape used for a mixture of pasture and growing crops, together with areas of woodland. The designed landscape of Swynnerton Park (associated with Swynnerton Hall) lies in close proximity to the proposed development, while the majority of the Park is located to the north of the site, it also extend to include Pilstones Wood (located on the opposite side of the

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-5

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

road to east of the site). Swynnerton Park is described in more detail in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Chapter (Chapter 10). The village of Swynnerton is also designated as a conservation area. As noted earlier the land on the opposite side of the Coldmeece to Swynnerton Road, is covered by a Green Belt designation.

The site lies adjacent to, and is accessed from, an unnamed road to the east, which links Coldmeece and Swynnerton. The M6 motorway lies approximately 1.7km to the east of the site. The A519 and A51 lie approximately 2km to the west and 2.5km to the north respectively. There are several other secondary/minor roads within the area surrounding the site providing local access and routes between villages.

There are several Public Rights of Way through the area surrounding the site (footpaths and bridleways). Of particular note is the footpath on the opposite side of the road between Swynnerton and Coldmeece (through Pilstones Wood).

6.4.2 Landscape Character

The character of the area surrounding the proposed STF has been considered at both a national and county level. At national level the application site is located within the Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain National Character Area. The key characteristics of this national character area (which are relevant to the area around the proposed development) are summarised below1:

The Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain encompasses the proposed STF and extends west and north over the study area. The area is characterised by a landscape of a gently rolling plain interrupted by sandstone ridges and has the general appearance of a well-managed farm landscape. The land cover/use is predominately agricultural land consisting mainly of dairy farming, with mixed and arable farming to the north and south east. Woodlands are relatively few, primarily associated with sandstone ridges and wetter areas, together with locally extensive tracks of coniferous woodland.

At a local level, a more detailed landscape character assessment has been prepared by Staffordshire County Council2. The proposed development is located on the edge of the Sandstone Hills and Heaths (farmlands) landscape character type. The land to the east lies within the Settled Farmlands landscape character type.

The general characteristics of these landscape types (as set out in Planning for Landscape Change) and their relationship with the proposed development are included in Table 6.4.

1 The Countryside Agency (now Natural England), description for National Character Area 61: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain 2 Staffordshire County Council, Planning for Landscape Change

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-6

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

Table 6.4 Landscape Character Types

Landscape Characteristics Landscape Policy Relationship with and Character Objectives sensitivity to the Type proposed development Open, smoothly textured landscape Landscape Landscape type within with open views across enhancement which the proposed STF Pronounced landform, strongly would be located. The development would be undulating, but flattening located on the edge of considerably in parts this landscape Typically large, regular field character type. pattern, with intensive arable and The sensitivity of this pastoral farming landscape character type to the proposed Woodland cover tends to be Sandstone development is medium. Hills and broadleaved or conifer plantation, Heaths with small woodlands and copses (farmlands) often associated with farm buildings Clusters of ancient woodland Well treed landscape Water in the landscape comprises field ponds, stream valleys and meres Rural feel, with narrow winding lanes and traditional buildings Undulating lowlands and hills Landscape Lies immediately to the A landscape of mixed arable and restoration east of the proposed pastoral farmland development. Area of low intensity use retain The sensitivity of this ancient pattern of hedgerows and landscape character type to the proposed hedgerow trees development is medium. More intensively use areas have lost hedgerows or led to poor management of those that remain Hedgerow oaks or mixed age filter Settled views across the landscape or Farmlands stand as isolated features in more open landscapes Increasing vegetation cover is typically associated with field ponds and stream corridors Woodlands are typically small, but have an important localised effect on character where they occur Rural feel, with narrow winding lanes and traditional buildings

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-7

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

6.5 Policy Context

6.5.1 National Planning Policy

At a national level the key policy documents that are of direct relevance to this assessment are Planning Policy Statements 1 (PPS13), 5 (PPS54) and 7 (PPS75), which relate to delivering sustainable development, the historic environment and sustainable development in rural areas respectively. Planning Policy Guidance Note 26 (PPG2) Green Belts is also relevant; the site is not located within Green Belt, however the land on the opposite side of Coldmeece to Swynnerton road is covered by this designation.

PPS1 states that “all development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness”.

PPS7 provides more detailed guidance regarding development in rural areas, reinforcing the need to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. It also recognises the benefits that the countryside can offer people and sets out opportunities for people to enjoy this resource and ways in which it should be maximised.

PPS5 is particularly relevant to this assessment due to the presence of Swynnerton Park to the north and east of the proposed development. While this is not a Registered Park and Garden, Swynnerton Park is identified as a heritage asset at a local level. PPS5 sets out clear policies for the protection of heritage assets. Such protection extends not just to the asset itself, but also its setting. The location and extent of Swynnerton Park in relation to the site is shown in Figure 10.1 (associated with the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage chapter).

The proposed development site does not lie within or in close proximity to any national parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

PPG2 establishes broad principles for the protection of Green Belts from inappropriate development. PPG2 describes the intentions of Green Belt policy as; “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of green belts is their openness.” (PPG2 paragraph 1.4).

6.5.2 Regional Planning Context

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands7 includes policies that are relevant to this assessment. Of particular note are policies relating to the protection of the environment from adverse impacts e.g. Policy QE1: Conserving and Enhancing the Environment and Policy QE6 - The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape. The general principles set out in the RSS relate to the protection of landscape character and natural resources, together with ensuring that all new development is appropriately designed and minimises adverse impacts.

3 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, The Stationary Office 4 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationary Office 5 Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (2004) Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, The Stationary Office 6 Department of the Environment (1995) Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts

7 Government Office for the West Midlands (January 2008) Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-8

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

6.5.3 County Planning Policy

The adopted Waste Local Plan and emerging Waste Development Framework establish the county level policy framework for new waste development. Within the adopted Waste Local Plan 8 Policy 3 (General Protection) includes the need to protect people and communities, the countryside, the landscape, the Green Belt and other features of acknowledged importance. The emerging Core Strategy9 also specifically identifies a need to protect the countryside and natural resources and this is reinforced in Issue 4. Other policies within the Core Strategy are also relevant to this assessment. Policy 3.1 states that new development should be in appropriate in scale and character to their surroundings. Policies 4.1 and 4.2 specifically relate to the sustainable design of new facilities and protection of the environment, and include specific reference to the protection of local character, landscape, natural resources and the historic environment.

Alongside the Issues and Options consultation for the SSJWS landowners and operators from the waste industry were invited to put forward any proposals for sites for future waste management facilities that they would like to be considered as part of the preparation of the Joint Waste Core Strategy. Consistent with guidance in PPS10, a long list of over 650 individual sites was established from a range of sources, including sites on the National Land Use Database of previously developed land; sites suggested by stakeholders as a result of the Submission of Site Proposals exercise during the consultation on the previous Issues and Options document; and, existing allocations for employment/industrial areas/sites within Local Plans or emerging LDFs. Biffa proposed the Meece landfill site for use as a soil treatment facility. This site was considered one of the 95 best performing sites and the site assessment study suggested that it should be possible to meet the shortfall in waste management facilities required through the normal planning application process. As such it has been concluded that there is no requirement for sites to be allocated in the Development Plan Document. This site was considered one of the 95 best performing sites and the site assessment study suggested that it should be possible to meet the shortfall in waste management facilities required through the normal planning application process. As such it has been concluded that there is no requirement for sites to be allocated in the Development Plan Document.

The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 10 also contains relevant policies. Key policies appropriate to this assessment are D2, which specifically refers to a need to respond to local character, particularly in the location, scale and layout of new development. Policy D4 relates to development in rural locations, reinforcing the need to respect local character and protect the countryside. Policies D5A and D5B relate to the protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Policies NC1 and NC2 also relate to the protection of the countryside and landscape from development that could have adverse impacts. Policy NC17A provides protection to historic parks and gardens from inappropriate development, and Policy NC19 offers similar in relation to conservation areas. Policies MW5 and MW6 relate directly to waste management and to the protection of the environment from inappropriate development.

6.5.4 Local Planning Policy

At a local level, policy set out by Stafford Borough Council is relevant to new development. Local policy is set out in the adopted Stafford Borough Local Plan11.

8 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan 1998-2011 (adopted) 9 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026 (publication version September 2011) 10 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (saved policies version) 11 Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-9

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

The key local designations that are relevant to this assessment are Swynnerton Park (a historic park and garden) and the conservation area also associated with Swynnerton. The local plan identifies several policies that are relevant to this assessment:

¡ Policy E and D1 establishes general requirements for new development, notably reference to need to consider local character and the need to incorporate appropriate landscaping and screening.

¡ Policy E and D2 reinforces the need for new development to respect local character and features within the landscape.

¡ Policy E and D7 also relates to development in the countryside, setting out that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development and that proposals need to be well designed and incorporate measures to minimise impacts. Policies relating to Green Belt specifically refer to development within (rather than near) Green Belt areas, however the general principles reflect national policy guidance e.g. seeking to avoid coalescence of settlements.

¡ Policy E and D18 relates to the protection of conservation areas from inappropriate development, the conservation area within Swynnerton lies approximately 1.5km to the north of the site.

¡ Policy E and D28 provides further protection of the landscape and associated features from inappropriate development.

¡ Policy E and D30 relates to the protection of area of landscape value, including Special Landscape Areas (SLAs). Analysis of the Proposals Key Map suggests that this designation applies to the land to the north and east of the site.

¡ The protection of the landscape is backed up by Policy E and D30, which requires mitigation of landscape impacts through the provision of local enhancements e.g. native tree and shrub planting.

¡ Policy E and D32 also relates to SLAs, identifying that any development within them should respect local character and minimise any associated impacts.

¡ Swynnerton Park is identified in the local plan as being a historic park and garden. This is protected from development that could have an adverse impact through Policy E and D35.

6.6 Potential Impacts

6.6.1 Introduction

The proposed STF has the potential to affect the baseline situation with regard to both landscape character and visual amenity. The construction phase would be relatively short lived (approximately three months) and the associated impacts would be limited and no greater than the impact associated with the operational development, therefore this has not been considered in detail in this analysis.

6.6.2 Potential Visibility

The proposed STF occupies a relatively enclosed position on the eastern edge of the site of the Meece Landfill Site. It is positioned within plantation woodland (probably planted as part of the establishment of Swynnerton Defence Training Area) that lies on this edge of the overall site. While the proposed development would lead to the loss of trees within this woodland, some trees would be retained between it and the Coldmeece and Swynnerton Road to the east. The location of the site means visual receptors in close proximity to the site are very limited i.e. the

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-10

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

Swynnerton Defence Training Area and Meece Landfill Site are located to the west/south west of the site. In addition, the presence of the existing woodland also severely restricts potential visibility of the proposed development from locations in the surrounding landscape.

The result of desk based analysis and fieldwork has identified that the key potential views of the proposed STF are from the Coldmeece to Swynnerton Road, and this is demonstrated in part by the viewpoint photographs included with this assessment (see Figure 6.2 to 6.4). Such views would only be obtained from a short section of this road; essentially immediately to the east of the site and would also be transient in nature given that the views would mostly be from vehicles, cyclists and walkers passing the site. The proposed development does not extend to the edge of the road and vegetation would be retained around the site where possible. It is also proposed to introduce additional planting to the woodland that is retained in order to provide additional screening.

As well as the road the western end of a Public Right of Way (footpath) lies adjacent to the Coldmeece to Swynnerton Road, opposite the proposed STF. The proposed development would only be seen for a short section of this footpath, with intervening woodland restricting potential views.

Pilstones Wood to the east of the site forms part of Swynnerton Park. Visibility of the proposed STF would essentially be restricted to the western edge of this woodland due to intervening vegetation.

Overall, the proposed development would occupy an enclosed and visually discrete position, which would limit opportunities for it to be seen. There would be visibility from certain locations, but such views are isolated and the key visual receptors would be road users travelling past the site.

6.6.3 Potential Landscape Impacts

Direct Impacts

The key direct impacts on the landscape would be associated with vegetation removal. The proposed development would lead to the removal of 295 (one category A tree, 28 category B trees, 231 category C trees and 35 category R trees) trees (see Chapter 8 Ecology for further details) and clearance of vegetation across the site. The development would also lead to the removal of the derelict concrete structures and areas of hard standing, associated with the former military use of the site.

The removal of trees will be offset by proposals to provide additional understorey planting within the remaining woodland between the proposed STF and road to the east (see Figure 8.4 for details). This will ensure that a continuous strip of planting would be maintained along the road, which would reduce potential visual impacts as well as the direct impacts on landscape.

The sensitivity of the site for the proposed development is moderate. This is reflective of the condition of the trees and the fact that the woodland is plantation, probably associated with the establishment of the Defence Training Area. The magnitude of change that would result from the proposed development would be moderate, which would result in a moderate impact. Overall the direct impacts on the landscape are not predicted to be significant.

Wider Landscape Impacts

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-11

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

While the landscape within which the location of the proposed STF is not designated at a national level, it is recognised that some of the land around the proposed development site comprises a historic park and garden (although not included in the Register of Parks and Gardens). The landscape character assessment also identifies those elements that make a contribution at a local level.

The proposed STF would introduce new elements into the landscape, which have the potential to have an adverse impact on its character. However, the scale of the proposed development will be limited, with very restricted potential visibility and would be appropriate to the scale of the existing landscape. The key locations from which any landscape changes would be perceived are to the east of the site and are very localised. In addition, the retention of trees to the east of the site and proposals to provide additional under storey planting would reduce potential impacts.

Given the scale of the proposed STF and nature of the receiving landscape (including limited extent of potential visibility) it is predicted that the impact it will have on the perception of landscape character, within both the Sandstone Heaths and Hills and Settled Farmlands landscape character types, will be limited. The sensitivity of the landscape character types is medium and the predicted magnitude of change associated with the proposed development is slight to negligible. Therefore, the impact on landscape character as a result of the proposed development would be moderate/minor or minor, which in the context of this assessment would not be significant.

It is acknowledged that a SLA is located to the north and east of the proposed STF. However, the location of the proposed development would not have any direct impacts on this landscape designation. Furthermore it would be seen from a limited part of the SLA. The woodland that surrounds the site provides a high degree of visual enclosure and will mean any potential impacts would be very restricted. In addition the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts further. Overall it is predicted that the impact on this designated landscape would be no greater than that identified in relation to landscape character and therefore would not be significant.

The relationship of the proposed STF with Swynnerton Park has been considered. It is acknowledged that this Park provides the setting to the Grade I listed Swynnerton Hall, however the Park itself is only designated at a local level. The potential visibility of the proposed development from Swynnerton Park will be restricted or prevented by intervening vegetation, and this is particularly the case for the main part of the Park (to the south of Swynnerton Hall). Pilstones Wood, which forms the very southern part of the Park, is located in close proximity to the site. However, Pilstones Wood lies on the opposite side of the Coldmeece to Swynnerton Road and visibility would be restricted to the western edge of the woodland. As Swynnerton Park is designated at a local rather than national level, and due to the nature of the proposed development, its sensitivity is medium. Given the very limited extent of potential visibility of the proposed development from Swynnerton Park it is predicted that the magnitude of impact would be negligible, resulting in a minor (and not significant) impact.

It is also acknowledged that the village of Swynnerton (located approximately 1.5km to the north) is designated as a Conservation Area. The intervening distance, landform and vegetation means it is not anticipated that the development will have an adverse impact on this designation.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-12

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

6.6.4 Potential Visual Impacts

The visibility analysis and associated fieldwork has identified that the potential views of the proposed STF will be very limited and will only be seen from localised positions in close proximity to the site. The following analysis is supported by a viewpoint location plan (Figure 6.1) and viewpoint photographs (Figures 6.2 to 6.4).

It is anticipated that the STF will not be seen from any settlements or dispersed residential properties due to intervening vegetation and/or landform. Therefore the potential views from settlements and residential properties have not been considered further in this assessment.

The proposed STF will be visible from the Coldmeece to Swynnerton Road, such as at viewpoints 1, 4 and 5. However, this would be very limited given that roadside vegetation and landform would restrict or prevent views in the majority of instances. Viewpoint 4 demonstrates the greater level of visual screening provided by vegetation further south along the road. While the proposed STF would be seen from this road, such visibility would be limited to a short section (approximately 200m) and would be filtered by the existing vegetation. In addition, the proposed under storey planting and timber fence would further restrict potential visibility. Therefore, the magnitude of change associated with the proposed development would be no greater than slight. This would result in a moderate/minor impact for road users (receptor sensitivity is moderate), which does not constitute a significant impact.

Viewpoints 3 and 4 provide representative views that can be seen from the footpath to the east of the site. It is anticipated that this is the only footpath that the proposed development will be potentially visible from. Viewpoint 3 demonstrates that intervening vegetation will severely restrict or completely prevent potential visibility of the proposed development. The potential visibility from viewpoint 4 will be greater, but such views are isolated to the edge of the woodland. As with road users, potential views would be filtered by the existing vegetation and the proposed under storey planting and timber fence would further restrict potential visibility. The magnitude of change associated with the proposed development would be slight or negligible. This would result in a moderate or moderate/minor impact (receptor sensitivity is high), which does not constitute a significant impact.

6.6.5 Relationship with Relevant Planning Policy Objectives

The national, county and local policy objectives are clearly aimed at the protection of local character and quality, together with the delivery of well designed new developments. The proposed development will be very functional in its appearance, therefore the focus has been on minimising the impact of this development through careful design and location. In this instance, ensuring that woodland to the east of the site is retained, together with the proposals for under storey planting and a timber fence will reduce any potential impacts associated with the proposed development.

While the site itself does not lay within any landscape designations, there is a SLA, historic park and garden and conservation area within the surrounding area. As identified in the evaluation of potential landscape impacts above it is not anticipated that the proposed development will have any adverse impacts on the SLA, historic park and garden and conservation area.

The proposed development lies in close proximity to the Green Belt and therefore has the potential to have an impact on the associated policy objectives. While Green Belt designation is not reflective of landscape character and sensitivity, it is

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-13

PROPOSED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY AT MEECE LANDFILL

recognised that the proposed development could have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the proposed development is not located with the Green Belt and occupies a discrete location, with visibility restricted by surrounding woodland and this would be further restricted by the proposed mitigation measures. This visual enclosure would minimise the perception of any coalescence of settlements of urban sprawl in the countryside. In addition, the vertical scale of any new structures would be limited (single storey) and they would be comparable with those already on/adjacent to the site. Overall it is predicted that that proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the Green Belt and the associated policy objectives.

Overall it is anticipated that the introduction of the proposed STF would not be in conflict with the relevant policy objectives. It would form a relatively discrete element in the landscape adjacent to existing infrastructure and the proposed mitigation measures would successfully reduce any potential adverse impacts.

6.7 Conclusions

The proposed development would result in the introduction of a STF adjacent to the Meece Landfill Site. In this context the proposed STF would constitute a limited change and the consequential landscape and visual impacts would be minimal. It would be visible from certain areas within the surrounding landscape, but such visibility would be very limited and this would diminish over time as the proposed planting matures.

While the proposed STF would introduce a new feature in the landscape, the potential impact of this change in the context of the existing landscape character would be very limited. Overall, the scale, location and mitigation measures that are proposed would result in the potential impacts not being significant.

NOVEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 6-14

Application Area

Viewpoint Location

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected] Viewpoint 1 Approximate field of view 130°

Viewpoint 2 Approximate field of view 100°

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected] Viewpoint 3 Approximate field of view 190°

Viewpoint 4 Approximate field of view 100°

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected] Viewpoint 5 Approximate field of view 190°

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Portland House Bickenhill Lane Birmingham Tel. 0121 6616710 Fax. 0121 7828754

E-mail [email protected]