Agenda Item No: 7a
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
27th July 2009
REPORT BY CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER
Planning application to establish an anaerobic digestion plant Subject: with associated hard surfacing and landscaping, and construction works including a waste reception / handling building, two digester tanks, two pre-storage tanks, a feedstock buffer tank and two digestate storage tanks
Applicant: Fernbrook Bio Limited
Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of consultations with the Highways Agency, such that the Agency states that it does not Recommendations: object, the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix A and any additional conditions required by the Highways Agency.
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with professional planning advice on any issues, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations relevant to the determination of a planning application.
2. Relevant Corporate Outcome
A cleaner, greener and more prosperous county
3. Background and site description
3.1 There is no relevant planning history associated with the proposed site.
3.2 The Rothwell Lodge site represents greenfield development in a rural area and located within the boundaries of Kettering Borough Council and Rothwell Town Council.
3.3 The site occupies approximately 2.28 hectares immediately west of the Rothwell Lodge Farm buildings, and south of the A14 trunk road at the Rothwell Lodge Farm minor junction (number 5) between junction 7 (A43) and 4 (Rothwell).
3.4 The site is positioned approximately 650m south of Rothwell and 2.5km west of Kettering. Thorpe Malsor is located approximately 1.3km to the south east of the site. 3.5 The site occupies a single field and is currently in pastoral farmland use (observed as being grazed by sheep during site visits). Rothwell Lodge Farm to the east of the site consists of a farmhouse that is the closest residential property, and there are several large barns to the south and east of the farmhouse. These are of modern construction, with corrugated metal roofs and walls.
3.6 Locally, the nearest residential properties and settlements in relation to the proposed facility are:
Location / Description Direction Approximate from site distance
Rothwell Lodge Farm east 200m
Cottages (two derelict cottages immediately adjacent to north 250m the A14 carriageway)
vehicle filling station (BP) and restaurant (MacDonald‟s) north west 250m
Columbus Crescent, Rothwell north-west 700m
Glendon Hill Farm and Woodfield Farm north east 1.1km
Orton Lodge south west 1.1 km
Loddington village south 1.6km
Reservoir Cottage south east 900m
Thorpe Malsor, Village south east 1.3km
3.7 The proposed development is located within an area previously subject to opencast quarrying in the early 1900‟s for the extraction of ironstone. Since then the land was restored and returned to agriculture. The JPP Consulting Report on ground Pollution Prevention and Control (March 2009) states that at least part of the site is likely to have been in-filled within overburden following mineral extraction, however the report identifies that there are possible foundation options for the proposed development.
4. Proposal
4.1 For the proposed site plan and landscape proposals respectively please refer to APPENDIX B “Proposed Site Plan – DRW No. FB/BR/09/001 Rev H” and APPENDIX C ”Landscape Proposals DRW No. B08046.06A”. Please note on Appendix B that reference to Bigestate Storage Tanks should read Digestate.
4.2 Proposal summary: Establishment of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility with a 30,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) maximum capacity of organic waste throughput a variety of organic wastes including municipal, commercial and industrial wastes in liquid (slurries, food manufacturing washings); semi-fluid (e.g. abattoir gut content) and partly solid (local authority food waste and packaged supermarket waste) 1MW renewable energy production, equivalent to approx. 1,500-2,000 homes power usage A reception building with a height of 9.7m to ridge level (868m2 footprint area) Two digester tanks each 22.5m diameter and 6.28m high Two pre-storage tanks 6.98m diameter and 5.03m high A feedstock buffer / storage tank 5.43m diameter and 3.78m high Two digestate storage tanks 31.83m diameter and 5m high Gas flare 4.75m tall Site access off the Rothwell Lodge Farm A14 „clover leaf‟ junction with associated highway improvements Proposed average daily HGV movements 22 (11 in and 11 out) equivalent to 2.2 per hour (8am-6pm) 4.3 The figure below was included with a previous anaerobic digestion (AD) facility application and provides a simplified illustration of the AD process. Please note that in regards to the proposal: temperature figures are not available; heat output is due for use within the process; and the digestate is due to be separated into liquid bio-fertiliser and solids for use in compost production and as a soil conditioner.
4.4 The anaerobic digestion (AD) process is the biological treatment of biodegradable organic wastes that decomposes in the absence of oxygen. In this application food waste is digested and in this case supplemented with manure from the adjacent farm. The AD process allows microbial activity to break down the waste in a controlled environment resulting in digestate and biogas. The digestate is liquid consisting of a “fibre” and “liquor” mix, with the nutrient rich liquor to be used as bio-fertiliser and the fibre as a soil improver and compost production. Biogas is predominantly methane and also includes carbon dioxide and it is proposed to use the Biogas to produce electricity (due to the very high methane component). The process also includes pasteurisation to control pathogens (any disease producing agent especially a virus or bacterium or other microorganism).
4.5 The proposed AD facility will produce approximately 25,000 tonnes of digestate (bio- fertiliser) and approximately 5,000 tonnes of biogas (predominantly methane). The digestate is then to be applied to the surrounding agricultural holdings as a liquid fertiliser and soil improver and the biogas is to be used on-site to generate approximately 1 MW of renewable electricity to be fed into the national grid via underground lines.
4.6 The applicant states that the proposed 30,000 tpa capacity will be enough to produce electricity to power slightly under 2,000 homes per year and provide a carbon saving of just over 2,700 tonnes of CO2 per year.
4.7 The Millard Consulting Transport Statement supplied with the application assumes the feedstock to be delivered in 10-20 tonne HGV‟s and the proposed vehicle movements of 22 per day / 2.2 per hour, are based on an average load of 10 tonnes; the facility operating at the proposed 30,000 tpa full capacity; a 50 weeks year; and 60 HGV loads per 5½ day working week.
4.8 In order to accommodate the increased traffic and improved safety standards, highway improvements are proposed to: the existing access off the A14; and to the acceleration and decelaration lanes onto and off the A14; and enlarging the bend radius on the corner between the site entrance and the A14 (cloverleaf junction).
4.9 It is proposed to maintain negative pressure within the reception building and treat extracted air through a bio-filter, which will also treat displaced air from the pre-storage tanks.
4.10 Prior to storage of the digestate in the digestate storage tanks, it is proposed to remove solid material for use as a composting material. All the remaining digestate is then due to be stored in tanks until being applied on local farm land as a bio-fertiliser and soil conditioner.
5. Consultation
5.1 The following is a brief summary of the responses to the consultations undertaken.
5.2 Kettering Borough Council
Kettering Borough Council responded with a committee resolution of no objection subject to there being consideration to planning conditions / section 106 legal agreement, to restrict the use as follows: The total amount processed per month / year
Scheme for controlling and monitoring odours Scheme for noise control and monitoring No lighting on site other than in accordance with an approved scheme to be submitted and approved prior to first use Access and wheel cleaning facility / scheme Waste collection to be restricted to local area radius Building – design / finishes Landscaping details and landscape management scheme Restoration scheme in the event the use ceases submitted and approved prior to first use The conditions recommended in this report (see Appendix A) reflect consideration to the above bullet points – please see the relevant assessment headings for specific considerations.
5.3 Rothwell Town Council
Responded with an objection to the application on the seven grounds stated below:
1. We have serious concerns over the safety of other road users on the A14 because of the number of vehicles going into and out of the proposed plant, especially as the slip roads were designed purely as an accommodation access for the farm. 2. We note the size of this plant would exempt it from certain environmental regulations, so we would be concerned that the operation would not be properly monitored. 3. The ground underneath seems to be quite unstable but we note that they have only checked to a depth of 3 metres so we feel more investigations are needed to ascertain its suitability. 4. When you are dealing with animal offal there is always an awful smell, even with sealed lorries and sealed units, and it is felt it would not be possible to prevent this. Therefore in certain weather conditions, the smell could have a seriously adverse impact on Rothwell and the nearby food outlet. (MacDonald‟s) 5. If the soakaway does fill up, leaking effluent could contaminate the water sources to the north and south, and especially in the event of an accident there is a serious risk of the waterways being polluted. 6. We are concerned that the Applicants have no track record of running this type of operation. 7. In conclusion, taking the above points into account, we feel that this site is inappropriate for this activity as planned. Please see paragraph 8.113 for comments on these points.
5.4 Environment Agency (EA)
Responded with a holding objection on Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) grounds and following the provision of additional FRA information, the EA withdrew the objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions that have been carried through to the conditions recommended in Appendix A – Conditions 27 to 29 and informative notes 12 to 15.
5.5 The Highway Authority
Responded with no objection in principle and a comment suggesting signage to prevent the A14 underpass being blocked or damaged by HGV‟s associated with the facility. This matter has been assessed in more detail by the Highways Agency.
5.6 The Highways Agency
Consultation has been in progress between the applicant and Highways Agency since autumn 2008, however the Agency states that “... these discussions had not been concluded prior to the submission of the application”.
Ongoing consultation between these parties is yet to be resolved and has resulted in 4 formal requests for further information from the Highways Agency, the last dated 8th July 2009. The Agency has confirmed that it is “unable to take the approach of a (planning) condition at this stage”. The applicant has provided subsequent supplementary information following each request, most recently on 10th July 2009, for which a response is currently awaited and an oral update will be provided at the committee meeting.
In summary the main safety concern relates to potential for lorries to overturn when exiting the A14 and driving around the corner that leads to site.
5.7 The Wildlife Trust and Natural England
Both responded with no objection provided the landscaping proposal and biodiversity enhancement scheme is implemented and suitably managed in accordance with the application.
5.8 Central Networks e-on
Responded with no objection stated that they have services within the site and suggested that the applicant make contact with them to obtain records. This is reflected by recommended informative note 2 (see Appendix A).
5.9 Anglian Water
Responded with no objection and provided general comments, including a note that has been carried forward as recommended informative note 3 (see Appendix A) relating to water supply to the site.
5.10 National Grid: responded with no objection and concluded there is negligible risk to operational electricity transmission and national gas transmission networks, and provided an informative note relating to obtaining information on local gas and electricity distribution networks. This note has been recommended as informative note 4 (see Appendix A).
5.11 County Archaeologist: responded with no objection and a comment confirming that because the site has been subject to mineral extraction, discovery of archaeological features or items is unlikely.
6. Public Advertisement and Neighbour Notification
6.1 A press notice appeared in the Northampton Evening Telegraph on 14th May 2009 and a site notice was posted the same day. In addition, a letter of notification was sent to the owners of Rothwell Lodge cottages, BP Connect, Rothwell Lodge, McDonalds Restaurants Ltd and CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England).
6.2 CPRE provided no objection to the planning application and in summary commented making the following points: if the plant is not run properly property to the north could be affected by odour; heat re-use should be considered; landscaping proposals should be implemented at the earliest opportunity; and planning conditions should prevent rat running and to avoid waste sourced from outside the local area.
7. Central Government Guidance and Development Plan Policies
7.1 The Central Government Guidance and Policy and the Development Plan policies considered relevant to the determination of the planning application are as follows: -
7.2 Central Government Guidance Waste Strategy for England 2007 UK Climate Change Programme, the Energy White Papers in 2003 and 2007 and Energy Review 2006 The UK Biomass Strategy 2007 7.3 National Planning Policy Statements PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7 Sustainable Development in rural Areas PPS9 Bio-Diversity and Geological Conservation PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPS 13 Transport PPG 16 Archaeology PPS 22 Renewable Energy PPG 24 Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk 7.4 East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives – objective i) To reduce the causes of climate change Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 11 Development in the Southern Sub-area Policy 38 Regional Priorities for Waste Management Policy 40 Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation
7.5 Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan (2006) [WLP]: Policy 1 Principles for Waste Development Policy 2 The Location of Waste Development Policy 4 Development of Local Waste Facilities Policy 7 Design Policy 8 Traffic and Access Policy 9 Natural and Historic - Local Landscape Character Policy 10 Natural and Historic Environment – National and International Designations and Protected Species Policy 11 Natural and Historic Environment – Local Designations Policy 13 Water Resources and Flooding Policy 15 Local Amenity Policy 16 Restoration and aftercare Policy 19 Anaerobic Digestion Policy 20 Waste to Energy Recovery Policy 27 Monitoring 7.6 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
Policy 8 Economic Prosperity Policy 9 Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
8. Assessment
8.1 The main considerations in the assessment of this application are: -
(i) Whether the proposed development accords in principle with the Central Government Guidance and Policy, and the Development Plan;
(ii) Whether there is any environmental or amenity impact, or other justification, to refuse the application;
(iii) Whether any outstanding information with regard to Highways issues justify refusal of the application.
Central Government Guidance
8.2 The Waste Strategy for England 2007 promotes the waste hierarchy and there is extensive reference in the document establishing central government encouragement of local authorities and businesses to consider using anaerobic digestion in biowaste management. It also states that Anaerobic Digestion (AD) “has significant environmental benefits over other options for the treatment of food waste”.
8.3 The UK Climate Change Programme (2006) sets out policies and priorities in the UK and internationally in cutting CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050 with real progress by 2020 (26- 32%).
8.4 The application represents consistency with this policy through:
Reduction in greenhouse emissions through conversion of methane to carbon dioxide that has approximately 23 times less greenhouse gas impact; Energy production is renewable and it is also clean compared to other forms of energy production. The applicant estimates that each year the proposed development is likely to save approximately 2,700 tonnes CO2, through renewable electricity production; also the proposal would contribute towards government policy targets on renewable energy production, which are 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Use of the digestate as fertiliser the use of a substantial amount of inorganic fertiliser is removed; 8.5 In the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Energy Review, July 2006, Annex D “Renewable Statement of Need”, the government states in relation to the balance between local and national benefit:
“Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low-carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of out supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals.”
8.6 In considering this application, some weight in its favour should therefore be given to the local and wider cumulative benefits associated with increased renewable energy production.
8.7 The UK Biomass Strategy 2007 – Working Paper 3: Anaerobic Digestion recognises AD as having significant potential in contribution to climate change and renewable energy policy.
Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)
8.8 These policy documents are over arching planning instruments and are reflected by and considered under the relevant provisions of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Waste Local Plan and therefore it is not considered necessary to provide detailed commentary and analysis of all of the Central Government Policy Statements / Guidance documents. However matters of particular relevance are provided in regards to PPS1, PPS10 and PPS22.
8.9 The Planning and Climate Change supplement to PPS1 paragraph 3 advises that “the Government believes that climate change is the greatest long term challenge facing the world today” leading to a need for “urgent action” (paragraph 6). Paragraph 7 advises that planning “has a pivotal and significant role in helping to create an attractive environment for innovation and for the private sector to bring forward investment, including in renewable and low carbon technologies …” Paragraph 13 urges recognition of the potential of land uses to help secure carbon sinks. The application supports these issues through diverting food waste from landfill that would otherwise decay and produce methane unlikely to be fully captured and utilised, and through the provision of renewable energy and fertiliser in replacement of inorganic fertilisers.
8.10 Paragraph 20 of this PPS1 supplement provides advice to planning authorities on renewable and low carbon generation projects, including not questioning the energy justification for why a proposal for such a development must be sited in a particular location, and to ensure that any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 Renewable Energy and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
8.11 The PPS 10 indicates that planning applications on unallocated sites should be determined favourably when consistent with:
The policies in the PPS, including the criteria in paragraph 21 (see bellow); The waste planning authorities core strategy; and Movement up the waste hierarchy. The criteria in paragraph 21 are: The extent to which sites support the policies in the PPS; The physical and environmental constraints of development (reference is made to Annex E of PPS10); The cumulative effect of waste disposal facilities; The capacity of transport infrastructure; and Give priority to re-use of previously developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages. Annex E of PPS10 sets out that the following factors need to be considered: a. protection of water resources; b. land instability; c. visual intrusion; d. nature conservation; e. historic environment and built heritage; f. traffic and access; g. air emissions, including dust; h. odours; i. vermin and birds; j. noise and vibration; k. litter; and l. potential land use conflict. These criteria and considerations are covered later in this report in the assessment under the Development Plan Policies.
8.12 PPS22 provides planning considerations that reflect government‟s objectives in relation to sustainable renewable energy development. It states that wider environmental and economic benefits of all renewable energy proposals, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determinations. These considerations are covered later in the assessment under the Development Plan Policies (WLP).
Development Plan
8.13 Section 38(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that if regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is considered that there are relevant Development Plan policies required to be taken into account in the determination of this application. Central Government Guidance and Policy represents other material considerations.
The East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009)
8.14 The proposal is consistent with the East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 1 (Regional Core Objectives) objective (i) “to reduce the causes of climate change” and Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation) through the provision of carbon savings of just over 2,700 tonnes of CO2 and generation of approximately 1MW of renewable energy.
8.15 The proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design) through the provision of a detailed building design that reflects the agricultural setting whilst incorporating quality design.
8.16 The development is located adjacent to the growth town of Kettering and is considered acceptable having regard to Policy 11 (Development in the Southern Sub-area).
8.17 Policy 29 (Priorities for Enhancing the Region‟s Biodiversity) seeks an increase in biodiversity enhancement, through the provision of significant landscape planting that will create habitat and improve biodiversity. This proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Policy 29.
8.18 Policy 38 encourages all relevant public and private sector organisations to help implement the Regional Waste Strategy through policies and proposals that result in waste being treated higher up in the „waste hierarchy‟. This proposal will enable energy to be generated from waste which has previously been landfilled, thus moving up the waste hierarchy.
North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (June 2008)
8.19 The proposed construction and operation of an AD Facility represents agricultural diversification and is of benefit to the economic prosperity of the local area and is accordingly considered acceptable having regard to Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
8.20 The proposal is of an appropriate local scale and suitably located in an area identified for growth; it represents an advanced technology supported by recent government policy; diverts of waste from landfill; provides generation of renewable energy incorporating heat recovery; and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and is
therefore considered acceptable having regard to Policy 9 (Distribution and Location of Development), Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) and Policy 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction).
Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan 2006 (WLP)
Policy 1 Principles of Waste Management
8.21 The consideration of Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan is fundamental to establishing the principle of the proposed development and reflects sustainable development as being the core principle underpinning planning as established in PPS1. Policy 1 establishes seven criteria by which to measure the appropriateness of waste development:
i. a clearly established need for the development to serve local and regional requirements for the management and disposal of waste; ii. reduction in reliance on land filling; iii. the minimisation of, and balance in, the movement of waste across waste planning authority boundaries, except where the development involves specialised provision and is consistent with regional self-sufficiency; iv. minimising the transportation of waste from its source; v. the Best Practicable Environmental Option for the waste stream; vi. the integration of waste management facilities; and vii. the minimisation of harm to the environment, human health, natural resources, local amenity and highway safety. 8.22 With regard to the first two points, there is a well established local and regional need for the management of non hazardous wastes (including municipal, industrial and commercial waste) and to reduce the reliance on landfill. Regionally and locally, most waste currently goes to landfill, a disposal route at the bottom of the waste hierarchy. The application proposes to recycle non hazardous waste and to treat food waste and other biodegradable waste by Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and use the digestate as organic fertiliser and generate local renewable energy.
8.23 It is considered that the application site is well located in terms of reasonable proximity to the principal road network serving Corby, Kettering, Market Harborough, Northampton and Wellingborough.
8.24 The criteria point three under Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan requires that waste development is consistent with:
“the minimisation of, and balance in, the movement of waste across waste planning authority boundaries, except where the development involves specialised provision and is consistent with regional self-sufficiency”
8.25 The criteria point four seeks to minimise “the transportation of waste from its source”.
8.26 These two criteria points are related to the distance that waste travels to and from the site based on the promotion of sustainable development.
8.27 Despite a number of planning permissions previously being granted, there currently are no operational AD facilities operating in the County and therefore the development would improve the availability of such facilities.
8.28 The waste stream it is proposed to deal with is not specialist in nature but the facility would constitute advanced technology. It is considered therefore that the facility would contribute towards a local countywide need, and to regional self sufficiency, and that the waste to be sourced could arise from outside Northamptonshire. Hence some waste will travel across waste planning authority boundaries.
8.29 Being mindful that the sustainability objectives in Policy 1 are to minimise “the movement of waste across waste planning authority boundaries, and “minimise the transportation of waste from source” it is considered appropriate to restrict the catchment area for the waste.
8.30 This would allow wastes to be sourced from not only within Northamptonshire but other centres of population outside the county such as Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Melton Mowbray, and Rugby. This would effectively make the development a local / sub-regional facility.
8.31 In relation to this approach to catchment areas and Policy 1 considerations towards “minimising the transportation of waste from its source”, the recommended „indicative catchment‟ Condition 23 (see Appendix A) limiting distance to waste sources within 30 miles of the site, has been imposed on other similar specialist technology facilities recently permitted in Northamptonshire by this Waste Planning Authority. Therefore condition 23 provides continuity with other permissions for similar local / sub-regional waste facilities.
8.32 There is no current Development Plan policy which stipulates this 30 mile catchment approach. However, emerging Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) indicates that a restriction of waste source exceeding a 30 mile radius from the site may be included within the distinctions between local / sub-regional facilities and full Regional Facilities which would have a catchment area of up to 50 miles. The emerging approach in the MWDF currently has no legal planning weight and could be subject to change. However, given that it is being promoted in the emerging MWDF it would be reasonable to use this distance as appropriate, and to regard the development as a local / sub- regional facility, unless or until it is subsequently changed. It enables a reasonable approach to be taken for the interpretation of the requirement under Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan.
8.33 The recommended 30 mile catchment area in condition 23 allows for some discretion if expressly agreed with the Chief Planning Officer should there be circumstances that warrant some wastes to come from a greater distance. For example where the applicant wishes to service a waste contract that takes waste predominantly sourced within a 30 mile radius of the facility, but may include an area further afield and where it is acceptable in consideration to the minimisation of waste transportation.
8.34 The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Locations for Waste Development, Development Plan Document (January 2009) identifies that there will be a need by 2026 for an estimated 970,000 tonnes of recycling and composting capacity and that capacity will need to increase by roughly 204,000 tonnes per annum for composting in that period. The applicant proposes a facility capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum.
8.35 Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan supports the granting of permission for waste developments where there is a clearly established need to serve local and regional requirements. It is considered that there is an established need for new waste management facilities to deal with future projected waste arisings.
8.36 Given the current scarce availability of food waste recycling / treatment sites, it appears appropriate to consider food wastes as a specialist waste stream (in line with the third bullet point of Policy 1) until facilities are more widespread. Food waste is generated at diffuse locations and therefore it is not generally feasible to locate the AD facilities at source (although some large food waste producers do develop on site AD treatment processes). The application site is however well located in terms of proximity to the A14 and principal road network serving Kettering, Corby, Rothwell, Desborough and Wellingborough (see proposed „Catchment Area‟ condition 23, Appendix A).
8.37 It is also a merit of the proposal that the rural-based location enables the use of digestate in the immediate vicinity (predominantly on the host farm), as the markets for the digestate will be the rural farming community.
8.38 In line with the fifth bullet point of Policy 1 , it is considered that anaerobic digestion currently represents the best practicable environmental option for the recycling and use of food waste as supported by national policy including:
The Waste Strategy 2007 – support for AD through PFI, New Technologies and a move to incorporate commercial and industrial waste; The Landfill Directive – Diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill to other treatment processes and reduction on 1995 figures to 75% for 2010, 50% for 2013 and 35% for 2020; Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) – Allowance for Waste Disposal Authorities to landfill biodegradable waste where the target gets progressively harder; Landfill Tax; The Energy White Paper (see „Central Government Guidance‟ section above); and In the UK Biomass Strategy 2007 8.39 With regard to the final bullet point of Policy 1, the application proposes measures to minimise adverse environmental effects including significant landscaping, and habitat creation and enhancement. The applicant has confirmed commitment to provide additional enhancement of perimeter hedgerows and screen planting to further reduce visibility of the application site from the surrounding areas.
8.40 The application and recommended conditions also incorporate measures to protect local amenity, including odour control, groundwater protection and measures to minimise light pollution.
8.41 For the above reasons it is considered that the application has established principles for the proposed development which are acceptable having regard to Policy 1.
Policy 2 Location of Waste Development Facilities
8.42 Policy 2 of the Waste Local Plan provides for non allocated waste management facilities provided they qualify as local waste facilities in accordance with Policy 4 and other WLP policies.
Policy 4 Development of Local Waste Facilities
8.43 Policy 4 of the Waste Local Plan establishes the principle for development of local facilities as follows:
Proposals for waste development to provide local facilities (those dealing with 50,000 tonnes or less per annum of non-hazardous waste) will be permitted if it can be demonstrated they will contribute to a sustainable waste management system for Northamptonshire.
Such development should comply with one or more of the following: - be located on existing or designated industrial land; - be on derelict, despoiled or brownfield land or building; - contribute to agricultural diversification or to rural regeneration; - be a former or existing mineral working or waste management facility - be on a site linked to rail or water transport; - be a part of and specifically serve one of the identified Strategic Development Areas at Daventry, Rothwell/Desborough, Towcester and Wellingborough East (or any other urban extension of over 1,000 dwellings).
Any proposal will be required to demonstrate that it is part of the Best Practicable Environmental Option and identify the catchment area the development is proposed to serve.
8.44 It is proposed to deal with 30,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste (this includes all waste coming on site) thus satisfying the first principle of it being classified as a local waste facility dealing with less than 50,000 tonnes per annum.
8.45 Regarding the second principle, the application provides for sustainable waste management, in summary this is achieved through:
The diversion of up to 30,000 tonnes of waste annually from landfill; Generation of local renewable energy (~1MW) offsetting fossil fuel derived power and equivalent to just less than 2,000 households domestic demand; Capture of methane (a greenhouse gas 23 times the potency of carbon dioxide) likely to otherwise be released to atmosphere from landfill; Providing a locally produced organic fertiliser for use locally to use reducing the reliance on mineral fertiliser which can require significant energy input in its production;
The applicant has an agreement with the host farm that is interested in using the digestate product on their land; and The proposal does not involve significant loss of natural assets or resources and there is a small increase in biodiversity associated with site perimeter and hedgerow planting. 8.46 With regard to the location criteria, there is limited land available that matches the listed appropriate examples (e.g. existing or designated industrial land, previously developed or mineral working land, or sites linked with rail or water transport etc). It is also known that few sites have come forward for consideration as part of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework process which has been undertaken by the County Council. Policy 4 provides for waste development that specifically serves Strategic Development Areas and identifies one such area as Rothwell/Desborough. The application has not been proposed on this basis and therefore does not satisfy these criteria. Nevertheless, the facility would be well located to accommodate wastes from the Development Area in the future.
8.47 The key location criterion for assessment under Waste Local Plan Policy 4 is whether the development should be regarded as representing „agricultural diversification‟. Whilst the applicant is not a farmer, the site is located on a working farm, which is predominantly an agricultural activity. The digestate would also provide a viable alternative to mineral fertilisers that are escalating in cost, and the facility would also provide a small level of additional local employment. It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with this criterion in Policy 4.
8.48 The last part of Policy 4 requires demonstration that the development represents Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO); Anaerobic Digestion has already been identified under the assessment under Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan (above) as BPEO for food waste.
8.49 Finally Policy 4 requires that the catchment area is identified and the application refers accordingly to settlements in the locality including Rothwell, Desborough, Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough.
8.50 The location of the site is well-placed to receive waste from the surrounding area being within a major growth area, large population centre and an area of large scale industry.
8.51 Further consideration with regard to the proposed catchment is detailed in reference to the fourth bullet point of Policy 1 “minimising the transportation of waste from its source”. Having regard to this, recommended planning condition 23 (Appendix A) is considered appropriate to generally restrict the waste arising to within a 30 miles radius of the site as this encompasses settlements both with the County such as: Corby, Kettering, Northampton, Wellingborough, Daventry and other centres of population outside the county such as: Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough and Rugby.
8.52 Therefore taking all these factors into account that the proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of Policy 4 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan.
Policy 7 Design
8.53 Policy 7 of the Waste Local Plan places a need for waste development to have regard to the development‟s visual appearance in the context of the characteristics of the local area and involves design and form as well as scale and location. The landscape and visual amenity are considered in detail in the local amenity assessment section.
8.54 The proposed tanks and reception building are large constructions visible from some of the viewpoints identified in the Landscape and Visual Appraisal supplied with the application.
8.55 Visual intrusion on the landscape will be significantly reduced due to the site contours, sunken building levels and existing domination by the A14, the service station and existing buildings on the host farm.
8.56 The applicant has designed the buildings and tanks with a detailed colour scheme to reduce contrast with surrounding vegetation, agricultural buildings, the A14 and the skyline and the design is intended to appear similar in nature to that of working farms such as the farm buildings located immediately to the east of the site. The proposed landscaping utilises locally indigenous species providing screening and enhanced biodiversity through introducing planting along the site boundary and grassland creation.
8.57 There will be visual impact as a result of the proposed facility particularly in close proximity to the site and in the short term. The proposed design reflects an agricultural form and landscaping proposed, particularly as planting matures, will help minimise and mitigate visual impact.
8.58 The site is located near to other built environment, including the A14, BP Service Station, MacDonald‟s, Rothwell Cottages (derelict) and Rothwell Lodge Farm structures, and in this context has reduced impact on the wider landscape.
8.59 Visibility of the site from occupied residential properties is limited to viewpoints from distant rural locations where the proposed facility is viewed in the context of nearby built environment. Representations were not received from any people living in the area.
8.60 The potential visual impact of the proposal is not considered significant so as to justify refusal of the application and it is considered that the proposed design is acceptable having regard to Policy 7.
Policy 8 Traffic and Access
8.61 Policy 8 provides for waste development proposals provided the site access and the local highway network can safely accommodate traffic associated with the development.
8.62 The Highway Authority had no objection to the proposal although commented on potential for damage or obstruction issues should HGV traffic use the underpass. However, it is proposed to no use the underpass and the traffic and access proposals have been subject to in depth scrutiny by the Highways Agency.
8.63 As referenced in the consultation section the Highways Agency is yet to finalise its formal consultation response.
8.64 The outstanding Highways Authority information request reflects consideration to the standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The current design does not meet the design standards and although the Agency provides a contingency for departure from standards this is has not yet been applied for and is one of the issues the Agency seek further information on before confirming whether the principle of the development is acceptable.
8.65 The Agency has summarised the reasons below for finding detailed highway design proposals not acceptable:
The diverge corner width needs to be revised (increased) The merge corner width needs to be revised (increased) The channelizing island needs to be revised The link road needs to be revised Junction visibility has not been demonstrated to be acceptable
And the applicant will need to apply for a departure from the weaving standards that relate to traffic lane change characteristics in connection with distances between junctions. 8.66 This mainly relates to concern over the potential for inbound HGV traffic to overturn when exiting the A14.
8.67 The Agency has not formally objected in principle to the proposed development, however the Highways Agency formal notification in response to consultation, recommends „no determination‟ of the application, based on there being insufficient information. This position may change once the most resent information has been assessed and in effect is likely to result in one of the following responses (comments by author are in italics):
a. Directs that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (this has been the Agency‟s holding position since first responding to this application, and could remain if the further information if the information supplied on 10th July by the applicant proves insufficient)
b. Recommends that planning permission should either be refused, or granted only subject to conditions (if the proposal is acceptable only subject to the provision of further detail)
c. Directs conditions to be attached to any planning permission which may be granted (if the proposal is satisfactory and the provision of further information is desirable but not fundamental to the proposals acceptability)
d. Directs that planning permission not be granted indefinitely (if the further information brings up matters that result in the proposed development being unacceptable in principle to the Highways Agency)
8.68 The outcome of consultation with the Highways Agency has significant bearing on determining whether the proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Policy 8. There have been significant pre and post application discussions between the applicant and the Highways Agency, and it has generally been considered that an acceptable highways safety position is likely to be achieved. This has however, taken longer than expected. The recommended decision in this report is acknowledging that the final position of the Highways Agency needs to be received and that permission should only be granted if the Agency does not object. Determining the application on this basis enables the Committee to make a decision at this Committee Meeting thus avoiding significant delays to the applicant.
Policy 9 Local landscape character, Policy 10 Natural and Historic Environment – National and International Designations and Protected Species, and Policy 11 Natural and Historic Environment – Local Designations
8.69 These Waste Local Plan Policies promote the need for waste development to respect and where appropriate enhance local landscape character, natural and historic environment and designations.
8.70 The archaeological assessment identified that due to historical mineral working at the site, no archaeological survival is likely and therefore no further archaeological matters require consideration.
8.71 There will be no impact on the closest designated site (SSSI – Birch Spinney and Mawsley Marsh) due to the distance from site and there is no other international or local designation likely to be affected by the proposed works.
8.72 The site is unlikely to be of much benefit to protected species other than occasional use that will be improved by the provision of the proposed grassland. Bats and other species will use the existing hedgerows that are proposed to be retained and improved.
8.73 The proposals should result in improvement in the potential biodiversity of existing hedgerows and the proposed landscaping will reduce impact on the local environment and provide new habitat for biodiversity in keeping with existing features.
8.74 Provided recommended condition 26 (See Appendix A) is implemented there should be no significant adverse impact on the existing natural features of the site and there should be an enhancement of biodiversity values, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable having regard to WLP Policies 9, 10 and 11.
Policy 13 Water resources and flooding
8.75 The submitted flood risk assessment concluded that with the inclusion of proposed design factors, the development represents insignificant risk of adversely affecting flooding risk in the locality. The Environment Agency provided no objection subject to controls that have been carried forward in the surface and groundwater conditions included in this report (see Appendix A for recommended conditions 27 to 29) and therefore the application is considered acceptable having regard to Waste Local Plan Policy 13.
Policy 15 Local amenity
8.76 This policy requires waste development to ameliorate either individually or cumulatively adverse impact on local amenity including noise, vibration, hours of operation, air quality, odours, vermin and birds, litter, light spill and separation. All these matters are considered in the local amenity section below.
Policy 19 Anaerobic digestion
8.77 Policy 19 encourages anaerobic digestion facilities provided the site location is consistent with the BPEO for the waste stream and with the proximity principle; and that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupied buildings. These considerations are dealt with elsewhere in this report see Waste Local Plan (WLP) Policy 1 assessment. The general amenity impacts and the impact are considered in the „Local Amenity Impacts‟ section of this report (commencing at paragraph 8.81 below).
8.78 The Waste Local Plan indicates at paragraph 6.27 of the plan, that anaerobic digestion facilities would probably require an input of up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per year. The 30,000 tonnes per annum proposed in the subject application would be consistent with this. The Waste Strategy 2007 also identifies AD as BPEO for food waste.
8.79 Paragraph 6.28 of the Waste Local Plan also states that anaerobic digestion facilities should be permitted if they make the best practical use of the by-products for energy recovery and/or soil improvers; are close to the wastes arising; and are close to the potential markets or users of the by-products. It is considered that the application satisfies these requirements. The site is adjacent to the A14 which connects a number of the major centres via the principal road network, it will produce both renewable energy by diverting food waste from landfill and digestate which the applicant is planning to use as fertiliser/soil improver on the host farm and local area.
Policy 27 Monitoring
8.80 This policy seeks to establish appropriate monitoring procedures in respect of new waste development through the monitoring of local amenity effects. Planning conditions are recommended that require full investigation into any complaints that may be received (see Appendix A for recommended Noise and Odour conditions). The policy also seeks to establish Local Liaison Groups and it is proposed that if this applicant is granted local communities should be offered this opportunity.
Local Amenity Impacts
8.81 PPS 10 “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” provides policy guidance on local amenity impacts as listed in Annex E. These criteria are incorporated in the following considerations and as a preamble to the criteria in PPS 10, it is noted that the Waste Planning Authority should bear in mind the proposed waste facility in terms of type and scale and take into account the best available technologies.
8.82 Having regard to WLP Policy 15 consideration of potential local amenity impacts requiring assessment includes the following:
Noise Hours of operation Air Quality including toxic, explosive and odour nuisance Vermin and Birds Litter Light Spillage 8.83 In addition, having regard to PPS10 (Annex E), the potential landscape and visual impacts, cumulative impacts, potential for land use conflict, protection of water resources and ecological and biodiversity impacts and opportunities associated with the proposed development and other existing and proposed development is also considered below in this section of the report.
Noise
8.84 The proposed development will provide an additional source of noise to the locality; however the nearest residents (Rothwell Lodge Farm and Rothwell Lodge Cottages (currently derelict) are already exposed to A14 traffic noise that is likely to be the dominant noise source.
8.85 There was no objection from Kettering Borough Council on noise impact grounds. Mitigation was deemed to be adequate, the engines are to be located in acoustically insulated housing and silencers are to be fitted to machinery, the majority of unloading, loading and all processing will be carried out indoors and/or contained in tanks and vessels.
8.86 Recommended planning conditions (See Appendix A - Noise Conditions 10-14) set out that all noise generated from the site should be controlled. There will be restrictions put
on hours of work during the construction phase of the operation and all machinery should be appropriately sound attenuated. In addition should noise complaints be received, recommended condition 14 requires immediate assessment of complaints and implementation of remedial measures. It is therefore considered that noise impact on local amenity is likely to be minor and therefore there are not reasonable grounds to refuse the application in relation to potential noise impact.
Hours of operation
8.87 The proposed AD operation requires a 24 hour per day process, seven days a week. The applicant has stated that the majority of deliveries will be Monday to Friday and during the normal working day. Given the relatively low vehicle movements and remote site location the proposed continuous operations are considered unlikely to have more than a minor impact on any sensitive receptors. Construction hours are limited by condition controlling the hours to 7am to 7pm Mondays to Fridays and 7am to 1pm Saturdays with no Sunday or bank holiday operations (See Appendix A - Recommended Condition 6).
Air Quality
8.88 The AD process has potential to generate fugitive bio-aerosol emissions (bio aerosols are small organisms such as fungi and bacteria that become airborne) and release of methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide. Consultation with the Environmental Protection Officers at the district level and the Environment Agency resulted in no objection, indicating that proposed control measures and the remote site location result in the likelihood of these impacts being insignificant.
Odour Nuisance
8.89 The proposed feedstock for the proposed facility includes food manufacturing washings, abattoir gut content and food waste from local authority collections and supermarkets. These materials are odorous and have potential to result in nuisance odour. The key aspects identified as having potential to result in odour discharge are feedstock delivery, handling and storage; fermentation; and digestate removal processes.
8.90 The anaerobic digestion process is conducted inside gastight tanks and pipe work, and it is therefore highly unlikely that fugitive odour emissions will occur. Abatement proposals include the following: the reception building will have a negative atmospheric pressure ventilation system, gastight/sealed tanks and buildings; a bio filter bed will be constructed to filter the ventilated air.
8.91 It will however be important that the proposed ventilation and odour abatement systems are appropriately designed, and that the facility is operated and managed to minimise potential for odour release.
8.92 Most digestate, if it has been digested properly, will generally have a low odour potential, as the odour producing material (the food) is largely destroyed by the digestion process. As the digestate could potentially be stored in sealed tanks for up to six months the
odour potential would be lower still, as it would have continued to digest in the tanks. The spreading of such materials to land is regulated by the Environment Agency. Assessment of previous applications for AD facilities in the past year has concluded that odour emissions produced as a consequence of spreading digestate to land is likely to be much lower than traditional organic fertilizers such as animal manures and slurries.
8.93 It should be noted that the Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP) replaced the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Regulations in April 2008. It falls to the Environment Agency to regulate this site‟s operations in line with the agreed EPP. The EPP should ensure that the operation and design of the facility to control and abate odour comply with Best Available Techniques (BAT) and environmental impact is minimised.
8.94 Odour nuisance should therefore not occur provided the plant is appropriately designed, operated and maintained.
8.95 PPS22 has regard to appropriate locations for anaerobic digestion facilities. The agricultural / rural location of the facility is supported in Paragraph 23 of Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy states:
In handling planning applications for anaerobic digestion, local planning authorities should consider carefully the potential impacts of odour and the proposals put forward for its control. In cases where odour would have an impact, such plants should not be located in close proximity to existing residential areas.‟ Note: „close proximity‟ is not defined in PPS22.
8.96 Therefore, provided the proposed development is: undertaken in accordance with that proposed in the application; employs best available techniques (BAT) as required under EPP licensing; and complies with proposed planning conditions then it is considered that adverse impact on amenity resulting from odour is likely to be minor and that such on effect would not constitute grounds for refusal of the application.
Vermin and Birds
8.97 There is potential for food waste facilities to attract and harbour vermin and birds particularly when there is external storage. The proposed facility involves an enclosed reception building and there will be no external waste storage or handling. It is therefore considered that vermin or bird nuisance is unlikely to occur.
8.98 The impact and control of vermin and birds is also controlled by the Environment Agency under EPP licensing.
Litter
8.99 Any potential adverse impact associated with litter is unlikely provided deliveries are covered and contained in the reception building as proposed. The reception and handling is due to be undertaken indoors and food waste is unlikely to be readily airborne. Therefore it is considered that litter nuisance is unlikely to occur.
Light Spillage
8.100 There is potential for operations after dark to provide visual intrusion through light spill. Recommended condition 15 (see Appendix A) requires the installation of directional down lighters and only to illuminate the site during active operations to minimise light pollution in the open country side. The majority of operations take place during daylight hours. It is therefore considered that adverse amenity impact due to lighting is likely to be minor.
Separation (from sensitive receptors)
8.101 The host farm dwelling house is approximately 250m east of the site and the residents have raised no objection to the proposal. The control measures proposed and conditions recommended to control odour, noise, dust, light and the proposed landscape planting (with screening benefits) are likely to prevent any significant impact on receptors. The proposed location is otherwise remote from sensitive receptors and it is considered that potential adverse effects on amenity are likely to be minor.
Protection of water resources
8.102 No surface or groundwater is identified as vulnerable and consultation with the Environment Agency did not identify any such issue
Potential land use conflict
8.103 There is no potential land use conflict considered likely, due to the host farm being the likely recipient of the digestate, and the surrounding land use is likely to continue as predominantly pastoral and arable farmland.
Landscape and Visual Impact
8.104 Landscape and visual context has already partly been considered commencing at paragraph 8.53 in the considerations to Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan Policy 7 „Design‟.
8.105 The location of the proposed facility already benefit from screening, particularly to the south, east and west due to the „natural‟ bowl that results from historic mineral workings. The proposed landscape planting is intended to provide screening around the sites perimeter.
8.106 A landscape and visual appraisal was submitted with the application and provided detail of the site and its context including the existing landscape character of the general area, an assessment of the views toward the site, a discussion about the local and wider setting, a description of the proposed biomass development and landscape proposals and implications of these on the local and wider setting and views towards the site. The applicant also provided a series of photographs, drawings and photomontages from views looking toward the site.
8.107 In summary the landscape and visual appraised concluded that:
The proposed AD facility would be located close to the existing farm structures and adjacent A14 service area. The structures would be positioned within the existing ground levels and within the framework of the existing landform and localised ridgeline; Proposed landscape planting would strengthen the existing hedgerows, enhance vegetated skyline and landscape framework to the existing relatively open landform and landscape structure; The Rothwell Lodge Farm access adjoins the proposed site access and is the closest viewpoint and proposed landscaping would increasingly reduce, as planting establishes; Views from the closest residential property Rothwell Lodge Cottages (currently unoccupied) would be restricted to upper floor views and only in the context of the busy A14 foreground. Existing screening reduce views towards the proposed site from both the Rothwell Lodge Cottages and the Farm residence; The closest settlements at Rothwell and Thorpe Malsor have restricted views with only the uppermost parts of the proposed tanks and building initially just visible. At this scale, the proposals would be lost in the wider landscape and fully screens once the proposed planting is established; The planting scheme positively promotes objectives in the countryside and landscape character area assessment strategies.
8.108 Having regard to the findings of the landscape consultant, it is considered that this is a reasonable assessment of the impacts and on balance it is considered that there is not an overriding landscape or visual impact reason to justify refusing the application.
Cumulative Impact
8.109 PPS 10 states that in deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, one of the issues waste planning authorities should consider is the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the wellbeing of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential.
8.110 Overall it is considered that there is little potential for cumulative impacts from this additional facility. Effects are considered negligible as there are no other similar facilities in the surrounding locality and therefore there are no justifiable grounds for refusal having regard to cumulative impact.
Ecological and biodiversity impacts and opportunities
8.111 The application site is located on arable land with low ecological or biodiversity value. The greater locality has lost a large amount of habitat connectivity through the removal of hedgerows and vegetation to allow for more intensive arable farming, which is the reason why the landscape appears expansive and open. Natural England and the Environment Agency responded to the consultation with no objections. The Wildlife Trust withdrew their initial objection once the further information had been submitted. A series of recommendations were made aimed at maximising the value and biodiversity of the proposed landscaping scheme (see Habitat Creation and Enhancement, Restoration and Landscaping in Conditions and Reasons above).
8.112 The proposed landscaping and habitat creation and enhancement will result in a net increase in habitat and has benefits for connectivity around the boundary of the site. As a result it is considered that the application will enhance biodiversity in the locality.
Issues raised by Rothwell Town Council
8.113 In response to the points raised by Rothwell Town Council as set out in Section 5 „Consultation‟ at paragraph 5.3 (and numbered from 1 to 7). Comments regarding each respective point are detailed below. In addition, should the application be granted and if there is sufficient local interest, a Local Liaison Group can be established. This can provide a useful forum for concerns to be raised, discussed and responded to with representatives of the local community and the relevant authorities and parties, for example the Town Council, the developer and Waste Planning Authority.
8.114 Point 1 - We have serious concerns over the safety of other road users on the A14 because of the number of vehicles going into and out of the proposed plant, especially as the slip roads were designed purely as an accommodation access for the Farm.
8.115 The Highways Agency are advising on highway safety issues, please refer to Highways Agency Consultation response at paragraph 5.6 and Waste Local Plant Policy 8 (Traffic & Access) commencing at paragraph 8.61.
8.116 Point 2 - We note the size of this plant would exempt it from certain environmental regulations, so we would be concerned that the operation would not be properly monitored.
8.117 It‟s not entirely clear what environmental regulations are being referred to in Point 2 above, however the application comments on the potential for Environmental Permit exemption and in discussion with the Town Council Environmental Impact Assessment regulations were discussed and therefore the two following paragraphs are intended to comment on both these matters.
8.118 The Environment Agency and Kettering Borough Council had no objection to the application. These organisations have separate pollution and health regulatory functions which may be exercised; in particular by the Environment Agency should the applicant be required to obtain an Environmental Permit. It is noted that parts of the proposed
process (e.g. the fermentation facility) may be eligible for exemption under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2008, and the biogas combustion engines may require an Environmental Permit. There is ongoing consultation between the applicant and the Environment Agency on this matter. In the knowledge of this uncertainty and irrespective of the outcome, the Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Control Team confirmed on the 13th July 2009, that no further information is required and their position still applies.
8.119 With a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and site area of 2.28 hectares (ha) the application falls well below the respective indicative thresholds of 50,000 tpa and 10 ha in Circular 02/99 “Environmental Impact Assessment” and this would therefore suggest an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required. The Waste Planning Authority‟s screening opinion concluded that there were no other matters that would justify the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment. It is considered that recommended conditions place appropriate limitations and controls so as to prevent significant impact and provide records that will be assessed in conjunction with site inspection in order to undertake monitoring.
8.120 Point 3 - The ground underneath seems to be quite unstable but we note that they have only checked to a depth of 3 metres so we feel more investigations are needed to ascertain its suitability.
8.121 Clarification on this matter was sought from the author of the “Ground Investigation Report” dated April 2009 and supplied with the application. This confirmed that although possible foundation options are identified by the report, more detailed investigation may be necessary in connection with the specific foundation design, should the application be successful. Such matters fall within the remit of the Building Control function of Kettering Borough Council.
8.122 Point 4 - When you are dealing with animal offal there is always an awful smell, even with sealed lorries and sealed units, and it is felt it would not be possible to prevent this. Therefore in certain weather conditions, the smell could have a seriously adverse impact on Rothwell and the nearby food outlet. (MacDonalds)
8.123 As discussed in the „Local Amenity‟ section under the heading „Odour‟ (paragraph 8.89), the potential for odour impact should be mitigated through the implementation of standard good management practices and control measures proposed and „Odour & Dust‟ conditions recommended at Appendix 1.
8.124 Point 5 - If the soakaway does fill up, leaking effluent could contaminate the water sources to the north and south, and especially in the event of an accident there is a serious risk of the waterways being polluted.
8.125 The Environment Agency is satisfied that these matters can be controlled and have proposed conditions to provide additional surety. These conditions have been carried through to the recommended „Flood Risk‟ and „Pollution Prevention‟ conditions 27-29 (see Appendix A).
8.126 Point 6 - We are concerned that the Applicants have no track record of running this type of operation.
8.127 An absence of a track record is not a material planning consideration and in any event there is a growing knowledge base for anaerobic digestion technology that is available.
8.128 Point 7 - In conclusion, taking the above points into account, we feel that this site is inappropriate for this activity as planned.
8.129 The suitability of the site is discussed in section 5 „Assessment‟ particularly under Waste Local Plan Policy 1, 2 and 4 considerations, where the principle of the proposed development is assessed and found acceptable having regard to the Development Plan.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The proposal has been considered against the Development Plan and other relevant material planning considerations such as Central Government Guidance and policy in: Waste Strategy for England 2007; UK Climate Change Programme, the Energy White Papers in 2003 and 2007 and Energy Review 2006 and the UK Biomass Strategy 2007.
9.2 It is considered that the principle of the proposed development to construct and operate an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility in accordance with sustainable waste management, is established having regard to Policy 1 of the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan, and the principle that AD currently represents the preferred option for food waste treatment as supported by Central Government Policy.
9.3 The proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan Policy 2 (The Location of Waste Development); Policy 4 Development of Local Waste Facilities); Policy 7 (Design); Policies 9 to 11 (Natural and Historic Environment); Policy 13 (Water Resources and Flooding); Policy 15 (Local Amenity); Policy 16 (Restoration and aftercare); Policy 19 (Anaerobic Digestion); Policy 20 (Waste to Energy Recovery) and Policy 27 (Monitoring).
9.4 The development is also considered acceptable having regard to East Midlands Regional Plan: Policy 1 (Regional Core Objectives); Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design); Policy 11 (Development in the Southern Sub-area); Policy 38 (Regional Priorities for Waste Management) and Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation; and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy: Policy 8 (Economic Prosperity); Policy 9 (Distribution and Location of Development); Policy 13 (General Sustainable Development Principles) and Policy 14 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction).
9.5 Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of consultations with the Highways Agency, such that it does not object to the application and the imposition of any additional conditions required by the Highways Agency, the proposal is considered acceptable having regard to Waste Local Plan Policy 8 (Traffic and Access). There are considered to be no other justifiable reasons for refusal and therefore in conclusion, subject to the imposition of planning conditions to control and mitigate impacts of the development and resolution of Highways Agency matters, it is considered that the application should be approved.
10. List of Appendices
Appendix A – Recommended Planning Conditions Appendix B – Proposed Site Plan – Drawing No. FB/BR/09/001 Rev H Appendix C – Landscape Proposals - Drawing No. B08046.06A
Author: Name: James Griffin Team: Development Control
Contact details: Tel: 01604 236478 Fax: 01604 236065 Email: [email protected]
Background Papers: Planning Application file:09/00033/WAS
Is this report proposing a key decision is No taken?
If yes, is the decision in the Forward Plan? No
Will further decisions be required? If so, No please outline the timetable here
Is this report proposing an amendment to No the budget and/or policy framework?
Have the financial implications been No. There are none relevant to the cleared by the strategic finance manager determination of a planning application. (SFM)? Have any capital spend implications been Name of SFM: N/A cleared by the Capital Asset Investment Group (CAIG)
Has the report been cleared by the No, but cleared by the Chief Planning relevant Corporate Director or ACE? Officer
Has the relevant Cabinet Member been No consulted?
Has the relevant scrutiny committee been No consulted?
Have any legal implications been cleared None applicable
by Legal Services?
Have any communications issues been None applicable cleared by Communications and Marketing?
Has an Equalities Impact Assessment NO been carried out in relation to this report? There are no equal opportunity implications
Are there any community safety NO implications? There are no community safety implications
Are there any environmental implications: These are identified and discussed in this report.
Are there any human rights implications: The process for determining planning applications accords with the Human Rights Legislation
Constituency Interest: Rothwell
APPENDIX A – Recommended Planning Conditions
Commencement of Development
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To allow a reasonable period for commencement whist conforming to the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Scope of Planning Permission
2. This planning permission shall only relate to the area edged in red on the submitted “Site Location Plan”, Drawing Number: 083885/1 dated April 2008, hereafter referred to as the “site”. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out within the site in accordance with the details set out in the submitted application forms, certificates, and supporting information.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not exceed a total annual throughput of 30,000 tonnes per annum and materials entering the site shall not exceed this quantity per annum.
4. The developer shall ensure that systems are in place to ensure that the site accepts and processes only waste of a non hazardous nature and that systems are in place to deal with any prohibited wastes delivered to site.
5. The applicant shall notify the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) in writing of the date upon which the proposed anaerobic digestion plant receives its first commercial import of waste for processing.
Reason for conditions 2 to 5: To specify the scope of the permission, commencement date of waste operations and in the interests of clarity and to ensure compliance with Policy 4 of the Waste Local Plan (March 2006) (WLP) and to control the amenity impacts of the development, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Construction Hours of Working
6. All works relating to construction or demolition shall be carried out only between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Mondays to Fridays, 7.00am and 1.00pm on Saturdays thereafter and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the construction on site is carried out within reasonable hours so as to avoid disturbance to land users nearby, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Documentation
7. From the date of the commencement and throughout development, a copy of this permission including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall always be on display at the site office for inspection during normal working hours.
Reason: To ensure this planning permission and associated documents are available on site for reference and inspection.
Odour and Dust
8. Odour shall be controlled in accordance with the scheme of control measures identified in the submitted planning application (Dust and Odour Impact Assessment report ref 36575-01 dated April 2009) involving a documented management system which will monitor the plant operation and maintenance and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the WPA this shall include:
a. monitoring instrumentation and process control for correct pressure and temperatures;
b. installation of a bio-filter capable of receiving extracted air from the reception building (equivalent to 10 air changes per hour) and displaced air from the pre- storage tanks, and that shall be appropriately maintained and effective in controlling odour;
c. a requirement that the Anaerobic Digestion processing and storage tanks will be fully covered and sealed;
d. the reception building will be sealed and placed under negative pressure; and
e. automatic fast acting roller doors fitted at all vehicular entrances on the reception building
9. In the event that complaints regarding, odour or dust are received by the WPA from any sensitive receptor, and thereafter notified to the operator, an immediate assessment of the complaint shall be undertaken. A report on the findings, with proposals for removing, reducing or mitigating identified adverse effects resulting from the operation, and a programme for the implementation of remedial measures to be undertaken shall be submitted to the WPA no later than 5 working days from the receipt of the complaint, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the WPA.
Reason for Odour Conditions: To protect the interests of the area as a whole and in particular nearby residential occupiers, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Noise
10. All plant and machinery shall be noise attenuated.
11. The noise at the nearest residential properties should not breach background levels by more than 5dB(A) when measured as a 15 minute LAeq or exceed 5 LA(MAX) above 82 dBA in any one hour period and, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Protection Officers at the Local District Councils.
12. The enclosure surrounding the machinery shall be tested prior to commencement of use to ensure that the noise reduction quoted is achieved.
13. Manufacturer‟s guidelines relating to the servicing and maintenance of the silencers shall be followed and maintenance carried out at the appropriate intervals.
14. In the event that complaints regarding noise are received by the WPA from any sensitive receptor, and thereafter notified to the operator, an immediate assessment of the complaint shall be undertaken. A report on the findings, with proposals for removing, reducing or mitigating identified adverse effects resulting from the operation, and a programme for the implementation of remedial measures to be undertaken shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority no later than 5 working days from the receipt of the complaint.
Reason for noise conditions: To protect the interests of the area as a whole and in particular nearby residential occupiers, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Lighting
15. Prior to the commencement of construction, a lighting scheme shall be submitted to the WPA for approval in writing. The scheme shall:
a. Take into account lighting needs during operational hours;
b. Reduce lighting to a minimum outside of operational hours;
c. Minimise the risk of light spillage beyond the operational areas and into the sky;
d. Ensure lighting is off when the site is not occupied;
e. Minimise potential effects on bat flight paths through the use of low brightness lighting (such as low-pressure sodium) and restriction of lighting hedgerows; and
Upon approval in writing, the details shall be implemented and thereafter the development shall be operated in accordance with the approved details
Reason: To ensure that the WPA retains control over these matters, in the interests of the visual amenity of the overall development, to prevent light pollution and to ensure that the development is adequately lit. This condition is imposed, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Highway Safety and Access
16. Unless otherwise submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the scheme for access improvements shall be in general accordance with the scheme submitted in the Millard Consulting revised Transport Statement dated June 2009 Document Ref: 10260/TR/04-09/2701 Rev A, and the following: Drawing No. 10260/03/001 Rev F Document Ref: 10260/TR/07-09/2780 entitled “Exceptions Report / Designers Response” dated July 2009 by Millard Consulting Document Ref: 5408 V3 entitled “Road Safety Audit Stage 1” dated July 2009 by GCA (UK) Ltd
The scheme as approved shall be implemented fully prior to the commencement of the development and there after maintained.
Wheel Cleaning and Vehicle Sheeting
17. All operational vehicles leaving the site shall be cleansed of mud and other debris to ensure that there is no nuisance dust and no mud or debris is deposited on the public highway.
18. All operational vehicles arriving at and leaving the site shall be appropriately sealed so as to prevent material spillage, wind blow and odour nuisance.
Reason for Highway Safety, Wheel Cleaning and sheeting conditions: To ensure satisfactory means of access to the highway, safeguard the interest of users of the public highway and highway safety, having regard to WLP Policy 8.
Vehicle Routing
19. No lorries or other heavy commercial vehicles based at or visiting the site shall travel along the minor roads off the A14 including those leading to Loddington, Thorpe Malsor and minor Rothwell roads, unless collecting food waste from these settlements.
Reason: To control the impacts of traffic utilising the site in the interests if highway safety and traffic amenity having regard to WLP Policies 8 and 15.
Consignment Note Records
20. Consignment note records and waste transfer note records relating to materials imported to, stored on or taken away from the site shall be made available to the WPA upon request.
HGV Movements & Monitoring
21. The operating company shall keep records of the quantity of waste received by weight, its source and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements associated with the development and these records shall be provided to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of a written request. All such information supplied will be treated on a confidential basis.
22. The operators of the site shall submit an annual report in writing to the Waste Planning Authority within one month of the first anniversary of operations commencing and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter. The annual report shall incorporate such records that demonstrate performance with catchment area controls (Condition 23) and as required by the above monitoring condition (Condition 21). Information of commercial sensitivity will only be used in aggregated format as part of an Annual Monitoring Report produced by the Waste Planning Authority.
Reason for conditions 20, 21 & 22: To enable the Waste Planning Authority to monitor progress towards achieving the principles in Policy 1 of the Waste Local Plan; the objectives of the National Waste Strategy for England 2007; and to contribute towards the requirements of Policy 27 of the WLP.
Catchment Area
23. All waste materials to be processed on the site shall originate from locations within a 30 mile radius of the application site, unless expressly approved in writing by the WPA.
Reason: In order to: reflect the proximity principle and to minimize the transportation of waste from source and across waste planning authority boundaries; and the long term local nature of the facility; and in the interests of sustainability, having regard to WLP Policies 1, 2, 4 and 19.
Visual Amenity and Design
24. Unless otherwise prior approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, full details of the design, external appearance, and materials to be used in the construction of any new building or plant permitted by this planning permission shall be constructed in accordance with the details submitted with the application and maintained accordingly in good condition thereafter. Reason: To protect the interests of local amenity, having regard to WLP Policy 15.
Habitat Creation and Enhancement, Restoration and Landscaping
25. Biodiversity enhancement and landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with details provided with the application as detailed by drawing ref 08046/6a entitled „Landscape Proposals‟ dated April 2009, and then managed and monitored for their intended biodiversity and screening benefits in accordance with the „Outline Ecological Appraisal for Rothwell Lodge Farm‟ dated April 2009 provided with the application and in particular section 5.2 „Summary of recommendations for mitigation and enhancement‟, and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, these provisions shall include: Planting / biodiversity enhancement shall take place in the first planting season following substantial completion of construction works; Grassland clearance to take place outside of the bird nesting season (March to September inclusive)
Should it be necessary to remove any area of hedgerow, prior advice from the Waste Planning Authority shall be sought and vegetation removal shall take place using hand tools and in a careful manner, with removed vegetation replaced on a like for like basis. Provision of a strip of rough tussocky grassland along the southern margin of the site to provide foraging for birds and bats. Suitably qualified personnel shall position at least four Schwegler 1B bird boxes and four Schwegler 2FN bat boxes as part of the landscaping scheme for enhanced biodiversity on the site within one year of the commencement of anaerobic digestion operation; All plant species and grass seed mixes shall be native, of local provenance and include a high diversity of species in order to provide varied food sources for native birds as well as visual screening and general biodiversity functions; The plantings shall be appropriately maintained for the life of the facility and any plants which die or become diseased in this period shall be replaced in the following planting season; Operations that involve the destruction and removal of vegetation shall not be undertaken during the months of March to September inclusive, except when approved in writing by the WPA, once a survey report has been submitted to establish that breeding birds will not be adversely affected by lost habitat; and A written management and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval prior to completion of landscape planting. Reason: To protect the interests of design, landscape character, biodiversity and local amenity, having regard to WLP Policies 7, 9 and 15 and to fulfil duty under the Natural environment and Rural Communities Act to „have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity‟.
Reinstatement
26. In the event of the Rothwell Lodge Farm Anaerobic Digestion Facility ceasing for a period in excess of 18 months, a restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority and agreed in writing. The scheme, as agreed, shall thereafter be implemented.
Reason: To safeguard the landscape character should the development be temporary, having regard to WLP Policy 9 and 15.
Flood Risk
27. Development shall not commence until a detailed surface water drainage design for the site, within the parameters set out in the revised Flood Risk Assessment (Revision A, ref: M4605T), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before operation of the proposed facility commences.
Pollution Prevention
28. There shall be no discharge of surface water to soakaway in any area where waste is openly tipped / moved on site including vehicle loading or unloading bays and storage areas involving chemicals, refuse or other pollution matter.
29. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway, all surface water drainage from impermeable hardstandings on site accessed by vehicles shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed to be compatible with the site being drained.
Reason for conditions 27 to 29: To prevent increased risk of flooding and pollution of the water environment, having regard to WLP 13.
Waste
30. All wastes accepted onto site must be handled (stored, separated and treated) in an enclosed area and on an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system.
31. Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with adequate, durable secondary containment to prevent the escape of pollutants. The bunded area shall be designed, constructed and maintained in order that it can contain a capacity not less than 110% of the total volume of all tanks or drums contained therein.
32. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses should be bunded. Any tank overflow pipe outlets shall be directed into the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. There shall be no gravity or automatic discharge arrangement for bund contents. Contaminated bund contents shall not be discharged to any watercourse, land or soakaway.
Reason for Waste Conditions: To prevent pollution of the water environment, having regard to Policy 13 WLP.
Informative
1. For the avoidance of doubt the drawings and documentation to which this permission refers are as follows in addition to the application forms: a. The following plans: i. Site Location Plan drawing No. 083885/1 April 2008 ii. Site Sections – SHT 1 drawing no. FB/BR/09/005 B 17.03.09 iii. Site Sections – SHT 2 drawing no. FB/BR/09/006 B 17.03.09 iv. Proposed Site Plan drawing no. FB/BR/09/001 as revised 18.06.09 Revision H (dated 14.01.09) v. Proposed Floor Plan drawing no. FR/BR/09/002 B 23.02.09 vi. Proposed Elevations – SHT 1 drawing no. FB/BR/09/003 A 23.02.09 vii. Proposed Sections / Elevations drawing no. FB/BR/09/004 A 23.02.09
b. Design and Access Statement by Alan Brown Development Services Ltd c. Planning Statement – April 2009 by PPS Ltd d. Landscape Appraisal – April 2009 by the Landscape Partnership e. Ecological Appraisal - April 2009 by the Landscape Partnership f. Archaeological Assessment – 22.04.09 by Albion Archaeology g. Odour and Dust Impact Assessment – April 2009 by STATS Ltd h. Noise Impact Assessment – April 2009 by STATS Ltd i. Transport Statement - June 2009 Doc Ref 10260/TR/04-09/2701 Rev A by Millard Consulting – this Superseded Doc Ref 10260/TR/04-09/2701 - May 2009 i. Preliminary A14 Access Layout drawing no. 10260/03/001 Rev D (Supplied 18th June 2009) j. Flood Risk Assessment (Revised) – by JPP Consulting Report ref M5605T revision A dated 17.06.09 k. Ground Pollution Prevention and Control Report – by JPP Consulting Report Ref M4605T dated 31.03.09 l. Ground Investigation Report –by Soiltechnics Rev 1 April 2009 m. Waste Facilities Strategy – April 2009 by PPS Ltd n. Waste Audit – April 2009 by PPS Ltd
2. Central Networks has Network within the proposed site, any alteration, building or ground works proposed in the vicinity of power cables must be notified to Central Networks who also provided the following informative notes: a. For information regarding the safety of working around power cables contact the Cablesafe Team on 0800 015 0921 b. For new developments and ground works you can contact Central Networks, New Connections at the address below; and c. To obtain copies of Central Networks records contact the CNDS Department at the address below; d. Toll End Road, Tipton, DY4 0HH
3. Anglian Water - Water Service Note: Some minor rezoning work will be required before this development can be supplied with a peak flow of 0.69 litres per second from the 125mm MDPE in the lay-by of the A14 Kettering Road.
4. National Grid has noted that local gas and electricity distribution network information is necessary to commence the proposed works.
5. The applicant must gain any necessary permits in order to dispose of excess liquid onto nearby land.
6. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the development will not affect any water features (i.e. wells, boreholes, springs, streams or ponds) in the area, including licensed and unlicensed abstractions.
7. No works within the existing public highway may commence without the express written permission of the Highway Authority. This planning permission does not give or infer such permission. The Highway Authority, will only give consent to commence works subject to the completion of an Agreement, under Section 184 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Full engineering, drainage and constructional details will be required to process such an agreement. Any details submitted will be subject to a technical and safety audit that may result in changes to the details of the street and junction etc required to discharge the relevant condition above.
8. The attention is drawn to the implementation of the New Road Traffic Management Act 2004, where a three month notice period to allocate road space (for works within the highway) is formally given prior to the commencement of works.
9. All the fertilizer produced by the process would still be classed as a waste, unless accredited by an appropriate body (such as the compost Quality Protocol). As such, it must comply with all relevant legislation, including duty of care. To be able to spread any of the fertilizer to ground an exemption, such as Paragraph 7A or 8A, was needed from the Environment Agency at a cost of £546 at the time this advise was given. However, this being reviewed by the Environment Agency and a new system is to be introduced in the near future where this product would be classified as soil improver/fertiliser and not a waste.
10. The installation must, where relevant, comply with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 and the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991 and as amended 1997. Site occupiers intending to purchase or install pollutant secondary containment (bunding) should ensure that the materials are not vulnerable to premature structural failure in the event of a fire in the vicinity.
11. Every opportunity should be made to harvest rainwater across the site in order to meet a proportion of the water demands associated with the site i.e. toilet flushing. The Environment Agency recommends that all toilets be fitted with either a single 4.5 litre flush or a dual 6/3 litre flush to reduce water use.
Environment Agency Notes to the Applicant
12. Environmental permit The proposed development is for a waste operation that may require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Please note that Environmental Permit requirements are irrespective of any Town and Country Planning Act approvals/permissions and is not implied by these comments.
13. It is also possible that amendments to any planning permission may be needed following the permitting process. We therefore recommend that pre-application permitting discussions take place in parallel with the planning discussions to ensure that the design and operation of the scheme is complimentary to both regulatory processes.
14. The secondary containment bund for the digestate tanks shall provide storage of at least 110% of the tank's maximum capacity. If more than one tank is stored, the secondary containment bund shall be capable of storing 110% of the biggest tanks capacity, or 25% of the total tank capacity within the bund, whichever is the greater. This is to ensure that during tank failure the bunded area has sufficient capacity to retain polluted water to prevent the pollution of the water environment.
15. There shall be no automatic release of water contained within the extended slab surrounding the digestate tanks into the surface water system on site. Water shall only be released after manual inspection. This is to ensure if contaminated water is present within the extended slab it is not released to the surface water system to prevent pollution of the water environment.
APPENDIX B – Proposed Site Plan – DRW No. FB/BR/09/001 Rev H
Please note on Appendix B that reference to Bigestate Storage Tanks should read Digestate
APPENDIX C – Landscape Proposals - DRW No. B08046.06A