Document Contents

Document contents

Section 1 – Sites Assessment and Methodology Report

Section 2 – Rationale for Preferred Allocations and Associated Consultation Question

Section 3 – Site Proformas

Section 1

Sites Assessment and Methodology Report

Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Waste Local Plan

Sites Assessment and Methodology Report

LUC Methodology, Findings and Recommendations April 2015

ECC and SBC Rationale for Preferred Allocations and Associated Consultation Question May 2015

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1 18/12/14 Working Draft Report for Josh Allen Taran Livingston Taran Livingston client comment Chris Green Taran Livingston 2 31/1/15 Final Draft Report Josh Allen Taran Livingston Taran Livingston incorporating client Chris Green comments Jonathan Hill Shontelle Williams Taran Livingston 3 10/03/2015 Final Report incorporating Josh Allen Taran Livingston Taran Livingston further client comments Taran Livingston 4 19/05/2015 Final Report incorporating Josh Allen Taran Livingston Taran Livingston further client comments Taran Livingston

LUC Methodology, Findings and Recommendations April 2015 1. Introduction 1.1. Essex County Council (ECC) and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (SBC) are Waste Planning Authorities (WPAs) and as such, are required to prepare a Waste Local Plan (WLP). ECC and SBC are working jointly to produce a Replacement Waste Local Plan as required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). Once adopted the Waste Local Plan will provide the framework for where new waste development should go and determining planning applications for new waste facilities, and changes to existing waste facilities. The Replacement WLP was formerly called the Waste Development Document or WDD. 1.2. The last key stage in the preparation of the Replacement WLP was the “WDD: Preferred Approach”. This was published in November 2011 for consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations1 and work was subsequently put “on hold” in spring 2012. 1.3. The purpose of the WDD: Preferred Approach was to outline the WPAs’ preferred policy approach for managing waste within the Plan area. It included the preferred approaches for the spatial vision, strategic objectives, spatial strategy, site allocations, core policies, development management policies and a proposed monitoring framework. 1.4. The WDD: Preferred Approach identified site specific proposals for strategic waste management facilities, drawing on potential sites that were proposed through a Call for Sites exercise in 2011. These sites had been selected through a site selection process that was undertaken internally by the WPAs. 1.5. As a result of significant changes to the policy context for the Waste Local Plan since the Preferred Approach was published, the WPAs decided that a further round of Regulation 18 consultation was required before moving to Regulation 19 (Publication of the Plan). As part of this new consultation stage, it has been necessary to re-evaluate the existing sites that have been considered for inclusion within the Plan, and to consider a number of new sites that were proposed during the Preferred Approach consultation at the end of 2011/early 2012 and during a recent Call for Sites exercise carried out by the WPAs in June 2014. 1.6. LUC was commissioned in 2014 to undertake the assessment of waste proposals on potential sites to identify sites for inclusion in the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Revised Preferred Approach consultation. Structure of this Report

1.7. This Report describes the approach taken to the site assessment process and the findings and recommendations for which sites should be included in the WLP. It is structured as follows:

1 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations (2012). 3

 Section 2: Methodology – describes the method used to identify and assess potential sites for waste management uses, and to select the most suitable sites for allocation in the WLP.

 Section 3: Findings – summarises the findings of the site assessment for all the sites considered.

 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations – sets out the conclusions and recommendations of the site assessment process in terms of which sites are considered most suitable for allocation in the WLP.

 Addendum by ECC / SBC: Setting out the rationale for taking the recommendations forward into the Waste Local Plan: Revised Preferred Approach. The addendum also includes a question for the Revised Preferred Approach consultation around the Site Selection Criteria.

2. Methodology 2.1. This section explains the method used for identifying and assessing the suitability of sites that could be allocated for waste uses in the WLP. The identification of potential sites for consideration was undertaken by the WPAs through consultation with the waste industry and landowners . 2.2. In accordance with the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW)2, the methodology for selecting preferred sites for allocation in the WLP has been designed to deliver waste capacity requirements likely to arise in the plan area in accordance with the ‘Waste Hierarchy’. The methodology also needs to meet the emerging spatial strategy for the WLP, i.e. to provide a network of waste management facilities across the Plan area proximate to those key settlements generating the most waste and most likely to experience the most growth and change in the future (e.g. Chelmsford, Colchester, Basildon, Harlow and Southend) as well as other smaller centres also identified as growth areas. Opportunities for the co-location of waste facilities and using waste as a resource, including opportunities for the use of waste to create energy, such as heat and/or power, will be supported where appropriate, although the potential for cumulative impacts of waste facilities on nearby communities has been taken into account. In line with the NPPW, allocated sites are also to be located, designed and operated to minimise potential adverse impacts on the general amenity of local communities, the natural and historic environment and the landscape and townscape of Essex and Southend. 2.3. The assessment method was carried out in the following stages:

 Identification of potential waste sites.

 Update of Preferred Approach site assessment criteria.

 Stage 1 – Assessment of all the potential sites against five ‘Exclusionary’ criteria.

 Stage 2 – Initial assessment of sites which successfully passed Stage 1 to determine whether in the green belt or not, or if suitable in highway terms and/or complies with transport policy.

 Stage 3 – Detailed assessment of the sites successfully passed Stages 1 and 2 against 12 site selection criteria.

 Stage 4 – Cross-checking and moderation of all site assessments/scores by ECC to ensure consistency between assessors.

 Stage 5 – Identification of the most suitable sites which could meet the over-arching spatial strategy for the WLP.

2 National Planning Policy for Waste. DCLG, October 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-for-waste 5

Identification of potential waste sites

2.4. The first task involved identifying the potential waste sites for assessment. Site proposals from three different sources were collated and mapped:

 Sites previously obtained by the WPA from a Call for Sites exercise in 2011 and published for consultation in the WDD: Preferred Approach in November 2011.

 Additional Sites proposed during the WDD: Preferred Approach consultation in at the end of 2011.

 New sites proposed during a recent Call for Sites exercise in May/June 2014. 2.5. Table 1 lists the sites identified for assessment alongside their source, reference code and the City, District or Borough Local Authority in which they are located. Table 1: List of potential sites included in site assessment process

Site Site Name City/District/Borough Reference Authority WDD: Preferred Approach Published in November 2011

IWMF1 Stanway Site Colchester IWMF2 Rivenhall Site Braintree IWMF3 Tovi EcoPark (Courtauld Road) Basildon W1 Green Acres, Old Packards Lane, Colchester Wormingford W2 Units 5-7 Hallsford Bridge Ind Est, Brentwood Ongar W3 Basildon WWTW 1, Courtauld Rd Basildon W7 Sandon East Chelmsford W8 Elsenham Uttlesford W9 Great Dunmow Uttlesford W10 Harlow Harlow W12 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe Colchester W13 Wivenhoe Quarry Plant Area Colchester W14 Alresford Tendring W15 Wellwick, Martins Fm, St Osyth Tendring W16 Eastern Avenue Southend L(i)3R Tile Kiln, Valley Fm, Sible Braintree Hedingham L(i)4R Shellow Cross Fm, Willingale Chelmsford, Epping L(i)5 Sunnymead, Elmstead & Heath Tendring Fms, Alresford L(i)6 Sandon Chelmsford L(i)7 Stanway (Fiveways Fruit Farm) Colchester L(i)8R Armigers Farm Uttlesford L(i)10R Blackley Quarry, Gate Farm Site 1 Chelmsford L(i)13R Wellwick, Martins Fm, St Osyth Tendring L(n)1R Slough Fm, Ardleigh - Area 1 Tendring L(n)2R Martell's Tendring

L(n)33 Crumps Fm, Lt Canfield Uttlesford Additional Sites Proposed During WDD: Preferred Approach Consultation in Late 2011

W24 Widdington - Hollow Road Uttlesford W25 Fairfield Farm - Fordham Road Colchester W27 Friern Manor - Land South of A127 Basildon, Brentwood L(n)7R Little Bullocks Farm Site A22 Uttlesford L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm Site A23 Uttlesford New Sites Proposed During June 2014 Call for Sites Exercise

W17 Allens Farm - Wivenhoe Road, Tendring Colchester, CO7 7BN W18 Batemans Farm - Lynderswood Braintree, Chelmsford Lane W19 Hastingwood - London Road Harlow W20 Courtauld Road, Burnt Mills Basildon L(i)16 Dollymans Farm - Doublegate Lane Basildon, Rochford W21 Dollymans Farm - Doublegate Lane Basildon, Rochford W22 Michelins Farm - Arterial Road, Basildon, Rochford Rayleigh W23 Station Yard - Bentley Road Tendring W26 Winsford Way Chelmsford L(n)4 Barling Landfill - Off Mucking Hall Rochford Road, SS3 0NR W28 Barling Landfill - Off Mucking Hall Rochford Road, SS3 0NR L(n)5 Bellhouse Landfill Site - Warren Colchester Lane W29 Bellhouse Landfill Site - Warren Colchester Lane L(n)6R Pitsea Landfill - Pitsea Hall Lane Basildon W30 Pitsea Landfill - Pitsea Hall Lane Basildon W31 Morses Lane, Brightlingsea Tendring L(i)15 Fingringhoe Quarry 1 Colchester New Sites and/or Different Proposals on Sites already put forward

W32 Crumps Fm, Lt Canfield Uttlesford W33 Ardleigh off the A120 Tendring W34 Cordons Farm Braintree W35 Armigers Farm Uttlesford SIE5 The Basketworks, Grange Road, Colchester Tiptree

2.6. The three sites referenced as ‘IWMF’ represent the waste planning authority’s three strategic waste allocations, for the integrated waste management facility proposals at Stanway and Rivenhall and the Mechanical Biological Treatment facility at Courtauld Road, which is now operational. Sites with proposals for landfill facilities were assessed separately and given ‘L’ references denoting the predominant type of landfill proposed (‘n’ for non-inert landfill sites / ’i’ for inert landfill sites). The planned allocation of complementary aggregate recycling facilities on the same sites is denoted is an ‘R’. Sites with all other potential waste management facilities proposed were coded with a ‘W’. Where

3 Note that since the Preferred Approach consultation, the site promoter has advised ECC that the site is no longer being promoted for landfill but other types of waste management facilities. Therefore, this site has been re-coded as W32, and only considered for the non-landfill waste management uses proposed. 7

sites have been proposed for both landfill use and other waste management facilities, the site has been given two codes, and assessed twice (e.g. L(n)4 and W28 Barling Landfill site)4. 2.7. Figure 1 illustrates the location of each potential site within Essex and Southend-on-Sea.

4 These have been assessed twice for the two different waste facility types as the impacts are different between landfill facilities and other waste management facilities. 8

District boundary Potential waste site

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_007_Waste_Sites 10/03/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

Updating Site Assessment Criteria

2.8. An important element of the methodology is the assessment criteria and the manner in which the scoring system is applied. The site assessment methodology used in the WDD: Preferred Approach was updated to ensure the method used to assess the potential waste sites:

 met the latest national policy, including the NPPW, other relevant policy and best practice;

 captured the relevant suggestions that emerged through the last round of consultation on the Preferred Approach; and

 is transparent, replicable and defensible at the WLP Examination in Public should it be required. 2.9. To be consistent with previous work on the WDD, the existing methodology set out in Appendix D of the WDD: Preferred Approach Document was used as a basis for the latest iteration of the site assessment methodology. 2.10. Responses collected during the last phase of consultation on the WDD: Preferred Approach resulted in the following amendments to the site assessment methodology:

 The re-assessment of the three strategic waste sites already with planning permission/operational – IWMF1 Stanway, IWMF2 Rivenhall, IWMF3 Tovi EcoPark (Courtauld Road) – so that all potential waste sites are assessed consistently and the decision- making process for allocation is transparent.

 The inclusion of qualifying criteria and mapping (including relevant data) for each assessment criterion in the assessment proforma to clearly communicate the judgements and justifications behind each score.

 The inclusion of commentary and analysis on the proximity of each potential waste site to settlements in close proximity to existing waste sites to identify potential cumulative impacts.

 The revision of the assessment criteria to include the assessment of potential waste sites effects on: o receptors sensitive to noise, air pollution and loss of value; o centres of growth; o Green Belt; o leisure/recreation; o transport infrastructure; and o ground water. Site Assessment Database

2.11. A GIS-linked Access database was constructed to capture all the spatial data, information and judgements recorded during the site assessment

process. The outputs from the database are contained in the Site Assessment Proformas for each site, included in a separate Annex to this report. Stage 1: Exclusionary assessment

2.12. Stage 1 involved a ‘high level sieving’ exercise to determine which of the suggested waste proposals are unlikely to meet the minimum requirements of the five ‘Exclusionary Criteria’ set out in the Table 2.

Table 2: Stage 1 Exclusionary Criteria

Exclusionary Justification Judgements Assessment method Criteria 1A: Site Size, All proposals must demonstrate that they  GIS data for site area  Any sites less than 0.65ha in area are likely to be Area and Shape can be satisfactorily accommodated on  Professional judgement for too small to accommodate a standalone waste site. Vehicles must be able to manoeuvre site shape. satisfactorily and sufficient land must be management facility and have therefore been available for any required mitigation excluded. measures, such as planting and  Sites over 0.65ha with a shape likely to affect the landscaping. Most waste management operational abilities of standalone waste facilities need sites of at least 0.5 ha to management facilities have been excluded (e.g. a accommodate buildings and circulation very thin site which would restrict circulation of areas5. However, ECC’s emerging vehicles). Employment Land Review6 used 0.65 ha as the minimum requirement. 1B: Availability The facility proposed must be deliverable  Review of information  Sites with site owners unable or unwilling to make a in planning terms within the plan period provided by site promoters. site available for a suitable waste use during the (2014 to 2032).  Review of MLP allocations. plan period (2014 to 2031) will be excluded.  Review of District Plan  An existing/potential voidspace (acknowledged in allocations. the WLP and MLP) must be available if a site is to be suitable for landfill. Sites without a suitable voidspace will be excluded from use as a landfill site.  Allocated for another conflicting use in relevant District or Borough Local Plans or LDF Documents (e.g. residential or retail uses). 1C: Flood Risk Paragraph 100 in the NPPF and the  GIS data analysis. Technical Guidance on Flood Risk require  Landfill sites within Flood Zone 3 will be excluded Local Plans to apply a sequential, risk- unless they can be justified through Sequential and based approach to the location of Exception Tests and the consideration of flood development to avoid where possible protection/mitigation measures.

5 Planning for Waste Management Facilities, ODPM, 2004. 6 Review of employment land for waste management facilities, Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, unpublished draft.

Exclusionary Justification Judgements Assessment method Criteria flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change and giving preference to locating development in Flood Zone 1, followed by Flood Zone 2 then Flood Zone 3. Table 2 (Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification) in the National Planning Practice Guidance7 outlines the flood risk vulnerability classifications. Landfill sites and waste management facilities for hazardous waste are considered to be more vulnerable, which means that they are potentially incompatible with flood zones 2 and 3. Other waste, water and sewage treatment works are considered less vulnerable, which means that they are potentially compatible with most flood zones with the exception of flood zone 3b, the functional floodplain. 1D: Ground Water The risk of leachate from landfill sites and  GIS data analysis. Sites within Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ 1) are Vulnerability other ground contamination from other  waste facilities requires careful unsuitable for landfill and will therefore be consideration of the hydro-geology within excluded. and surrounding a site. Ground water Source Protection Zones (SPZs) are defined in the Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater (Environment Agency 1998), and there is a general presumption against waste management facilities in ground water

7 Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/flood-zone-and-flood-risk-tables/table-2-flood-risk- vulnerability-classification/

Exclusionary Justification Judgements Assessment method Criteria source protection zones to protect public water supply abstractions from pollution. However, this mainly applies to landfills and not other waste management facilities. The EA Regulatory Guidance Note 3 'Groundwater Protection: Locational aspects of Landfills in Planning Consultation Responses and Permitting Decisions' states that the EA will object to any proposed landfill in SPZ 1 and that for all other proposed landfill locations a risk assessment must be conducted, because of the long term management requirements associated with landfill. For non-landfill waste operations within SPZ 1, the EA would only object to proposals for new development where they believe the operation poses an intrinsic hazard to groundwater quality. Outside SPZ 1, the EA will agree to proposals for new developments of non- landfill waste operations where risks can be appropriately controlled by an Environmental Permit or the terms and conditions of a relevant waste exemption. Therefore, SPZ 1 should not be an exclusionary criterion for non-landfill operations. 1E: International Paragraphs 118-119 of the NPPF  GIS data analysis. and National discourage development that would  Sites adjacent to, partly or wholly within Ecology, Heritage adversely affect international and national international and national ecological designations, and Landscape biodiversity designations. International including RAMSAR, SPA, SAC, SSSIs and National Designations and national ecological designations have Nature Reserves will be excluded. statutory protection through international  Sites within National Park or Areas of Outstanding and EU conventions (Ramsar, 1971; Natural Beauty (AONB) will be excluded.

Exclusionary Justification Judgements Assessment method Criteria Bern, 1979; Bonn, 1979) and directives  Sites containing or within 250m of (to approximate (79/409/EEC; 92/43/EC) or should receive their setting) the following international and national the highest possible planning protection. heritage designations, World Heritage Sites, Grade Paragraph 115 in the NPPF states that I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens and great weight should be given to Registered Battlefields, Scheduled Monuments, conserving landscape and scenic beauty Grade I and II* listed buildings and Conservation in National Parks and Areas of Areas will be excluded. Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. National landscape designations are protected though the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). Paragraph 132 in the NPPF states that substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional, in accordance with the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas Act 1990..

2.13. Proposed waste sites that failed to meet the requirements of one or more of the Exclusionary Criteria were discounted from further assessment. 2.14. Sites that met the minimum requirements of the Stage 1 exclusionary criteria were taken forward to Stages 2 and 3 where further site selection criteria were considered in more detail, and a five-point traffic-light scoring system was used. 2.15. The scoring system ranged from green (representing no/positive effects) to red (severe adverse effects that cannot be adequately mitigated). The full range of scores and their associated meanings are set out in Table 3 below. Table 3: Traffic-light scoring system

Colour Description Score

Red The impact / issue is severe and it can’t be adequately mitigated. -2

Amber 3 There is a major impact / issue which may be acceptable (in most -1 cases with substantial mitigation).

Amber 2 There is a moderate impact / issue which may be acceptable (in 0 most cases with mitigation).

Amber 1 There is a minor impact /issue which may be acceptable (and 1 may involve mitigation).

Green There are no/insignificant adverse impact(s) / issue(s), or there 2 are positive effects. Stage 2: Initial assessment of Green Belt and Transport

2.16. Stage 2 focused on the issues of location within the green belt and potential transport impacts and requirements. The NPPW states waste planning authorities should work collaboratively with other planning authorities to look for suitable sites and areas outside the Green Belt for waste management facilities that, if located in the Green Belt, would be inappropriate development. Avoiding impacts on communities from heavy duty vehicles transporting waste to and from facilities (i.e. noise, nuisance, safety, congestion as opposed to air pollution) is considered a high priority, and the current transport policy in the saved Adopted Waste Local Plan Policy W4C8 seeks to ensure that waste development occurs on more strategic routes in the road hierarchy. 2.17. Stage 2 introduces a sequential approach whereby sites that are in the green belt or score red for traffic and transportation are held back (unless there are exceptional circumstances). Rather than being excluded completely such as at Stage 1, sites in the green belt or that do not comply with transport policy would only be considered for allocation if, after the rest of the assessment had been carried out through Stage 3, insufficient sites that passed Stage 2 were suitable for meeting the capacity gap associated with a particular waste stream.

8 Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted September 2001. 16

2.18. Table 4 sets out the Stage 2 criteria along with a description of the assumptions used to make judgements regarding what constitutes a red/amber/green score.

Table 4: Stage 2 criteria and judgements for red/amber/green scores

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria 2A: Green Belt Paragraph 6 of the NPPW states waste GREEN:  GIS data analysis. planning authorities should work collaboratively with other planning authorities  Sites not within the Green Belt. to look for suitable sites and areas outside the Green Belt for waste management facilities AMBER 1: that, if located in the Green Belt, would be  N/A inappropriate development. Local planning authorities should recognise the particular AMBER 2: locational needs of some types of waste  N/A. management facilities when preparing their Local Plan. AMBER 3:  N/A

RED:  Sites within the Green Belt. 2B: Traffic and All facilities that may be proposed on sites GREEN:  ECC Highways Transportation allocated for waste management are likely to specialist carried out  Suitable in Highway Terms, nothing further involve some road transportation of waste, assessment. however, proximity to rail lines/depots/sidings, required; and/or rivers/canals or wharves could provide  Appropriate connection to a rail depot/transhipment opportunities to explore more sustainable site; and/or appropriate connection to a wharf. modes of transporting waste. Paragraph 5 of  Complies with Transport Policy (Policy W4C in the NPPW sets out criteria for site Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan Adopted assessments and includes the need to assess September 2001. the capacity of existing and potential transport AMBER 1: infrastructure to support the sustainable  Minor issues require further movement of waste, and products arising from information/investigation. Minor works required but resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road feasible in opinion of Highway Authority. transport. AMBER 2:

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria Direct impacts of lorry traffic (i.e. noise, nuisance, safety, congestion as opposed to air  Moderate issues that require further pollution) on communities relates to how much information/investigation. Works required, feasibility access is reliant on local roads. yet to be demonstrated in opinion of Highway The traffic and transportation assessment has Authority. been carried out by the ECC Highway AMBER 3: Authority, and taken the suitability of existing access, capacity of local transport  Major issues that require further infrastructure and safety of the access route information/investigation. Major works required, into account. feasibility yet to be demonstrated in opinion of Highway Authority. RED:  Not suitable in Highway Terms.  Does not comply with Transport Policy.

Stage 3: Detailed assessment of sites

2.19. Sites that met the minimum requirements of the Stage 1 exclusionary criteria were taken forward to Stage 3 for a more detailed assessment. However, sites that did not pass Stage 2 (i.e. were either in the green belt or scored red for transport) were held back from consideration for allocation in the WLP, unless insufficient sites that passed Stage 2 were suitable for meeting the capacity gap associated with a particular waste stream. 2.20. The Stage 3 assessment involved the professional judgement of a range of specialists from LUC and ECC. Sites were assessed on their potential to produce adverse and/or positive effects on 12 criteria, including flood risk, ground water vulnerability, ecology, heritage, landscape and visual impacts, compatibility with neighbouring land uses, proximity to sensitive receptors and key centres of growth, recreation, land instability, previously developed land and general planning history. 2.21. Each potential waste site was given a score for each of the Stage 3 criteria. The twelve Stage 3 assessment criteria are described in Table 5, along with a description of the assumptions used to make judgements regarding what constitutes a red/amber/green score. As shown in Table 5, for some site assessment criteria, the potential effects may not be so severe that mitigation is not possible. Therefore, the scoring options available for each criterion vary, with some of the red/amber/green scores not being applicable to some of the criteria. For example, Criterion 3B: Compatibility with neighbouring land uses relates to the potential benefits identified in the NPPW of co-locating waste facilities with other waste management facilities or complementary activities resulting. Therefore, only the top 3 scores (Green, Amber 1 and Amber 2) are used for criterion 3B, because the proximity of the potential site to other waste facilities or complementary activities is a positive effect in terms of co-location, but if a potential site does not have compatible neighbouring uses it is not considered to be an issue so severe that it cannot be mitigated. Similarly, Criterion 3E: Protection of Water Resources does not have a Red score, as the potential for any impacts so severe that cannot be mitigated would have been excluded in stage 1 under Criterion 1D: Ground Water Vulnerability. 2.22. A desk-based assessment was carried out initially, using GIS data provided by ECC to LUC, along with other data sources listed in the final column of Table 5. The ECC specialists covered the assessment of potential effects on landscape, heritage assets, biodiversity and traffic and transportation. SBC officers also provided input to the assessment of the site in Southend-on-Sea. 2.23. All sites taken forward to Stage 3 were subjected to a site visit to validate and inform the judgements made during the desk-based assessments. Data in the field was captured using tablets and directly inputted in to the GIS-linked Access database. Photographs were taken to aid in the presentation of the findings.

Table 5: Stage 3 Detailed assessment criteria and judgements for red/amber/green scores

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria 3A: Planning Sites which have already been allocated for GREEN:  Review of planning Background waste use in relevant City, District or Borough application information.  Positive waste use policy / permission history. Planning history for Local Plans, or with existing planning  Review of District Plan AMBER 1: the site and any permission for waste uses will score favourably allocations. incompatible land as this demonstrates they have already been  No relevant history / policy. uses granted assessed as suitable for accommodating permission in waste uses. Conversely, where planning AMBER 2: proximity. permission has previously been refused on the  Previous refusal of some relevance on-site (e.g. site, or where the site has been permitted for industrial use or similar structure in size and scale other non-waste and potentially incompatible to a waste facility). uses, then the site may be less suitable. AMBER 3:  Recent potentially incompatible (unimplemented) permissions on-site. RED:  Similar or identical planning refusal on-site; and/or  Incompatible (unimplemented) permissions of strategic scale on-site or adjacent. 3B: Compatibility Paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for GREEN:  Determined on site. with neighbouring Waste (NPPW)9 states that waste planning land uses authorities should identify, in their Local Plans,  For all facility types: site or adjacent site already sites and/or areas for new or enhanced waste contains an existing waste facility; and/or management facilities in appropriate locations,  For enclosed waste management facilities: site is and should consider a broad range of locations located on an existing industrial estate used for including industrial sites, looking for general industry, storage and distribution activities opportunities to co-locate waste management (acknowledged to be compatible with enclosed waste management facilities);

9 National Planning Policy for Waste, DCLG, October 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364759/141015_National_Planning_Policy_for_Waste.pdf

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria facilities together and with complementary  For energy from waste facilities: site is located on activities. an existing industrial estate used for general The NPPW notes that complementary industry, storage and distribution activities and activities could include low carbon energy adjacent to an existing large energy user (e.g. recovery facilities in close proximity to suitable hospital); potential heat customers.  For landfills and aggregate/C&D recycling facilities: site is located within an existing or allocated mineral extraction site. AMBER 1:  For all facility types: site or adjacent site contains an existing waste water treatment works; and/or  For enclosed waste management facilities: site is located on an existing industrial estate used for light industry and offices (which may be compatible with enclosed waste management facilities).  For small scale enclosed waste management facilities: site includes redundant agricultural buildings. AMBER 2:  For all facility types: no waste facilities or compatible land uses on or adjacent to the site. AMBER 3:  N/A. RED:  N/A.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria 3C: Previously Paragraph 4 of the NPPW states that waste GREEN:  Review of base map in developed land planning authorities should give priority to the 10 GIS first.  Site is wholly on previously developed land ; re-use of previously-developed land, sites  Confirmed on site. identified for employment uses, and redundant and/or agricultural and forestry buildings and their  Contains redundant agricultural and forestry curtilages when considering sites and areas for buildings and their curtilages. location of waste management facilities. In AMBER 1: line with the NPPF definition of previously  Site contains more than 50% previously developed developed land, the following approach has land. been taken to determining whether potential  For open air composting facilities: site is on waste sites are greenfield or previously greenfield land. developed: AMBER 2: - Firstly, if the site is being proposed for  Site contains 50% or less previously developed landfill, then the landfill proposal could be used as part of the restoration of any current land. or future mineral void at the site. AMBER 3: - Therefore: o If the site is an operational mineral  Site is wholly on greenfield land. extraction site = PDL. o If the site is an operational landfill site = RED: PDL.  N/A. o If the site is greenfield but allocated for mineral extraction in the MLP = PDL (for landfill proposals only). o If the site is greenfield but has a planning permission for mineral extraction, and the conditions for restoration include landfilling = PDL. o If the site is greenfield but has a planning permission for mineral extraction, but the conditions for restoration do not include

10 Note that this includes operational mineral extraction sites in line with the NPPF definition of previously developed land.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria landfilling = Greenfield. o If the site includes historic ‘borrow pits’ which are now grassed over depressions in fields = Greenfield.

- If the site is not being proposed for landfill, then:

o If the site is an operational mineral extraction site = PDL. o If the site is greenfield but allocated for mineral extraction in the MLP = Greenfield. o If the site is greenfield but has a planning permission for mineral extraction, and the conditions for restoration include landfilling = Greenfield. o If the site is greenfield but has a planning permission for mineral extraction, but the conditions for restoration do not include landfilling = Greenfield. o If the site includes historic ‘borrow pits’ which are now grassed over depressions in fields = Greenfield. 3D: Proximity to Waste facilities could have a negative effect on GREEN: health or amenity of sensitive receptors  GIS data analysis first. sensitive protecting the amenity of local residents and unlikely to be affected due to:  Then review of base receptors communities. This is because all waste  No sensitive receptors within 250m (100m for map in GIS to describe Proximity to developments could result in some level of the type of sensitive residential, noise (possibly vibration), traffic, dust, air Materials Recycling Facilities); and  No other existing waste sites within 1km of any receptors within educational and pollution and/or light pollution during 250/100m. medical land uses construction and potentially during operation settlement within 1km of the proposed waste site, as well. NPPW Appendix B sections G (air limiting the risk of cumulative effect on the amenity emissions including dust), H (odours), I of the local community; and (vermin and birds) and J (noise, light and  For non-inert landfill sites: site is not within an Airport Safeguarding or Bird Strike Hazard Area.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria vibration) outlines issues relating to proximity AMBER 1: of sensitive receptors to waste facilities that should be taken into consideration by waste  20 or fewer sensitive properties within 250m (100m planning authorities when identifying sites for for Materials Recycling Facilities). waste uses in plans.  The proposed waste site is within 1km of a large Planning for Waste Management Facilities: A settlement (Basildon, Braintree, Brentwood, Research Study (ODPM, 2004) states in the Chelmsford, Clacton-on-Sea, Colchester, Harlow General Siting Criteria sections for many of the and Southend-on-Sea) that is within 1km of an different waste management facilities existing waste site, increasing the risk of (composting, anaerobic digestion, mechanical cumulative effects on the amenity of the local and biological treatment, pyrolysis and community. gasification, thermal treatment) that where AMBER 2: possible, they should be located at least 250 metres from sensitive properties (i.e.  21-100 properties within 250m (100m for Materials residential areas, schools, hospitals etc.). Recycling Facilities); and/or However, for Materials Recycling Facilities, it  The proposed waste site is within 1km of a small to notes that if amenity issues such as noise and medium-sized settlement that is within 1km of an litter can be minimised, facilities could be existing waste site, increasing the risk of located within 100m of sensitive receptors. cumulative effects on the amenity of the local Any increases in road transport of waste will community. lead to increases in local air pollution and emissions of CO2. The further vehicles AMBER 3: transporting waste have to travel along local  101-200 properties within 250m (100m for roads (i.e. not on the primary road network), Materials Recycling Facilities). the higher the potential for more localised air pollution as they are likely to travel more slowly RED: on local roads. In addition, if the waste facility is within, or vehicles are travelling through,  More than 200 properties within 250m (100m for AQMAs where existing air pollution issues Materials Recycling Facilities); and/or have been identified, there is more potential for  For energy from waste facilities with flues: at least negative effects on air quality. However, none one property within 250m. of the potential waste sites are within 1km of  For non-inert landfill sites: site is within an Airport an AQMA and are therefore not considered Safeguarding or Bird Strike Hazard Area. likely to affect these areas. The potential effects of transporting waste are

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria addressed in criterion 2N below relating to Proximity to Key Centres of Growth. With respect to birds, Section I of Appendix B of the NPPW states that the numbers and movements of some species of birds may be influenced by the distribution of landfill sites which accept putrescible waste, becoming a major nuisance to people living nearby and a hazard to aircraft at locations close to aerodromes or low flying areas. 3E: Protection of The extent to which a waste management GREEN:  GIS data analysis first. water resources facility will affect ground and surface water  Then review of base  Landfill and non-landfill sites outside both SPZ 2 depends on the type of facility that would be map in GIS to and 3 and not containing or adjacent to water developed. Non-inert landfill sites that could determine whether any bodies. potentially lead to loss of contaminants or surface water bodies AMBER 1: accidental pollution incidents. However, nearby. proposals for enclosed facilities are not  Non-landfill sites in SPZ 2 and 3.  Check for water bodies expected to affect surface water. As stated in during site visits. Planning for Waste Management Facilities: A AMBER 2: Research Study (ODPM, 2004), “as most facilities are under cover and on concrete hard  Non-landfill sites in SPZ 1. standing with separate foul water drainage,  Landfill and non-landfill sites containing or adjacent rainfall is unlikely to come into contact with the to water bodies. waste materials and, as such, water pollution is unlikely.” AMBER 3: Groundwater Source Protection Zones are  Landfill sites in SPZ2 or SPZ3. defined in the Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater (Environment Agency 1998), and there is a general RED: presumption against waste management facilities in ground water source protection  N/A zones to protect public water supply abstractions from pollution. However, this mainly applies to landfills and not other waste management facilities. The EA Regulatory

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria Guidance Note 3 'Groundwater Protection: Locational aspects of Landfills in Planning Consultation Responses and Permitting Decisions' states that the EA will object to any proposed landfill in Source Protection Zone 1. For all other proposed landfill site locations, a risk assessment must be conducted based on the nature and quantity of the wastes and the natural setting and properties of the location. Furthermore, the EA will object to landfill sites that require active long-term site management to prevent long-term groundwater pollution:  below the water table in any strata where the groundwater provides an important contribution to river flow or other sensitive surface waters;  on or in a Principal Aquifer; and  within Source Protection Zones 2 or 3.

Within SPZ 1, the EA would only object to proposals for new development of non-landfill waste operations where they believe the operation poses an intrinsic hazard to groundwater quality. Outside SPZ 1, the EA will agree to proposals for new developments of non-landfill waste operations where risks can be appropriately controlled by an Environmental Permit or the terms and conditions of a relevant waste exemption. Therefore, non-landfill operations could be considered in all Source Protection Zones,

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria albeit, sites within SPZ 1 may require more assessment of potential risks to groundwater quality.

3F: Flood Risk Paragraphs 100-105 of the NPPF describe GREEN:  GIS data analysis. Zone how Local Authorities should apply a sequential, risk based approach to the location  Any potential site within Flood Risk Zone 1 of development to avoid where possible flood AMBER 1: risk to people and property and manage any  Non-landfill sites in Flood Risk Zone 2. residual risk by: applying the Sequential Test; if necessary, applying the Exception Test; and AMBER 2: using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impact  Non-landfill sites with less than 50% in Flood Zone of flooding. As stated in the National Planning 3. Practice Guidance11, local authorities should  Landfill sites with less than 50% in Flood Zone 2. take a sequential approach to developing in AMBER 3: areas at risk of flooding, giving preference to locating development in Flood Zone 1,  Non-landfill sites with 50% or more in Flood Zone followed by Flood Zone 2 then Flood Zone 3. 3. Table 2 (Flood Risk Vulnerability  Landfill sites with 50% or less within Flood Zone 3 Classification) in the National Planning or 50% or more in Flood Zone 2. Practice Guidance12 outlines the flood risk vulnerability classifications. Landfill and sites RED: and waste management facilities for  Non-landfill sites wholly within Flood Zone 3. hazardous waste are considered to be more  Landfill sites with 50% or more within Flood Zone 3. vulnerable, which means that they are potentially incompatible with flood zones 2 and 3. Other waste, water and sewage treatment works are considered less vulnerable, which

11 Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/the-aim-of-the-sequential-test/ 12 Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/flood-zone-and-flood-risk-tables/table-2-flood-risk- vulnerability-classification/

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria means that they are potentially compatible with most flood zones with the exception of flood zone 3b, the functional floodplain. 3G: Land Section B of Appendix B in the NPPW states GREEN:  Check for steep instability that locations, and/or the environs of locations, topography, signs of  Site is not within or adjacent to unstable land. that are liable to be affected by land instability erosion/subsidence  Landfill sites on existing or old mineral extraction may not normally be suitable for waste during site visits. management facilities. Essex is a relatively sites. flat County with limited steep topography AMBER 1: vulnerable to instability.  N/A National Planning Policy Guidance (2014) defines unstable land as areas vulnerable to AMBER 2: landslides, mining hazards or subsidence.13  N/A. (Evidence for such vulnerabilities was recorded during the site visits). AMBER 3: Sites historically used for mineral extraction often contain steep-sided voids with the  Non-landfill sites within or adjacent to unstable potential for instability issues. Such voids land. have a potential use as landfill sites. Carefully RED: managed landfilling can improve the stability of such land in the long term.  N/A. 3H: Landscape AONBs have statutory protection through the GREEN:  ECC Landscape and visual Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). specialist carried out  No or insignificant landscape and/or visual impacts for waste There are no National Parks in Essex. assessment. management Areas of high landscape quality and the setting effect(s). facilities other than of settlements may be affected by the AMBER 1: landfill development of waste management facilities.  Minor landscape and/or visual effect(s) which may In addition, areas with poor landscape be capable of mitigation to make acceptable. character could be enhanced through the creation of a high quality design or landmark AMBER 2: waste facility. However, this will not be able to  Moderate landscape and/or visual effect(s) which

13 Paragraph 003, National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) Land Stability Guidance, 2014

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria be determined until the planning application may be capable of mitigation to make acceptable. stage. It is likely that sites within, or on brownfield AMBER 3: land adjacent to, existing industrial estates  Major landscape and/or visual effect(s) which may should not have a significant effect on be capable of mitigation to make acceptable. landscape character, visual intrusion or the quality or setting of settlements. RED: The landscape and visual impact assessment  Major landscape and/or visual effect(s) which has been carried out by the ECC Landscape could not be made acceptable with mitigation. specialist. 3I: Biodiversity International and national sites have statutory GREEN:  ECC Ecology specialist Impacts on protection through international and EU carried out  Largely urban sites with very little vegetation. biodiversity and conventions (Ramsar, 1971; Bern, 1979; Bonn, assessment. ecology 1979) and directives (79/409/EEC; 92/43/EC)  Maybe some insignificant impacts/issues or should receive the highest possible planning associated with European and National protected protection as outlined in Paragraphs 109 to species (EPS & UKPS) that can be mitigated. 125 in the NPPF. AMBER 1: Waste management sites should be located a  Less direct minor impact on one or more Local reasonable distance away from designated Wildlife Site (LWS) that could be mitigated. wildlife sites, including locally important sites of  An Open Air site within 500m of a sensitive LWS nature conservation; especially those that could cause harm as a result of dust, provide ecological connectivity. noise/vibration or visual disturbance. If the site Where possible, biodiversity loss, including direct loss of habitats and indirect losses were proposed for thermal treatment, air emissions could still have a significant impact on a through the fragmentation of green 15 infrastructure networks, should be avoided. LWS within 2km . Previously developed land will not be assumed  Minor-moderate impact upon an area of to have no biodiversity value. Previously undesignated semi-natural vegetation. developed land that has been undisturbed for  Potential for minor impacts/issues associated with a significant period of time can in some EPS & UKPS and/or Section 41 Species. instances have greater ecological value than AMBER 2:

15 Annex F Air Emissions: Environment Agency’s H1 Environmental Risk Assessment Framework.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria ‘greenfield sites’. The design of modern waste management  Less direct minor-moderate impact on one or facilities is increasingly adopting innovative more national or international WS that could be practice and there may be opportunities to avoided/mitigated.  Proposed Open Air sites treating non-hazardous incorporate green or brown roofs within the 16 design. Good design of any landscaped areas waste that are located within 2km of an within the site could also incorporate the use of international WS (SPA/SAC) that supports native species and habitats to encourage qualifying species sensitive to predation by gulls biodiversity within the site, which could or corvids have been scored Amber 2. contribute to achieving biodiversity targets.  All proposed sites within 2km of an international However, this would be very dependent on the WS (SPA/SAC) have been scored Amber 217. If exact nature and proposed design of the the site were proposed for thermal treatment, air planned waste facility type, which would not be emissions could still have a significant impact on known until the planning application stage, and an international WS (SAC/SPA) within 10km18. has not been factored into the assessment of  An Open Air site within 500m of a sensitive ecological impacts. national WS could cause harm as a result of dust, The ecological impact assessment has been noise/vibration or visual disturbance. If the site carried out by the ECC Ecology specialists, were proposed for thermal treatment, air with additional justification for the scores emissions could still have a significant impact on a provided in the Strategic Ecological Site national WS within 2km19. Assessment14.  Moderate impact on one or more LWSs that could be mitigated e.g. direct loss of habitat that would not affect the site’s overall integrity; or direct pollution (via air/water), or direct disturbance (via noise/light/vibration) to a LWS within close proximity.  Major irreversible impact upon an area of

14 Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Waste Local Plan Strategic Ecological Site Assessment. Essex County Council, 2014. 16 2km gull predation - SEPA Technical Guidance Note Habitats Regulations & The Landfill Regulations Guidance. 17 Open Air and Enclosed sites located within 2km and Enclosed Thermal sites located within 10km of an SAC or SPA have been scored Amber 2 and will be subject to further investigation as part of the plan-level Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report. 18 Annex F Air Emissions: Environment Agency’s H1 Environmental Risk Assessment Framework. 19 Annex F Air Emissions: Environment Agency’s H1 Environmental Risk Assessment Framework.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria undesignated semi-natural vegetation, e.g. resulting in its total loss or damage. AMBER 3:  Major impact on one or more national or international WS that could be mitigated, e.g. loss of habitat that does not affect the site’s overall integrity; or direct pollution (via air/water), or direct disturbance (via noise/light/vibration) that could impact upon qualifying species/features of interest of a national or international WS. Major irreversible impacts upon one or more LWS that would require compensation. e.g. direct loss of habitat that would affect the site’s overall integrity. RED:  Major irreversible impact upon one or more national or international WS and associated qualifying species/features of interest that cannot be adequately mitigated, e.g. direct loss of habitat. 3J: Heritage Sections 60 (1) and 72 (1) of the Listed GREEN:  ECC Heritage Effect upon Building and Conservation Area Act 1990 specialist carried out  There are no impacts/issues OR impacts/issues designated heritage states, inter-alia that in considering assessment. assets and development sites special consideration needs are considered insignificant. archaeological to be given when development would have AMBER 1: remains affect any Listed Buildings (and their setting)  There is a minor impact/issue, which may be and/or Conservation Area. The Act requires acceptable (but may require mitigation). significant weight being afforded to protecting finite heritage resources and local planning AMBER 2: authorities should have special regard to the  There is a moderate impact/issue, which may be desirability of preserving or enhancing the acceptable (but in most cases will require

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria character or appearance of that area. mitigation). The NPPF requires local authorities to conserve and enhance the historic AMBER 3: environment and states that when considering  There is a major impact/issue, which may be the impact of a proposed development on the acceptable (in most cases with substantial significance of a designated heritage asset, mitigation). great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The NPPF states that the RED: principles set out within the policy apply to the  The impact/issue is so severe it could not be heritage designations for which local planning adequately mitigated. authorities are responsible under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The heritage impact assessment has been carried out by the ECC Historic Environment specialist. 3K: Recreation Paragraph 74 of the NPPF prohibits existing GREEN:  GIS data analysis first. Facilities open space, sports and recreational buildings  Then review of base  Sites not containing PRoW or within 100m of and land from being built upon unless there is map in GIS to try to formal open spaces, such as outdoor sports an assessed surplus, any loss would be identify nature of facilities, parks and gardens, children’s equipped replaced or the development in question is for recreation facilities. playspace and school grounds and playing fields. new and improved recreational facilities, and  Check during site Paragraph 75 requires the protection and visits. enhancement of public rights of way. AMBER 1: Recreational facilities in close proximity to potential waste sites could be at risk from  N/A becoming less attractive for users or in some AMBER 2: cases removing the access (e.g. public rights of way and formal open spaces such as  Sites directly adjacent to PRoW and/or formal outdoor sports facilities, parks and gardens, open spaces, such as outdoor sports facilities, children’s equipped playspace and school parks and gardens, children’s equipped playspace grounds and playing fields). This is because and school grounds and playing fields.

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria all waste development could result in some AMBER 3: level of noise, traffic, and light pollution during construction and potentially during operation  Sites containing public rights of way. as well. There may be some opportunities for RED: enhancement to footpaths/Public Rights of  Sites containing formal open spaces, such as Way (PRoW) through development of outdoor sports facilities, parks and gardens, particular sites. children’s equipped playspace and school grounds and playing fields. 3L: Proximity to Paragraph 4 of the NPPW states that waste Score Inert Waste Non-  GIS data analysis. Key Centres of planning authorities should plan for the Landfill Manageme Hazardous Growth disposal of waste and the recovery of mixed nt Facility Landfill or  Review of GIS data to Basildon, municipal waste in line with the proximity MRF state which settlement the site is closest to. Chelmsford, principle, recognising that new facilities will GREEN Up to Up to 10km Up to 25km Colchester, Harlow need to serve catchment areas large enough 10km

and Southend to secure the economic viability of the plant. Based on average distances of 10km for inert landfill and waste management facilities Score Inert Waste Non- (except MRF), 25km for non-hazardous landfill 20 Landfill Manageme Hazardous and MRF . The scores in this table set out nt Facility Landfill or whether a site would be likely to serve the MRF centres where the highest level of change and AMBER 10.1 - 10.1 - 13km 25.1 - 30km development is envisaged, which would 1 20km contribute to reducing CO2 emissions arising from transportation of waste. Score Inert Waste Non- Landfill Manageme Hazardous nt Facility Landfill or MRF

20 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Carbon_Methodology_-_Nov_2010_V101.f1571b4f.10324.pdf (The distances as shown for ‘Green’ are found in table 3.7.3 on page 19 of this report.)

Secondary Site Justification Judgements/Scoring Assessment method Selection Criteria AMBER 20.1-30km 13.1-16km 30.1 - 35km 2

Score Inert Waste Non- Landfill Manageme Hazardous nt Facility Landfill or MRF AMBER 30.1 - 40km 16.1 - 20km 35.1 - 40km 3

Score Inert Waste Non- Landfill Manageme Hazardous nt Facility Landfill or MRF RED Over Over 20km Over 40km 40km

2.24. Many sites have been promoted by site owners/developers as being suitable for a number of different types of waste facility, therefore, Stage 2 involved a comparative assessment of the effects of the different types of waste facility where relevant. 2.25. Effects were predicted based on the sites’ proximity to sensitive receptors and the nature of the waste facilities proposed. Waste facilities were grouped into three broad categories generally likely to have similar effects21, as shown in Table 6. Differences in effects between specific waste facility types were clearly outlined in the Stage 3 criteria (see Table 5). The potential sites were assessed under the three broad categories according to which waste facility types the site promoters had identified as being suitable on each site. Table 6: Broad categorisation of waste facility types

Waste Facility Waste Facility Category used in Site Assessment

Transfer Station

Storage Station

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Enclosed Waste Facilities (housed in Metal Recycling Facility buildings)

In-vessel Composting Facility (IVC)

Mechanical Biological Treatment Facility (MBT)

Combined Heat and Power Facilities (CHP)

Gasification and Pyrolysis Facilities Enclosed Thermal Facilities (housed in buildings with flues and digestate piping) Anaerobic Digesters (AD)

Autoclaving Facilities

Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (CD&EW) Recycling Facilities (or inert recycling)

End of Life Vehicle (ELV) Recycling Facilities

Windrow Composting Facilities Open Air Facilities Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTWs)

Inert Landfill Sites

Non-hazardous Landfill Sites

Hazardous Landfill Sites

21 Based on the building and site characteristics, planning issues and requirements for each facility type set out in “Planning for Waste Management Facilities”, ODPM, 2004. 36

2.26. Table 7 shows the types of facilities proposed by site promoters for all of the sites included in the assessment (see Table 1 for site names and City/District/Borough they are within).

Table 7: Categories of waste facilities proposed for each site included in the assessment

Enclosed Enclosed Thermal Open-air Transfer Transfer Recycling Recycling Composting Treatment – Energy Energy from Treatment – Treatment – Recycling – Recycling Recycling Composting Treatment Landfill Landfill – Landfill Landfill – – – Waste – – Metal – In-vessel Mechanical from waste – Anaerobic Autoclaving CD&EW – CD&EW – End of – Windrow – WWTW – Inert Non- - Non- Hazardous Transfer storage Materials recycling Biological waste – Gasification Digestion/ inert/soil non-inert Life hazardous inert station Recovery Site Treatment Combined & Pyrolysis Biogas screening Vehicle Facility Heat & Facility Reference Power IWMF1 Yes Yes Yes IWMF2 Yes Yes Yes Yes IWMF3 Yes Yes L(i)3R Yes Yes L(i)4R Yes Yes L(i)5 Yes L(i)6 Yes L(i)7 Yes Yes Yes L(i)8 Yes L(i)10R Yes Yes Yes Yes L(I)13 Yes L(i)15 Yes L(i)16 Yes Yes Yes L(n)1R Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes L(n)2R Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes L(n)3 Yes Yes Yes L(n)4 Yes Yes Yes L(n)5 Yes Yes Yes L(n)6R Yes Yes Yes L(n)7R Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes L(n)8R Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W2 Yes Yes W3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W9 Yes W10 Yes

Enclosed Enclosed Thermal Open-air Transfer Transfer Recycling Recycling Composting Treatment – Energy Energy from Treatment – Treatment – Recycling – Recycling Recycling Composting Treatment Landfill Landfill – Landfill Landfill – – – Waste – – Metal – In-vessel Mechanical from waste – Anaerobic Autoclaving CD&EW – CD&EW – End of – Windrow – WWTW – Inert Non- - Non- Hazardous Transfer storage Materials recycling Biological waste – Gasification Digestion/ inert/soil non-inert Life hazardous inert station Recovery Site Treatment Combined & Pyrolysis Biogas screening Vehicle Facility Heat & Facility Reference Power W12 Yes W13 Yes Yes W14 Yes Yes W15 Yes Yes W16 Yes Yes W17 Yes W18 Yes Yes Yes Yes W19 Yes Yes W20 Yes Yes W21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W22 Yes Yes W23 Yes Yes W24 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W25 Yes W26 Yes W27 Yes W28 Yes W29 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W30 Yes Yes Yes Yes W31 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes W33 Yes W34 Yes W35 Yes Yes Yes SIE5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Stage 4: Cross-checking and moderation

2.27. LUC reviewed the judgements provided by the ECC specialists for landscape, heritage, biodiversity and traffic/transportation to ensure that the approach was consistent with the scoring for the other Stage 3 assessment criteria. In addition, ECC officers in the Minerals and Waste Planning and Development Management teams reviewed the scores for all sites and all Stage 2 and 3 assessment criteria to ensure consistency. Stage 5: Identification of most suitable sites for WLP

2.28. The last stage of the site assessment process involved reviewing the overall scores for each site that was assessed in Stage 2, and then considering the relevant sites proposed for different types of facilities that are known to be needed within the plan area (based on the ECC (2015) Non Technical Capacity Summary). Those sites that scored highest (i.e. with the most green-amber scores) and therefore the least likely to have adverse impacts on all the site assessment criteria are considered to be the most suitable. 2.29. However, further consideration needed to be given to how well the distribution of the high scoring sites fit with the emerging overall spatial strategy for the WLP, which includes the need:

 To be in line with the proximity principle, i.e. encourage different types of waste to be dealt with as near to their source as is practical.

 To have sufficient existing and planned capacity to deal with Essex and Southend-on-Sea’s own waste arisings by becoming ‘net self- sufficient’, subject to economic and environmental concerns.

 To provide a network of waste management facilities across the Plan area proximate to those key settlements generating the most waste and most likely to experience the most growth and change in the future (e.g. Chelmsford, Colchester, Basildon, Harlow and Southend) as well as other smaller centres also identified as growth areas.

 To support opportunities for the co-location of waste facilities and using waste as a resource, including opportunities for the use of waste to create energy, such as heat and/or power, where appropriate.

 To ensure Essex and Southend-on-Sea have sufficient opportunities to cater for their waste management needs, Preferred Site allocations will be supported by ‘Areas of Search’ covering existing, suitable employment areas used for general industry, storage and distribution, or on land allocated for such in an adopted local plan (see below). 2.30. The consideration of how the most suitable sites fit with the spatial strategy is set out in the following chapter. Shortlisted Industrial Estates

2.31. LUC was also commissioned to identify whether any of the shortlisted industrial estates (SIEs) in ECC’s draft Assessment of Employment Land 40

for Waste Management Facilities22 contain available plots and willing landowners and may be suitable for site allocation. 2.32. Over 50 industrial estates were shortlisted within the draft Employment Land Review (see Figure 2). Various sources were used to attempt to obtain contact details for the SIE owners, estate managers, etc.: 1. The WPA provided LUC with two excel spreadsheets containing waste industry and some industrial estate contacts generated during a Waste Management Industry Survey conducted in April 2014 by BPP Consulting. LUC cross-checked the two spreadsheets and the names and locations of the SIEs from the Employment Land Review to see if any of the contacts matched. 2. LUC contacted Essex County Council’s Investment Team to utilise the Council’s subscription to the on-line database CoStar, the UK’s largest database of buildings. 3. LUC used on-line search engines to obtain the post codes of the SIEs. The post codes were then used to search the Land Registry database for additional landowners. 4. LUC contacted planning officers from Districts within Essex to request contacts of landowners and managing agent of SIEs within their respective Districts. 2.33. The above searches resulted in obtaining email or postal addresses for all but 14 of the SIEs. Before making contact with the SIEs, LUC drafted a directory of contacts, a questionnaire and covering letter and consulted ECC on their contents. (A copy of the questionnaire is located in Appendix A). 2.34. LUC sent emails and letters out to the SIEs on the 21st October 2014, seeking responses within two weeks. The SIEs for which email addresses were obtained were emailed; the SIEs without email addresses but with postal addresses were sent a letter. 19 emails were sent and 27 letters were posted. Each email/letter contained a copy of the questionnaire. A reminder email was sent to those SIEs with email addresses on 7th November 2014 to try to generate further response.

22 Assessment of Employment Land for Waste Management Facilities, Stage 1 report to inform the preparation of the Replacement Essex Waste Local Plan, September 2013. 41

District boundary Shortlisted industrial estate

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_008_Employment_Sites 10/03/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

3. Findings 3.1. Detailed Site Assessment Proformas for all sites listed in Table 1 are presented in a separate Annex to this report. Shortlisted Industrial Estates

3.2. LUC received seven responses from the emails and letters sent out in October 2014. Three SIEs sent completed questionnaires, one called and LUC completed the questionnaire and three e-mailed their responses. 3.3. Five respondents reported SIEs that were not considered available for waste uses. These were:

 Ford Research and Technical Centre, Basildon, Essex.

 Earls Colne Industrial Estate / Airfield, Colchester.

 Horndon Industrial Park, Brentwood.

 Chesterford Research Park, Uttlesford.

 Thaxted Road Employment Site (SIE34), Saffron Walden. 3.4. One respondent noted that they were not empowered to respond and were unsure who would be. 3.5. One respondent expressed interest in accommodating waste uses on their SIE:

 The Basketworks (SIE5), Grange Road, Tiptree. 3.6. Therefore, this site was included in the assessment alongside the other proposed waste sites, and is discussed in the sections below. However, it is noted that any of the SIEs should be suitable for accommodating enclosed waste facilities. Given the NPPW emphasis on locating waste facilities on employment land and industrial estates, it may be necessary for ECC to allocate some of the SIEs to allow flexibility for the waste management industry. Stage 1: Exclusionary assessment

3.7. Table 8 lists the sites that were excluded from further consideration at Stage 1 and summarises the main reasons for their exclusion. Table 8: Sites excluded following Stage 1: Exclusionary assessment

Site Site Name Reasons for Exclusion Reference Martell’s The site is not allocated in the MLP, and L(n)2R therefore there is no available void suitable for landfill. Crumps Fm, Lt The site is not allocated in the MLP, and L(n)3 Canfield therefore there is no available void suitable for landfill. However, the site promoter confirmed that they are not proposing landfill on this site, 43

so the same site has been coded as W32 and considered for the other waste facility types proposed. Barling Landfill, off The site is partly within a RAMSAR, SPA, SAC L(n)4 Mucking Hall Road and SSSI and most of the site sits within Flood Zone 3. Tile Kiln, Valley The site is not allocated in the MLP, and L(i)3R Farm, Sible therefore there is no available void suitable for Hedingham landfill. Armigers Farm The site is not allocated in the MLP, and L(i)8 therefore there is no available void suitable for landfill. Units 5-7 Hallsford The site is likely to be too small (0.337ha) to W2 Bridge Industrial accommodate a waste management facility. Estate Barling Landfill, off The site is partly within a RAMSAR, SPA, SAC W28 Mucking Hall Road and SSSI and most of the site sits within Flood Zone 3.

Stage 2: Initial assessment of Green Belt and Transport

3.8. Table 9 lists the sites that were held back from further consideration either because they are in the green belt or they scored red for Transport. Table 9: Sites that do not pass Stage 2

Site Site Name Reason Reference L(i)4R Shellow Cross Fm, The site is within the Green Belt. Willingale L(i)16 Dollymans Farm - The site is within the Green Belt. Doublegate Lane L(n)6R Pitsea Landfill - The site is within the Green Belt. Pitsea Hall Lane W19 Hastingwood - The site is within the Green Belt. London Road W21 Dollymans Farm - The site is within the Green Belt. Doublegate Lane W27 Friern Manor - Land The site is within the Green Belt. South of A127 W30 Pitsea Landfill - The site is within the Green Belt. Pitsea Hall Lane

W1 Green Acres, Old The site is not considered to be suitable in Packards Lane, Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Wormingford Transport Policy. W14 Alresford The site is not considered to be suitable in Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy. W17 Allens Farm - The site is not considered to be suitable in Wivenhoe Road, Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Colchester Transport Policy. W18 Batemans Farm - The site is not considered to be suitable in Lynderswood Lane Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy. W23 Station Yard - The site is not considered to be suitable in Bentley Road Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy. W24 Widdington - Hollow The site is not considered to be suitable in Road Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy. W25 Fairfield Farm - The site is not considered to be suitable in Fordham Road Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy. W35 Armigers Farm The site is not considered to be suitable in Highway Terms and/or does not comply with Transport Policy.

Stage 3: Detailed assessment of sites

3.9. From the remaining sites that passed Stage 2, Table 10 shows how many sites include proposals for each of the waste facility types. Table 10: Number of sites with proposals for the different waste facility types

Broad Waste Waste Facility Number of sites where this Facility Category type of facility is proposed 23

Transfer Station 13

Storage 7

Materials Recovery Facility 11 Enclosed Waste (MRF) Facilities (housed in buildings) Metal Recycling Facility 1

In-vessel Composting Facility 6

Mechanical Biological Treatment 8 Facility (MBT)

Combined Heat and Power 5 Facilities (CHP) Enclosed Thermal Facilities (housed Gasification and Pyrolysis 3 in buildings with Facilities flues and digestate piping) Anaerobic Digesters (AD) 11

Autoclaving Facilities 6

Construction, Demolition and 13 Excavation Waste (CD&EW) Recycling Facilities (or inert recycling)

End of Life Vehicle (ELV) 1 Recycling Facilities

Open Air Facilities Windrow Composting Facilities 3 Waste Water Treatment Works 0 (WWTWs)

Inert Landfill Sites 10

Non-hazardous Landfill Sites 5

Hazardous Landfill Sites 1

23 It should be noted that the promoters for a number of sites that were put forward, suggested the site may be capable of accommodating a number of different types of waste management facilities. 46

Overall scores from Stage 3 assessment for sites passing Stage 2

3.10. Table 11 shows the overall scores for each site assessed in Stage 3 that passed Stage 2, for the broad facility categories relevant to the facility types proposed on each site. Each of the scores given to each site for all of the twelve Stage 3 and two Stage 2 criteria have been added together to give the overall score for the relevant broad facility category that the site has been proposed for. Given that the highest score for each criterion is 2 (if the judgement is Green, i.e. development of the site for the particular waste facility proposed would have no effects or insignificant effects), and the lowest score is -2 (except for the four criteria with no Red scores), then any site with a positive overall score is likely to have mostly minor or moderate impacts if developed for waste management uses, which may be acceptable provided adequate mitigation is implemented. The highest scoring sites are likely to have mostly minor impacts, which may be acceptable (and may involve mitigation). Sites scoring less than 0 are likely to have more major impacts that would only be acceptable with with substantial mitigation.

Table 11: Overall scores for all sites that passed Stage 2

Site information Overall score if site used for: Site Site Name District Open Air Enclosed Enclosed Code facilities facilities Thermal facilities IWMF1 IWMF Stanway Colchester 16 16 14 IWMF2 IWMF Rivenhall Braintree - 15 13 IWMF Tovi EcoPark IWMF3 (Courtauld Road) Basildon - 19 - Sunnymead, Elmstead & L(i)5 Heath Fms, Alresford Tendring 15 - - L(i)6 Sandon Chelmsford 11 - - Stanway (Fiveways Fruit L(i)7 Farm) Colchester 17 - - Blackley Quarry, Gate Farm L(i)10R Site 1 Chelmsford 16 11 - Wellwick, Martins Fm, St L(i)13 Osyth Tendring 6 - - L(i)15 Fingringhoe Quarry 1 Colchester 19 - - Slough Fm, Ardleigh - Area L(n)1R 1 Tendring 17 - - Bellhouse Landfill Site - L(n)5 Warren Lane Colchester 18 - - L(n)7R Little Bullocks Farm Site A22 Uttlesford 15 - - L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm Site A23 Uttlesford 17 - - Basildon WWTW 1, W3 Courtauld Rd Basildon 18 20 16 W7 Sandon East Chelmsford 14 8 2 W8 Elsenham Uttlesford 11 11 8 W9 Great Dunmow Uttlesford - 21 - W10 Harlow Harlow - 26 - W12 Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe Colchester - 12 - W13 Wivenhoe Quarry Plant Area Colchester 15 - 13 Wellwick, Martins Fm, St W15 Osyth Tendring 7 7 - W16 Eastern Avenue, Southend Southend - 22 - W20 Courtauld Road, Burnt Mills Basildon - 22 20 Michelins Farm - Arterial Basildon, W22 Road, Rayleigh Rochford - 17 - W26 Winsford Way Chelmsford - 20 - Bellhouse Landfill Site - W29 Warren Lane Colchester 17 17 14 W31 Morses Lane, Brightlingsea Tendring 16 16 13 W32 Crumps Fm, Lt Canfield Uttlesford 11 11 12 W33 Ardleigh off the A120 Tendring - 17 - W34 Cordons Farm Braintree - 20 - SIE5 Basketworks Site Colchester 26 26 25

3.11. The overall scores for the sites proposed for Open Air facilities range from 6 (L(i)13 Wellwick) to 26 (SIE5 Basketworks). 3.12. The overall scores for the sites proposed for Enclosed facilities range from 7 (W15 Wellwick) to 26 (W10 Harlow and SIE5 Basketworks). 3.13. The overall scores for the sites proposed for Enclosed Thermal facilities range from 2 (W7 Sandon East) to 25 (SIE5 Basketworks).

Capacity requirements

3.14. The ECC (2015) Non Technical Capacity Summary notes that the most likely requirements at 2031/32 is contained within ‘Scenario 2’24. It is noted that all significant planning permissions, including the permitted Integrated Waste Management Facilities (e.g Courtauld Rd, Basildon) and landfills have an essential role in ensuring the plan area’s waste management infrastructure meets the required capacity. Should the two other IWMF permissions at Rivenhall Airfield and Stanway be implemented, there would potentially be surplus capacity of materials and energy recovery facilities. However, it would be preferable for at least one of these facilities to become operational during the plan period, to reduce the requirements for additional waste management facilities and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. 3.15. The capacity of the IWMF sites was considered within one scenario (Scenario 3) of the Capacity Gap Report when identifying the additional waste management capacity that will be needed over the WLP period. At the time of writing, Tovi EcoPark (Courtauld Rd) has started operating, whilst the applicant at Rivenhall applied for an extension in commencement time to allow development to begin, meaning they have an active permission until 2 March 2016. The Stanway IWMF is also still yet to commence with permission expiring in May 2015 (a request for an extension of time has not been applied for) and there is yet to be further details submitted as required by conditions relating to the extant permission. If Stanway and/or Rivenhall do not become operational, other waste facilities will be required, but this situation will need to be reviewed following the potential expiration of planning permissions for Stanway and Rivenhall in May 2015 and March 2016 respectively. 3.16. The capacity requirements considered in this Site Assessment Report therefore relate to Scenario 2 of the Capacity Gap Report, which is considered the most likely scenario as this includes the capacity that is either already operational, or currently under construction (i.e. Tovi EcoPark - Courtauld Road), but excludes capacity that has planning permission but yet to start construction (i.e. Stanway and Rivenhall). 3.17. The Capacity Gap Report states that six transfer facilities have been granted planning permission within Essex and Southend, to support the Courtauld Road materials recovery facility in Basildon. These will, once constructed, accept waste from the Waste Collection Authority vehicles directly from kerbside collection and bulk up the waste, ready for transportation to Courtauld Road. The Capacity Gap Report shows that within these six transfer facilities, there is a total transfer capacity of just over 428 thousand tonnes per annum, if all permissions are implemented. To date, the facility in Southend is operational (but requires alterations) and construction has started on three Essex facilities. It is expected that all of the transfer facilities will be constructed

24 Scenario 2 provides a best and worst case requirement, based on currently operational and under construction capacity within the plan area, excluding capacity which has planning permission but is less certain to become operational, as it is yet to begin construction. Please refer to the Essex County Council (2015) Non Technical Capacity Summary for further details. 49

by summer 2015. On the basis that all these transfer facilities become operational, there is not considered a further need for Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) transfer capacity during the plan period. However, as with the three IWMF sites, there is a need to safeguard or allocate these transfer facilites as Preferred Sites in the WLP, to ensure sufficient transfer capacity for LACW over the plan period. In order to be consistent with the approach to include the IWMF sites in the Site Assessment process, the six LACW transfer sites have been subject to assessment and discussed below. 3.18. The ECC (2015) Non Technical Capacity Summary summarised the identified need25 for the following types of waste management in the plan area in the period up to 2031/32:

 Biological treatment – it is considered most likely that between 242 to 309 thousand tonnes per annum will be needed by 2031/32. In line with the Government’s preference for anaerobic digestion to recover material and energy from biological waste, sites proposing AD as well as sites proposing in-vessel and open windrow composting have been considered to meet this gap.

 CD&E (inert) Waste recycling – under the mid point scenario 1.27 million tonnes per annum would be required by 2031/32, assuming that the proportions of waste currently treated and sent for beneficial re-use are maintained at present levels. If this additional capacity for CD&E Waste recycling was met, it would eliminate the need for CD&E (inert) Waste landfill completely, in accordance with the waste hierarchy26.

 Inert landfill for CD&E (inert) Waste – total amount required is approximately 10.64 million cubic metres equating to 16 million tonnes27, which would require up to approximately 0.84 million tonnes per annum on average. As noted above, this capacity gap would be reduced and may not occur at all if sufficient CD&E Waste recycling sites are implemented to meet the full CD&E Waste recycling capacity gap.

 Additional hazardous treatment and disposal capacity may only be required within the plan area if there is no long-term provision at the installations currently used in adjacent authorities. Sites proposed for LACW transfer facilities

3.19. The six sites with planning permission for LACW transfer facilities passed Stages 1 and 2 and are set out in Table 12 along with the overall

25 As presented in the ECC (2014) Capacity Gap Report and the LRS (2014) Addendum report. 26 The difficulty with estimating this waste stream are well documented, so the LRS (2014) addendum to the Replacement Waste Local Plan (table 9, page 21) suggests that the proportions of total waste arisings currently treated/recycled and sent for beneficial use should be maintained at present levels, but does not indicate a suggested additional capacity required per year. 27 LRS (2014) Local Waste Arisings: Addendum to the Replacement Waste Local Plan Capacity Gap Report compliled on behalf of Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. 50

score obtained during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 12 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site. 3.20. As discussed above, once all six of these sites are constructed a total transfer capacity of just over 428,000 tonnes per year would be provided, which is sufficient transfer capacity for LACW over the plan period. Table 12: Stage 3 sites promoted for LACW transfer facilities

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of major issues Code Borough capacity (as Stage 2 from site assessment shown in & 3 Capacity Gap score Report) W10 Harlow Harlow 55,000 tpa 26 No Amber 3 or Red scores.

W26 Winsford Chelmsford 90.000 tpa 24 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Way W16 Eastern Southend 67,900 tpa 22 Site scored Amber 3 for: Avenue, Southend 3D (Proximity to sensitive receptors): the site is adjacent to residential areas.

No Red scores. W9 Great Uttlesford 29,400 tpa 21 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Dunmow W34 Cordons Braintree 71,250 tpa 20 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Farm W33 Ardleigh off Tendring 115,000 tpa 17 No Amber 3 or Red scores. the A120

3.21. Table 12 shows that these sites have very few major constraints (only W16 scored Amber 3 for proximity to sensitive receptors). The six sites are well located within the County in relation to areas of waste arisings (see Figure 3), and will contribute to moving waste management up the waste hierarchy, therefore it is recommended that all six LACW transfer sites are suitable for allocation (or safeguarding) in the WLP.

District boundary !( Recommended

(! (! (!

(! (!

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_014_Fig3_LACW 10/03/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

Sites proposed for biological treatment

3.22. The nine sites that passed Stages 1 and 2 and that have been proposed by site promoters as suitable for either open windrow and/or in-vessel composting and/or AD have been considered in relation to meeting the capacity gap for biological treatment. Because AD falls within the ‘enclosed thermal’ category, in-vessel composting within the ‘enclosed’ category, and open windrow composting within the ‘open-air’ category, the overall score for each facility type could be different, even if they are proposed on the same site. The nine sites and the types of biological treatment processes proposed by the site promoters are summarised in Table 13. 3.23. For those sites where more than one biological treatment facility has been proposed, the facility type with the highest score for that site has been considered in the first instance for allocation within the WLP, also taking into account the capacity gap requirements, waste hierarchy and spatial distribution of facilities. Table 13: Stage 3 sites promoted for biological treatment uses

Facility Facility Name District/ Open In-Vessel Anaerobic Code Borough Windrow Composting Digestion Composting

W3 Basildon WWTW Basildon   1, Courtauld Rd

W7 Sandon East Chelmsford   

W8 Elsenham Uttlesford   

W13 Wivenhoe Quarry Colchester  Plant Area

W20 Courtauld Road, Basildon   Burnt Mills

W29 Bellhouse Landfill Colchester Site – Warren   Lane

W31 Morses Lane, Tendring  Brightlingsea

W32 Crumps Farm, Lt Uttlesford   Canfield

SIE5 Basketworks Site Colchester  

3.24. As noted above, the Non Technical Capacity Summary (2015) identifies a capacity gap in biological treatment facilities of between 242 to 309 thousand tonnes per annum by 2031/32, which could be met through either AD, open-windrow composting or in-vessel composting. 3.25. Table 14 lists the three sites where open windrow composting facilities have been proposed by the site promoters (among other facility types),

the estimated throughput (where provided by promoters) and the overall score obtained during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 14 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site. 3.26. If all three of these sites were to be allocated for open windrow composting use, then capacity to treat approximately 105,000 tonnes per year would be provided. Table 14: Stage 3 sites promoted for open windrow composting facilities

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of major issues Code Borough capacity Stage 2 from site assessment (provided by site & 3 promoter) score W29 Bellhouse Colchester Open windrow 17 Site scored Amber 3 for: Landfill Site composting - - Warren 25,000tpa 3K (Recreation): the site Lane contains a PRoW.

No Red scores. W7 Sandon Chelmsford 40,000tpa (just 14 Site scored Amber 3 for: East one figure given despite promoted 3C (Previously developed for a number of land - PDL): the site is types of facilities) considered to be greenfield as the previous mineral extraction work has now blended into the landscape.

3G (Instability); the site contains a number of signs stating 'Danger: Landslide and Deep Water'. (classified as Green for landfill only).

No Red scores. W8 Elsenham Uttlesford 40,000 tpa (just 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: one figure given despite promoted 3C (PDL): the site is wholly for almost all greenfield land. types of facilities) 3H (Landscape): the site is part of a historic landscape.

No Red scores.

3.27. Table 15 lists the six sites where in-vessel composting facilities have been proposed by the site promoters (among other facility types), the estimated throughput (where provided) and the overall score obtained during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 15 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site.

3.28. If all these sites were to be allocated for in-vessel composting use, then capacity to treat at least 244,000 tonnes per year would be provided. Table 15: Stage 3 sites promoted for in-vessel composting facilities

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score SIE5 Basketworks Colchester Unknown, 26 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Site assume 25,000 tpa based on site area28. W20 Courtauld Basildon 34,000 tpa 22 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Road, Burnt Mills W3 Basildon Basildon 25,000 tpa 20 No Amber 3 or Red scores. WWTW 1, Courtauld Rd W32 Crumps Fm, Uttlesford 80,000 tpa 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: Lt Canfield (Irrespective of the type of 3C (PDL): the site is wholly waste greenfield land. development, the capacity of 3H (Landscape): the site is the site is part of a historic landscape. considered by the site No Red scores. promoter to be 80,000 tpa). W8 Elsenham Uttlesford 40,000 tpa for 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: all facilities proposed 3C (PDL): the site is wholly greenfield land.

3H (Landscape): Major landscape and visual effects.

No Red scores. W7 Sandon East Chelmsford 40,000tpa for all 8 Site scored Amber 3 for: facilities proposed 3C (PDL): the site is considered to be greenfield as the previous mineral extraction work has now blended into the landscape.

3G (Instability); the site contains a number of signs stating 'Danger: Landslide and Deep Water'. (classified as Green for landfill only).

No Red scores.

3.29. Table 16 lists the nine sites where anaerobic digestion facilities have been proposed by the site promoters (among other facility types), the estimated throughput (where provided) and the overall score obtained

28 Based on the generic facility requirements set out in Planning for Waste Management Facilities, ODPM 2004. 55

during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 16 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site. 3.30. If all of these sites were to be allocated for AD use, then capacity to treat approximately 421,000 tonnes per year would be provided. Table 16: Stage 3 sites promoted for AD facilities

3H (Landscape): Effects could be significant due to height of flue.

No Red scores. W13 Wivenhoe Colchester AD: 25,000 - 13 Site scored Amber 3 for: Quarry Plant 50,000 tpa Area 3C (PDL): the site is currently being used as a mineral extraction site; however, a restoration scheme has been put in place. Therefore, the site is considered to be greenfield land.

3K (Recreation): the entrance to the site cuts across a PRoW.

No Red scores. W31 Morses Lane, Tendring 75,000 tpa 13 Site scored Amber 3 for: Brightlingsea recorded for all facility types 3C (PDL): the site is largely proposed greenfield land.

3H (Landscape): Moderate visual effect and moderate to high landscape effect.

29 Based on the generic facility requirements set out in Planning for Waste Management Facilities, ODPM 2004. 56

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score

Site scored Red for:

3D (Receptors): the site is within 250m of 145 sensitive receptors. W32 Crumps Uttlesford 80,000 tpa 12 Site scored Amber 3 for: Farm, Lt (Irrespective of Canfield the type of 3C (PDL): the site is wholly waste greenfield land. development, the capacity of 3H (Landscape): the site is the site is part of a historic landscape. considered by the site No Red scores. promoter to be 80,000 tpa). W8 Elsenham Uttlesford 40,000 tpa for 8 Site scored Amber 3 for: all facilities proposed 3C (PDL): the site is wholly greenfield land.

3H (Landscape): Major landscape and visual effects.

3J (Heritage): High sensitivity with potential impacts on the setting of listed buildings and potential impacts on below ground archaeological deposits.

No Red scores. W7 Sandon East Chelmsford 40,000 tpa for 2 Site scored Amber 3 for: all facilities proposed 3C (PDL): the site is considered to be greenfield as the previous mineral extraction work has now blended into the landscape.

3G (Instability); the site contains a number of signs stating 'Danger: Landslide and Deep Water'. (classified as Green for landfill only).

3H (Landscape): a high flue would have major effects on the surrounding landscape.

No Red scores.

3.31. By reviewing the potential significant adverse effects (Red and Amber 3 scores) of the sites proposed for windrow composting, in-vessel composting and anaerobic digestion, as well as their location within the County, proximity to areas of waste arisings, ability to move waste 57

management up the waste hierarchy and the amount of capacity for biological treatment they would be likely to provide, the following sites are recommended as being suitable for allocation for organic waste treatment:

 W29 – Bellhouse Landfill Site - Warren Lane, Colchester (53.82ha) – open-windrow composting (25,000tpa) – scored 17; and AD (50,000 tpa) – scored 14. No Red scores, and two Amber 3 scores (a thermal AD facility would have a flue and therefore a landscape/visual impact which could be difficult to mitigate and the site contains a PRoW, which could be mitigated by diverting the PRoW).

 W3 – Basildon WWTW 1, Courtauld Rd, Basildon (1.73 ha) – in- vessel composting (25,000 tpa) – scored highest score of 20 for IVC and has no Red or Amber 3 scores.

 W20 – Courtauld Road, Burnt Mills, Basildon (5.1 ha) – in-vessel composting (34,000 tpa) – scored higher for IVC (22) than AD (20).

 SIE5 – Basketworks Site, Colchester (0.9 ha) – AD (capacity unknown, assume 50,000 tpa due to site area) – scored 25 and has no Red or Amber 3 scores. While it would also be suitable for IVC, the capacity may be lower due to the site size30.

 W13 – Wivenhoe Quarry Plant Area, Colchester (2.23 ha) – AD (25,000 - 50,000 tpa) – scored 13. No red scores, and only one Amber 3 because the site contains a PRoW, which could be mitigated by diverting the PRoW. W7 – Sandon East, Chelmsford (6.93 ha) – Site is greenfield and scored lower for enclosed facilities (8) and enclosed thermal (2) than open-windrow composting (14). However, it has positive planning history for in-vessel composting (enclosed facility), so could be suitable for either open-windrow composting or in-vessel composting (40,000 tpa) but not both. The site is also proposed for inert waste recycling, which has a greater capacity gap, therefore, it is also recommended as suitable for allocation for inert waste recycling (see below), as both inert recycling and one composting use could be accommodated on the site. 3.32. Figure 4 shows the nine sites proposed for the different types of biological treatment, and which ones have been recommended as suitable for allocation. 3.33. As stated within paragraph 3.18, there is a requirement of between 242 and 309 thousand tonnes per annum additional biological treartment capacity. If all of these sites were to be allocated they would provide between 249 and 274 thousand tonnes per annum (depending on the capacity ranges provided by the operator). Assuming the maximum capacity for each site would be delivered, this would be 32,000 tonnes

30 Based on the generic facility requirements set out in Planning for Waste Management Facilities, ODPM 2004. 58

above the best case requirement, but 35,000 less than the worst case requirement in 2032. This is discussed in more detail below. 3.34. The following sites are not recommended as being suitable for biological treatment:

 W31 – Morses Lane, Brightlingsea, Tendring (1.82 ha). Site not preferred for biological treatment as it is within 250m of 145 sensitive receptors.

 W8 – Elsenham, Uttlesford (18.19 ha) – Site is greenfield and scored lower for enclosed thermal (8), while it would be suitable for open- windrow composting or IVC, it is not preferred for biological treatment as it is also proposed for inert waste recycling, which has a greater capacity gap, therefore, it is recommended as suitable for allocation for inert waste recycling instead (see below).

 W32 – Crumps Farm, Lt Canfield, Uttlesford (3.5 ha). Site not preferred for biological treatment as it is also proposed for inert waste recycling, which has a greater capacity gap, therefore, it is recommended as suitable for allocation for inert waste recycling instead (see below).

District boundary _ In-vessel composting ( Anaerobic digestion (AD) ) Open windrow composting )"(^!_ -& Proposed )"(! (! -& Suitable for allocation (^!_ (! (^!_

)"(^!_

(^!_(^!_ (^!_(^!_

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_015_Fig4_Biological_Waste 10/03/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

Summary of biological treatment capacity if recommended sites are allocated 3.35. Table 17 summarises the sites, facility type and estimated capacity of sites recommended as suitable for allocation for biological treatment. Table 17: Sites suitable for allocation for Biological Treatment Facilities used in calculations

Facility Site Code Site Name Score Estimated Capacity (tpa) Type OWC & 17 & 75,000 W29 Bellhouse AD 14 (25,000 OWC + 50,000 AD) W3 Basildon WWTW IVC 20 25,000

W20 Courtauld Rd IVC 19 34,000

SIE5 BasketWorks, AD 20 50,000 W13 Wivenhoe Quarry AD 17 50,000 OWC or 14/ W7 Sandon East 40,000 IVC 8 Total Potential Allocated Capacity 274,000 Note: The promoters of the sites highlighted red in the table, also proposed they could accommodate inert CD&E waste recycling. These sites have been recommended as suitable for allocation for both biological treatment and inert recycling, but in reality it is possible only one of the proposed uses would be developed on site (e.g. either biological treatment or inert recycling), so total delivered capacity could be less than the total allocated capacity stated in the table above. The exception is W7 Sandon East, which is recommended for allocation for both biological treatment and inert recycling uses (not either/or), as it could accommodate both uses within the site.

Note: Where a site promoter suggested the site could accommodate two or three different types of biological treatment facility, the highest scoring facility type was generally recommended as suitable for allocation, and included in the table above, even if it did not have the highest capacity for the site. The exception is W29 Bellhouse, which was promoted as having capacity for both 25,000 open windrow composting, as well as 50,000 tonnes per annum anaerobic digestion. Therefore, both uses have been recommended as suitable for allocation.

3.36. Figure 5 shows the forecast arisings of non-hazardous organic waste that will need biological treatment until 2032, along with the projected capacity that would be provided by the sites recommended as suitable for allocation in conjunction with the exixting capacity already taken into account under Scenario 2 (S2) in the Non-Technical Capacity Summary (2015). The raw data behind the graph shown in Figure 5 is set out in Appendix B. 3.37. For reasons of legibility/comparison it has been assumed that the first possible opportunity for any of the sites recommended as suitable for allocation to come on line would be first week of April 2018. This is because of the following assumptions: 1. None of the facilities would apply for Planning permission prior to adoption of the local plan (at present 31 Dec 2016).

2. All applications would be considered as ‘majors’ resulting in at least a 13 week determination period (some would likely take at least 16 weeks due to potential requirement for EIA). This would take us to the first week of April 2017. 3. That construction of the facilities would take a year before operation could begin at full capacity. This would take us to the first week of April 2018.

Figure 5: Projected capacity gap for the most likely scenario (S2) and sites recommended as suitable for allocation for Biological Treatment Facilities

Source: Essex County Council (2015)

Note: This only considers the most likely arisings scenario (S2) as presented in the Non- Technical Capacity Summary (2015). S2 only includes capacity that is either operating or under construction, as such it does not consider the sites that have yet to implement their permission, and therefore most significantly does not include the IWMF capacity permitted at Rivenhall Airfield or Stanway.

Note: There are some significant assumptions used to present this information as requested by ECC Members. It is therefore unlikely this capacity will be achievable as stated. In all cases this would increase the annual deficit compared to that which is shown.

3.38. In all cases, there is a deficit of biological treatment capacity between 2012/13 to the 2018/19, until new facilities are constructed. 3.39. In the absolute best case (i.e Pitsea remains operation post 2017, all the recommended allocated sites are fully operational on 1st April 2018 and the best case forecast arisings occurs) there will be a surplus of nearly 76 thousand tonnes per annum in 2018/19. Although a surplus of 62

capacity would be maintained throughout the plan period, this annual surplus capacity would reduce (because of scheduled site closures and the increasing annual organic waste arisings requiring management) to a capacity surplus of nearly 32 thousand tonnes per annum in 2031/32. 3.40. Under the worst case regarding arisings and current capacity (ie, Pitsea closes in 2017 and the worst case forecast arisings occurs) and if all of the recommended allocated sites are fully operational on 1st April 2018, there would be a capacity surplus of just over 9 thousand tonnes per annum in 2018/19. However, due to the increasing annual organic waste arisings needing management and scheduled site closures, by 2020/21, a gap would emerge, which would increase to a capacity deficit of approximately 35 thousand tonnes per annum in 2031/32. 3.41. This remaining deficit would either have to come forward in the Areas of Search or through Criteria Based policies, or it may be worth looking at some of the sites proposed for biological treatment that did not pass Stage 2. Sites proposed for CD&E Waste/inert recycling

3.42. Table 18 lists the 13 sites that passed Stages 1 and 2 and that have been proposed for CD&E/inert Waste recycling facilities by the site promoters (among other facility types), the estimated throughput (where provided) and the overall score obtained during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 18 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site. 3.43. If all these sites were to be allocated for CD&EW/inert recycling use, then capacity to treat approximately 720 thousand tonnes per annum would be provided (versus the identified requirement of 1.27 million tonnes per annum by 2031/32, see para. 3.18). Table 18: Stage 3 sites promoted for CD&EW/inert recycling facilities

31 SIE5 is 0.91 ha. There are no generic assumptions regarding how much aggregate recycling can occur on sites of a particular size. There is a lot of variation between the area of the other sites proposed for inert recycling and the estimated capacity the promoters have suggested. A number of the other sites are larger than 1 ha, including those with the lowest estimated capacity i.e. 30,000 or 40,000 tpa (e.g. L(n)8R is 3.8 ha and proposes 30,000 tpa while W13 is 2 ha and proposes inert recycling at a throughput of 40,000 tpa), so a lower capacity of 20,000 tpa has been assumed as a conservative estimate for SIE5. 63

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score Courtauld Rd L(i)7R Stanway Colchester Uncertain, 17 Site scored Amber 3 for: (Fiveways assume 50,000 Fruit Farm) tpa32 3K (Recreation): there is a PRoW within the site.

No Red scores. L(n)1 Slough Fm, Tendring 40,000 tpa 17 No Amber 3 or Red scores. R Ardleigh - Area 1 L(n)8 Little Bullocks Uttlesford 30,000 tpa 17 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Farm Site A23 3K (Recreation): there is a PRoW within the site.

No Red scores L(i)10 Blackley Chelmsford 75,000 tpa 16 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Quarry, Gate Farm Site 1 3K (Recreation): The eastern part of the site contains a PRoW. There is another PRoW adjacent to both parts of the site along their northern boundaries.

No Red scores W31 Morses Lane, Tendring 75,000 tpa 16 Site scored Amber 3 for: Brightlingsea recorded for all facility types 3C (PDL): the site is largely proposed greenfield land.

3H (Landscape): Moderate visual effect and moderate to high landscape effect.

3D (Receptors): the site is within 250m of 145 sensitive receptors.

No Red scores W13 Wivenhoe Colchester 40,000 tpa 15 Site scored Amber 3 for: Quarry Plant Area 3C (PDL): the site is currently being used as a mineral extraction site; however, a restoration scheme has been put in place. Therefore, the site is considered to be greenfield land.

3K (Recreation): the entrance to the site cuts across a PRoW, and a

32 The site is proposed mainly for inert landfill associated with restoration of the mineral extraction site (Stanway Quarry), but promoter also identified CD&EW recycling as possible. Overall capacity noted as 150,000tpa, with 100,000tpa for inert landfill. Therefore, assume 50,000tpa for recycling. 64

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score cricket ground is adjacent.

No Red scores. L(n)7 Little Bullocks Uttlesford 55,000 tpa 15 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Farm Site A22 3F (Flood risk): Approximately 8% of the site is within Flood Zone 3.

No Red scores. W7 Sandon East Chelmsford 40,000 tpa for 14 Site scored Amber 3 for: all facilities proposed 3C (PDL): the site is considered to be greenfield as the previous mineral extraction work has now blended into the landscape.

No Red scores. W32 Crumps Fm, Uttlesford 80,000 tpa 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: Lt Canfield (Irrespective of the type of 3C (PDL): the site is wholly waste greenfield land. development, the capacity of 3H (Landscape): the site is the site is part of a historic landscape. considered by the site No Red scores. promoter to be 80,000 tpa). W8 Elsenham Uttlesford 40,000 tpa (just 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: one figure given despite 3C (PDL): the site is wholly promoted for greenfield land. almost all types of facilities) 3H (Landscape): the site is part of a historic landscape.

No Red scores. W15 Wellwick, Tendring 100,000 tpa 7 Site scored Amber 3 for: Martins Fm, St Osyth 3A (Planning Background): while the site has a number of extant waste-related planning permissions, there is currently an application with PINS for determination of an alternative use for 190 houses.

3C (PDL): the site is considered to be greenfield as it is currently being used for farming.

3D (Sensitive Receptors): Site adjacent to a holiday park containing over 200 65

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score mobile homes.

No Red scores.

3.44. As stated within paragraph 3.18, there is a requirement of 1.27 million tonnes per annum by 2031/32, assuming that the proportions of waste currently treated and sent for beneficial use are maintained at present levels. If this capacity requirement were met, it would eliminate the need for CD&EW landfill completely. 3.45. Given the high requirement for CD&EW recycling capacity, it is recommended that all of the sites in Table 18 are allocated for CD&EW recycling. These sites would provide approximately 720,000 tonnes per annum (or 0.72 million tpa), which is still 550,000 tonnes short of the1.27 million tonnes requirement. 3.46. Although Amber 3 scores are identified for 10 of the sites, the potential impacts are generally not so severe that they could not be mitigated. However, if the application for 190 houses on W15 Wellwick were to be granted then that site would no longer be available for waste use. Site W31 Morses Lane is within 250m of 145 sensitive receptors, and where possible, waste facilities are recommended to be at least 250m from sensitive receptors33. However, given the significant need for inert waste recycling facilities in the plan area and the additional capacity that W31 could provide (75,000 tpa), it could be considered for allocation, subject to ensuring sufficient mitigation of noise and dust impacts was able to be provided 3.47. It should also be noted that three sites in Uttlesford are within close proximity (W32 Crumps Farm and Little Bullocks Farm A22 (Ln7R) and A23 (Ln8R)), therefore, if all three were to be allocated for inert recycling, there is the potential for cumulative impacts if all three sites were operational at the same time during the plan period. They have also been promoted for other uses and identified as potentially suitable for allocation for those as described below, therefore there is additional potential for cumulative impacts from a range of waste uses that might occur on these three sites. Summary of CD&EW/inert recycling capacity if recommended sites are allocated 3.48. Table 19 shows the sites, facility type and estimated capacity of sites recommended as suitable for allocation for inert recycling. Figure 6 shows the location of all the sites proposed for inert recycling, as well as those recommended as suitable for allocation.

33 Planning for Waste Management Facilities, ODPM 2004. 66

Table 19 Sites recommended as suitable for allocation for CD&E Waste Recycling Sites used in the calculation

Estimated Site Code Site Name Score Capacity (tpa) SIE5 Basket Works 21 20,000 W13 Wivenhoe Quarry 18 40,000 W3 Basildon WWTW 18 75,000 L(i)7 Stanway (Fiveways) 17 50,000 L(n)1R Slough Fm Ardleigh 17 40,000 L(n)8R Little Bullocks A23 17 30,000 L(i)10R Blackleys (Site 1) 16 75,000 W31 Morses Lane 16 75,000 L(n)7R Little Bullocks A22 15 55,000 W7 Sandon East 14 40,000 W32 Crumps Fm 11 80,000 W8 Elsenham 11 40,000 W15 Wellwick, Martins Farm 7 100,000 Total Potential Allocated Capacity Provided 720,000 Note: The promoters of the sites highlighted red also proposed they could accommodate biological treatment facilities. These sites have been recommended as suitable for allocation for both biological treatment and inert recycling, but in reality it is possible only one of the proposed uses would be developed on site (e.g. either biological treatment or inert recycling), so total delivered capacity could be less than the total allocated capacity stated in the table above. The exception is W7 Sandon East, which is recommended for allocation for both uses (not either/or), as it could accommodate both uses within the site.

District boundary !( Suitable for allocation

(! (! (! (! (!(! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (!

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_016_Fig6_CDEW_Recycling 28/04/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

3.49. Figure 7 shows forecast amounts of CD&E/Inert Waste that will need disposal (i.e landfilling) until 2032, with and without the sites recommended for allocation above. 3.50. For reasons of legibility/comparison within Figure 7 it has been assumed that the first possible opportunity for any of the allocated sites34 to come on line would be first week of April 2018. This is because of the following assumptions: 1. None of the facilities would apply for Planning permission prior to adoption of the local plan (at present 31 Dec 2016). 2. All applications would be considered as ‘majors’ resulting in at least a 13 week determination period (some would likely take at least 16 weeks due to potential requirement for EIA). This would take us to the first week of April 2017. 3. That construction of the facilities would take a year before operation could begin at full capacity. This would take us to the first week of April 2018.

3.51. Even assuming this for all the potential inert recycling allocations (i.e. that they will be fully operational to full capacity at the beginning of the financial year 2018/19) there would continue to be a need for landfill of inert waste until the end of the plan period, as shown in the dotted green line in Figure 7. The raw data behind the graph shown in Figure 7 is set out in Appendix B. 3.52. In the absolute best case (i.e the potential site allocations are fully operational on 1st April 2018), there would still be a requirement for approximately 242 thousand tonnes of landfill capacity in 2018. This would increase steadily due to increasing arisings forecasts until 2032, when there would be a requirement for approximately 553 thousand tonnes per year. This would result in a requirement of approximately 525 thousand tonnes of inert landfill voidspace on average per year between 2013 and 2032.

34 Sites that have been proposed by landowners/operators etc. and following the site assessment by the Waste Planning Authority and LUC, have been recommended as suitable for inclusion in the waste plan as ‘allocated sites’. 69

Figure 7: Projected annual tonnage of inert waste requiring landfill assuming all sites recommended as suitable for inert recycling allocations are developed

Source: Essex County Council

Note: Neither Stanway nor Rivenhall permissions relate to inert waste.

Note: This only considers the most likely arisings scenario (Mid-point) as presented in the Non-Technical Capacity Summary (2015). This only includes capacity that is either operating or under construction, as such does not consider the sites that have yet to implement their permission.

Note: There are some significant assumptions used to present this information as requested by Members. It is therefore unlikely this capacity will be achievable as stated. In all cases this would increase the annual deficit compared to that which is shown.

3.53. In order to reduce the amount of inert waste going to landfill even further, by allocating more sites for inert waste recycling, it may be necessary to reconsider some of the sites that were held back at Stage 2 due to their being in the Green Belt or scoring Red for Traffic and Transport. 3.54. Out of the sites that were held back at Stage 2, Table 20 lists those sites that were proposed by the site promoters as being suitable for inert waste recycling (their locations are also shown on Figure 8). Despite scoring Red for Green Belt or Traffic & Transport, some of these sites have fewer other Red and Amber 3 scores than the sites that passed Stage 2 (e.g. W19, W1, W14, W18). Therefore, the Councils will need to make a decision about whether to allocate more sites for inert waste recycling and reduce the requirement for landfill (in accordance with

National Planning Policy for Waste) while weighing up the need to protect Green Belt and the safety/operation of the transport network. Table 20: Sites promoted for CD&EW/inert recycling facilities held back at Stage 2

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score

W19 Hastingwood Harlow C&D Recycling: 18 No Amber 3 scores. - London 100,000 tpa. Road Site scored Red for:

2A (Green Belt): the site is in the Green Belt.

W1 Green Acres, Colchester 50,000-100,000 16 No Amber 3 scores Old Packards tpa (Irrespective Lane, of the type of Site scored Red for: Wormingford waste 2B (Traffic & Transport): the development.) site is not suitable in Highway Terms.

W14 Alresford Tendring C&D Recycling: 16 No Amber 3 scores 40,000 tpa Site scored Red for:

2B (Traffic & Transport): the site is not suitable in Highway Terms.

W18 Batemans Braintree, C&D Recycling/ 15 No Amber 3 scores Farm - Chelmsford transfer: 75,000 Lynderswood tpa existing; with Site scored Red for: Lane extension 2B (Traffic & Transport): the 150,000 tpa site is not suitable in Highway Terms.

L(n)6 Pitsea Landfill Basildon Unknown. 12 Site scored Amber 3 for: R - Pitsea Hall Lane 3F (Flood Risk): over 15% of the site is within Flood Risk Zone 3.

3I (Biodiversity): Canvey Wick, Holehaven Creek, Vange & Fobbing Marsh and Pitsea Marsh Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), several Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS) are within close proximity of the site, and Benfleet & Southend

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score

Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) is located 2.5km to the east.

Site scored Red for:

2A (Green Belt): the site is in the Green Belt.

W24 Widdington - Uttlesford 74,999 tpa 10 Site scored Amber 3 for: Hollow Road (Irrespective of the type of 3C (PDL): the site contains waste an existing temporary waste development.) facility. Once the permission for the temporary use has expired the site will be returned to greenfield land. Therefore the site is considered greenfield land.

3K (Recreation): the site contains a PRoW.

Site scored Red for:

2B (Traffic & Transport): the site is not suitable in Highway Terms.

L(i)4R Shellow Chelmsford 40,000 tpa 9 Site scored Amber 3 for: Cross Fm, Epping (Irrespective of Willingale the type of 3H (Landscape & Visual waste Impacts): The site has high development). landscape and visual sensitivity. There are a number of sensitive receptors close by, including two footpaths.

3K (Recreation): the site contains a PRoW and is bordered by three other PRoW.

Site scored Red for:

2A (Green Belt): the site is in the Green Belt.

W35 Armigers Uttlesford C&D Recycling: 8 The site scored Amber 3 for: Farm 90,000-95,000 3C (PDL): the site is located

Site Site Name District/ Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code Borough capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by & 3 assessment site promoter) score

tpa adjacent to an old sand and gravel pit that has naturally regenerated into waterbody with established vegetation. The rest of the site is considered to be greenfield land.

Site scored Red for:

2B (Traffic & Transport): the site is not suitable in Highway Terms.

W21 Dollymans Basildon, Uncertain: 5 Site scored Amber 3 for: Farm - Rochford 125,000 tpa Doublegate inert landfill and 3C (PDL): the majority of the Lane 70,000 tpa site sits within an old borrow proposed for pit which has been seeded waste transfer, with grass. While there are despite site no signs of formal being promoted restoration, the site is for almost all currently being used for types of pastoral farming. Therefore, facilities. the site is considered to be greenfield land.

3K (Recreation): there is a PRoW on site and along the potential haul road.

Site scored Red for:

2A (Green Belt): the site is in the Green Belt.

District boundary !( Held back at Stage 2 (! (! (!

(! (!

(! (! (!

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_017_Fig8_CDEW_Recycling_Not_Pass_Stage2 10/03/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

Sites proposed for inert landfill

3.55. Table 21 lists the 10 sites that passed Stages 1 and 2 where inert landfill has been proposed by the site promoters (among other facility types), the estimated throughput (where provided) and the overall score obtained during the Stage 2 and 3 assessment (in descending order). Table 21 also summarises the significant issues identified through the Stage 3 site assessment for these sites, i.e. those criteria where a score of Amber 3 or Red was given to the site. The locations of these potential inert landfill sites are shown on Figure 9. 3.56. If all these sites were to be allocated for inert landfill use, and the maximum estimated capacity was achieved, then approximately 1.14 million tonnes35 landfill capacity per year would be provided, which is 300,000 more than the 0.84 million tonnes per annum that would be needed (if no additional inert recycling capacity was provided). 3.57. Four of the sites below have been proposed for either non-hazardous or inert landfill (those with L(n) codes). Given that there is no need for additional non-hazardous landfill, then these sites only need to be considered for their potential to provide inert landfill. Table 21: Stage 3 sites promoted for inert landfill

Site Site Name District Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by score assessment site promoter) L(i)15 Fingringhoe Colchester 100,000 tpa 19 No Amber 3 or Red scores. Quarry L(n)5 Bellhouse Colchester 250,000 tpa with 18 Site scored Amber 3 for: Landfill Site - the split Mucking Hall between inert 3K (Recreation): site Lane and non-inert contains and is bordered by capacity being two PRoWs. determined by waste No Red scores. requirements. L(i)7 Stanway Colchester 150,000 tpa 17 Site scored Amber 3 for: (Fiveways Fruit Farm) 3K (Recreation): There is a PRoW within the site.

No Red scores. L(n)1 Slough Fm, Tendring 60,000 m3 - 17 No Amber 3 or Red scores. R Ardleigh - 70,000 m3 Area 1 (=90,000- 105,000 tpa) L(n)8 Little Bullocks Uttlesford Inert, Non- 17 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Farm Site Hazardous or A23 Hazardous 3K (Recreation): there is a Landfill: 30,000 PRoW within the site. tpa No Red scores

35 1 cubic metre voidspace is assumed to be able to take 1.5 tonne of non-hazardous waste. 75

Site Site Name District Estimated Overall Summary of significant Code capacity Stage 2 issues from site (provided by score assessment site promoter) L(i)10 Blackley Chelmsford 50,000 m3 pa (= 16 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Quarry, Gate 75,000 tpa) Farm Site 1 3K (Recreation): The eastern part of the site contains a PRoW. There is another PRoW adjacent to both parts of the site along their northern boundaries.

No Red scores L(i)5 Sunnymead, Tendring Sunnymead 15 Site scored Amber 3 for: Elmstead & Farm: 100,000 Heath Fms, tpa 3K (Recreation): The site Alresford contains a PRoW.

No Red scores. L(n)7 Little Bullocks Uttlesford Inert or Non- 15 Site scored Amber 3 for: R Farm Site Hazardous A22 Landfill: 55,000 3F (Flood risk): tpa Approximately 8% of the site is within Flood Zone 3.

No Red scores L(i)6 Sandon Chelmsford 100,000 m3 pa 11 Site scored Amber 3 for: (=150,000 tpa) 3F (Flood Risk): Approximately 22% of the site is within Flood Zone 3.

3I (Biodiversity): the site contains Local Wildlife Sites.

3K (Recreation): seven PRoW run through the site.

No Red scores. L(i)13 Wellwick, Tendring Inert Landfill: 9 Site scored Amber 3 for: Martins Fm, 50,000-150,000 St Osyth m3 pa (=75,000- 3C (PDL): the site is 225,000 tpa) considered to be greenfield as it is currently being used for farming.

3D (Sensitive Receptors): The site is adjacent to a holiday park containing over 200 mobile homes.

No Red scores.

District boundary !( Proposed !( Suitable for allocation (! (!(! (! (!(! (! (! (!

0 10 20 E km ©Crown copyright and database rights, Ordnance Survey licence number 100019602, (2015) CB:Green_C EB:Green_C LUCLON 6211-01_018_Fig9_Landfill 28/04/2015 Source: Ordnance Survey, Essex County Council

3.58. As stated in para. 3.18, the inert landfill capacity requirement is approximately 0.84 million tonnes per annum. However, as discussed above this capacity gap would be reduced if sufficient CD&EW recycling sites are allocated and constructed to meet the full CD&EW recycling capacity gap. Figure 7 showed that in the best case (i.e the potential site allocations for CD&EW recycling are fully operational on 1st April 2018), there would still be a requirement for approximately 242 thousand tonnes of inert landfill capacity in 2018. This would increase to approximately 553 thousand tonnes per year. Taken as an average, this would result in a requirement of approximately 525 thousand tonnes of inert landfill voidspace on average per year between 2013 and 2032. 3.59. Given the total inert landfill capacity that could potentially be provided by the sites in Table 21 is much higher (1.14 million tpa) than the capacity requirement after new inert recycling facilities are taken into account (approximately 525 thousand tpa), not all of the sites in Table 21 need to be allocated, nor their full estimated capacity used. 3.60. By reviewing the potential major constraints of the sites proposed for inert landfill, as well as their location within the County and proximity to areas of waste arisings, the following sites are recommended as suitable for allocation for inert landfill, should the approach to allocate inert landfill sites be taken (rather than allocating even more inert waste recycling sites). However, just allocating the four highest scoring sites (L(n)5, L(i)7, L(n)1R and L(i)10R) would be sufficient to meet the 525 thousand tonnes per annum requirement. (Note that the highest scoring site (L(i)15 Fingringhoe Quarry) is planned to receive waste from London and not the Plan area. Therefore, the capacity of this site to contribute to the inert landfill capacity from the Plan area has not been considered.)

 L(n)5 – Bellhouse Landfill Site - Warren Lane, Colchester – assume all capacity is for inert landfill (250,000 tpa) – scored 18.

 L(i)7 – Stanway (Fiveways Fruit Farm), Colchester – inert landfill (150,000 tpa) – scored 17.

 L(n)1R – Slough Fm, Ardleigh - Area 1, Tendring – assume all used for inert landfill and maximum inputs (105,000 tpa) – scored 17.

 L(i)10R – Blackley Quarry, Gate Farm Site 1, Chelmsford – inert landfill (75,000 tonnes pa) – scored 16.

 L(i)5 – Sunnymead, Elmstead & Heath Farms, Alresford, Tendring – inert landfill (100,000 tpa) – scored 15.

 L(n)7R – Little Bullocks Farm Site A22, Uttlesford – assume all used for inert landfill (55,000 tpa) – scored 15.

 L(i)6 – Sandon, Chelmsford – inert landfill (100,000 tpa) – scored 11. Despite the three Amber 3 scores for this site, it is a large site (~28ha) and over 50% of the site is an old mineral extraction site. The site has been granted planning permission for the infilling of the existing void in the southern part of the site through inert landfilling and there are

plans for the infilling of the northern void. Therefore, it is considered suitable for allocation for inert landfill. 3.61. As noted above, there are three sites in Uttlesford that are within close proximity (W32 Crumps Farm and Little Bullocks Farm A22 (Ln7R) and A23 (Ln8R)), therefore, if L(n)7R were also to be allocated for inert landfill, there is the potential for cumulative impacts from the different types of waste uses that could occur within the three sites if all were operational at the same time during the plan period. 3.62. The following sites are not recommended to be allocated for inert landfill:

 L(i)13 – Wellwick, Martins Farm, St Osyth, Tendring – scored 9, and the site would be a new landfill on a currently greenfield site.

 L(n)8R – Little Bullocks Farm Site A23, Uttlesford – scored 17, but is the only landfill site that has been proposed as suitable for taking hazardous waste, which may be required during the plan period (see below). Sites proposed for hazardous landfill

3.63. The Non Technical Capacity Summary (2015) states that the only hazardous (Stable Non Reative Hazardous Waste or SNRHW) landfill cell within the plan area closed in April 2014, therefore any of the waste that was previously disposed of here is now being disposed of beyond the plan area. 3.64. It has not yet been ascertained through the Duty to Co-operate whether facilities within other Waste Planning Authorities will be available to continue to accept the waste previously accepted at the now closed Essex facility. It may be the case that exisiting facilities beyond the plan area boundary can continue to accept exports of this type of waste for the duration of the plan period, but this will not be known until further Duty to Co-operate discussions are held between Essex County Council and relevant other waste planning authorities. 3.65. There was only one SNRHW landfill cell promoted, during the call for sites processes at (L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm Site A23, Uttlesford) which could be capable of accepting 30 thousand tonnes per annum. It is therefore recommended that L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm is allocated as an SNRHW cell as a precautionary approach until it can be ascertained that it is or is not required in the plan area. However, as noted above, there is potential for cumulative impacts if this site is allocated for hazardous landfill and inert recycling, as it is in close proximity to sites L(n)7R (which could be allocated for inert recycling and inert landfill) and W32 (which could be allocated for inert recycling ).

4. Conclusions 4.1. The Site Assessment method for the Essex and Southend-on-Sea replacement Waste Local Plan has been updated since the Preferred Approach consultation in 2011 to ensure conformity with the latest national planning policy, and to reflect consultation responses at the Preferred Approach stage. 4.2. All of the potential waste sites from the Preferred Approach consultation stage that are still available, including the three IWMF sites, plus new sites put forward following that consultation and during a Call for Sites exercise in 2014 have now been subject to the updated Site Assessment method and presented in this report. 4.3. 53 potential waste sites (including the only shortlisted industrial estate to have a positive response regarding its potential for waste uses) have been assessed. Of these sites:

 7 sites were excluded following Stage 1, as they do not meet the minimum requirements to be considered for waste management allocation set out in the five ‘Exclusionary Criteria’ in Section 2.

 15 sites did not pass Stage 2, because they are either within the Green Belt (7 sites) or scored Red for Traffic/Transport (8 sites). These sites were subject to the Stage 3 assessment, but held back from consideration for allocation in the WLP until the suitability of the sites that passed Stage 2 had been assessed first. Where insufficient ‘Stage 3’ sites are available for allocation, there is an opportunity to review the suitability of the Stage 2 sites to help to meet capacity requirements.

 The three IWMF sites were subject to the Stage 3 assessment but as discussed in Section 3, while these sites should be safeguarded and/or allocated in the WLP, they were not considered in terms of helping to contribute to the capacity gap requirements identified in the Non-Technical Capacity Summary (2015), as these relate to Scenario 2, which is considered the most likely scenario and only includes existing cacapity that is either already operational, or currently under construction (i.e. Courtauld Road), but excludes capacity that has planning permission but yet to start construction (i.e. Stanway and Rivenhall).

 The remaining 28 ‘Stage 3’ sites were subject to the Stage 3 assessment, and their suitability for allocation to meet the capacity gap requirements considered. The recommendations for those sites considered suitable for allocation to meet the capacity gap requirements are summarised below. 4.4. The following sections summarise the types of waste management capacity requirements that have been identified in the plan area in the period up to 2031/3236, and the recommendations for sites that would be

36 As presented in the ECC (2014) Capacity Gap Report and the LRS (2014) Addendum report. 80

suitable for allocation in the WLP to help meet these capacity requirements. LACW Transfer Capacity

4.5. While additional transfer capacity is not required, there is a need to safeguard/allocate the six permitted LACW transfer sites to support the Courtauld Road IWMF. Therefore, the following sites are recommended for safeguarding and/or allocation in the WLP for LACW transfer sites:

Site Site Name Facility type Estimated capacity (as Code shown in Capacity Gap Report) (tpa) W10 Harlow LACW Transfer 55,000 W26 Winsford Way LACW Transfer 90.000 W16 Eastern Avenue, LACW Transfer 67,900 Southend W9 Great Dunmow LACW Transfer 29,400 W34 Cordons Farm LACW Transfer 71,250 W33 Ardleigh off the A120 LACW Transfer 115,000 Total potential allocated capacity provided 428,000 Biological Treatment Capacity

4.6. It is considered most likely that between 242 to 309 thousand tonnes per annum of new biological treatment capacity will be needed by 2031/32. In line with the Government’s preference for anaerobic digestion to recover material and energy from biological waste, sites proposing anaerobic digestion (AD) as well as sites proposing in-vessel (IVC) and open windrow (OWC) composting have been considered to meet this gap. The following sites are recommended as suitable for allocation for biological treatment:

Site Facility Site Name Estimated Capacity (tpa) Code Type OWC & 75,000 W29 Bellhouse AD (25,000 OWC + 50,000 AD) W3 Basildon WWTW IVC 25,000 W20 Courtauld Rd IVC 34,000 SIE5 BasketWorks, AD 50,000 W13 Wivenhoe Quarry AD 50,000 W7 Sandon East OWC or IVC 40,000 Total potential allocated capacity provided 274,000

4.7. As discussed in Section 3, even if all of these sites are allocated in the WLP, there will be a deficit of biological treatment capacity between 2012/13 to the 2018/19, until new facilities are constructed. 4.8. In the absolute best case (i.e Pitsea remains operational post 2017, all the recommended allocated sites are fully operational on 1st April 2018 and the best case forecast arisings occurs) there will be a surplus of nearly 76 thousand tonnes per annum in 2018/19. Although a surplus of capacity would be maintained throughout the plan period, this annual surplus capacity would reduce (because of scheduled site closures and

the increasing annual organic waste arisings requiring management) to a capacity surplus of nearly 32 thousand tonnes per annum in 2031/32. 4.9. Under the worst case regarding arisings and current capacity (ie, Pitsea closes in 2017 and the worst case forecast arisings occurs) and if all of the recommended allocated sites are fully operational on 1st April 2018, there would be a capacity surplus of just over 9 thousand tonnes per annum in 2018/19. However, due to the increasing annual organic waste arisings needing management and scheduled site closures, by 2020/21, a gap would emerge, which would increase to a capacity deficit of approximately 35 thousand tonnes per annum in 2031/32. 4.10. This remaining deficit could be addressed through the allocation of one further site (with capacity to treat 35,000 tpa), therefore it may be worth looking at some of the sites proposed for biological treatment that did not pass Stage 2. Or, given the uncertainty about which scenario will occur, it could be addressed through the Areas of Search or Criteria Based policies. CD&E (Inert) Waste Recycling Capacity

4.11. Under the mid point scenario 1.27 million tonnes per annum of new inert waste recycling capacity would be required by 2031/32, assuming that the proportions of waste currently treated and sent for beneficial re-use are maintained at present levels. If this additional capacity for CD&E Waste recycling was met, it would eliminate the need for CD&E (inert) Waste landfill completely, in accordance with the waste hierarchy37. 4.12. The following sites are recommended as suitable for allocation for CD&E/Inert Waste recycling:

Site Site Name Facility Type Estimated Capacity (tpa) Code SIE5 Basket Works Inert recycling 20,000 W13 Wivenhoe Quarry Inert recycling 40,000 W3 Basildon WWTW Inert recycling 75,000 L(i)7 Stanway (Fiveways) Inert recycling 50,000 L(n)1R Slough Fm Ardleigh Inert recycling 40,000 L(n)8R Little Bullocks A23 Inert recycling 30,000 L(i)10R Blackleys (Site 1) Inert recycling 75,000 W31 Morses Lane Inert recycling 75,000 L(n)7R Little Bullocks A22 Inert recycling 55,000 W7 Sandon East Inert recycling 40,000 W32 Crumps Fm Inert recycling 80,000 W8 Elsenham Inert recycling 40,000

37 The difficulty with estimating this waste stream are well documented, so the LRS (2014) addendum to the Replacement Waste Local Plan (table 9, page 21) suggests that the proportions of total waste arisings currently treated/recycled and sent for beneficial use should be maintained at present levels, but does not indicate a suggested additional capacity required per year. 82

W15 Wellwick, Martins Farm Inert recycling 100,000 Total potential allocated capacity provided 720,000

4.13. As discussed in Section 3, in the absolute best case (i.e the potential inert recycling site allocations above are fully operational on 1st April 2018 and the best case forecast arisings occurs), there would still be a requirement for approximately 242 thousand tonnes of inert landfill capacity in 2018. This would increase steadily due to increasing arisings forecasts until 2032, when there would be a requirement for approximately 553 thousand tonnes per year. This would result in a requirement of approximately 525 thousand tonnes of inert landfill voidspace on average per year between 2013 and 2032. 4.14. Given the scale of the potential capacity gap for CD&E Waste recycling, the Councils may need to consider the potential to allocate additional inert recycling sites that were held back at Stage 2. 4.15. Out of the sites proposed for inert recycling that were held back at Stage 2 (see Table 20), despite scoring Red for Green Belt or Traffic & Transport, a number of these sites have fewer other Red and Amber 3 scores than the sites that passed Stage 2 (e.g. W19, W1, W14, W18). Therefore, the Councils will need to make a decision about whether to allocate more sites for inert waste recycling and reduce the requirement for inert landfill (in accordance with National Planning Policy for Waste and the waste hierarchy) while weighing up the need to protect Green Belt and the safety/operation of the transport network (in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework). Inert Landfill for CD&E (Inert) Waste

4.16. The total amount required is approximately 10.64 million cubic metres equating to 16 million tonnes38, which would require up to approximately 0.84 million tonnes per annum inert landfill capacity on average. As noted above, this capacity gap would be reduced and may not occur at all if sufficient CD&E/inert Waste recycling sites are implemented to meet the full inert waste recycling capacity gap. 4.17. If all the Stage 3 sites proposed for inert landfill were to be allocated for inert landfill use (except Fingringhoe, which will not be taking waste from the plan area), and the maximum estimated capacity at each site was achieved, then approximately 1.14 million tonnes39 landfill capacity per year would be provided, which is 300,000 more than the 0.84 million tonnes per annum that would be needed (if no additional inert recycling capacity was provided) and more than double the 525 thousand tonnes that would be required on average per year between 2013 and 2032 if all the inert recycling sites above were allocated. 4.18. By reviewing the potential major constraints of the sites proposed for inert landfill, as well as their location within the County and proximity to

38 LRS (2014) Local Waste Arisings: Addendum to the Replacement Waste Local Plan Capacity Gap Report compliled on behalf of Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. 39 1 cubic metre voidspace is assumed to be able to take 1.5 tonne of non-hazardous waste. 83

areas of waste arisings, the following sites are recommended as suitable for allocation for inert landfill, should the approach to allocate inert landfill sites be taken (rather than allocating even more inert waste recycling sites). The highest scoring site (Fingringhoe Quarry) is planned to receive waste from London and not the Plan area. Therefore, the capacity of this site to accommodate waste from the Plan area has not been considered here. However, just the next four highest scoring sites (L(n)5 Bellhouse, L(i)7 Stanway (Fiveways Fruit Farm), L(n)1R Slough Farm and L(i)10R Blackley) would meet the 525 thousand tonnes per annum requirement (if all the recommended inert recycling sites were allocated).

Site Site Name Facility type Estimated capacity Code (provided by site promoter) (tpa) L(n)5 Bellhouse Landfill Site - Inert landfill 250,000 Mucking Hall Lane L(i)7 Stanway (Fiveways Fruit Inert landfill 150,000 Farm) L(n)1 Slough Fm, Ardleigh - Inert landfill 105,000 Area 1 L(i)10 Blackley Quarry, Gate Inert landfill 75,000 Farm Site 1 L(i)5 Sunnymead, Elmstead & Inert landfill 100,000 Heath Fms, Alresford L(n)7R Little Bullocks Farm Site Inert landfill 55,000 A22 L(i)6 Sandon Inert landfill 150,000 Total potential allocated capacity provided 885,000 Hazardous Treatment and Disposal Capacity

4.19. Additional hazardous treatment and disposal capacity may only be required within the plan area if there is no long-term provision at the installations currently used in adjacent authorities. 4.20. There is a presumption in the NPPW / PPG that authorities seek to identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their plan area for the management of waste streams including hazardous. While finding suitable facilities for all of the hazardous waste stream may be problematic within the Plan area it may be possible at least for SNRHW. It this is not the case then it will have to be ascertained through the Duty to Co-operate whether other facilities within other Waste Planning Authorities will be available to continue to accept the waste previously accepted at the now closed Essex facility. Such ability to export this element of the waste stream for the length of the plan period would need to be established through Duty to Co-operate discussions between the Plan authorities and other relevant waste planning authorities. 4.21. There was only one Stable Non Reative Hazardous Waste or SNRHW landfill cell promoted during the call for sites processes at (L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm Site A23, Uttlesford), which could be capable of accepting 30 thousand tonnes per annum. It is therefore recommended that L(n)8R Little Bullocks Farm is allocated as an SNRHW cell.

Appendix A – Shortlisted Industrial Estate Survey Questionnaire

Appendix B – Raw data behind Figure 5 and Figure 7

Raw Data for calculating biological treatment capacity deficit/surplus under S2 and including capacity within sites recommended for biological treatment (see Figure 5 in the report)

All values are based on the top of the arisings range 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 identified (i.e worst case arisings Scenario) Deficit / surplus In S2 - Operational & Under Construction Capacity -147,739 -172,948 -177,355 -180,917 -193,815 -262,931 -264,877 -266,793 -276,569 -278,184 The Most Likely Scenario (S2) S2 & Allocated Capacity -147,739 -172,948 -177,355 -180,917 -193,815 -262,931 9,123 7,207 -2,569 -4,184

S2-P - Operational & Under Construction Capacity & Pitsea* -147,739 -172,948 -177,355 -180,917 -193,815 -196,131 -198,077 -199,993 -209,769 -211,384 S2-P & Allocated Capacity -147,739 -172,948 -177,355 -180,917 -193,815 -196,131 75,923 74,007 64,231 62,616

PLAN PERIOD CONTINUED 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 Deficit / surplus In S2 - Operational & Under Construction Capacity -294,825 -296,392 -297,979 -299,580 -301,167 -302,752 -304,445 -306,151 -307,856 -309,168 The Most Likely Scenario (S2) S2 & Allocated Capacity -20,825 -22,392 -23,979 -25,580 -27,167 -28,752 -30,445 -32,151 -33,856 -35,168

S2-P - Operational & Under Construction Capacity & Pitsea* -228,025 -229,592 -231,179 -232,780 -234,367 -235,952 -237,645 -239,351 -241,056 -242,368 S2-P & Allocated Capacity 45,975 44,408 42,821 41,220 39,633 38,048 36,355 34,649 32,944 31,632 Source: Essex County Council.

Raw Data for calculating inert recycling/landfill capacity deficit/surplus under most likely scenario (midpoint) and including capacity within sites recommended for inert recycling (see Figure 7 in the report) Please note that within the LRS (2014) Capacity Addendum there was stated to be a total “One Off Capacity” available. This was applied as a total to the whole plan period, at a value of 5,332,437 tonnes. This total during the plan period was averaged, so a yearly amount could be applied. When this total was divided by the number of years within the forecast Range (20 years) this averaged 266,622 tonnes per annum.

PLAN PERIOD 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Projected Arisings 3,351,834 3,434,169 3,474,009 3,505,880 3,535,096 3,564,312 3,593,527 3,622,743 3,649,303 3,678,519 3,705,078

Recycling 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 Treatment and exempt sites 378,052 387,374 391,868 395,463 398,759 402,054 405,350 408,645 411,641 414,937 417,933 TOTAL RECYCLED/TREATED 2,578,052 2,587,374 2,591,868 2,595,463 2,598,759 2,602,054 2,605,350 2,608,645 2,611,641 2,614,937 2,617,933 TOTAL Recycled/Treated/Included in "One off 2,844,674 2,853,996 2,858,490 2,862,085 2,865,381 2,868,676 2,871,972 2,875,267 2,878,263 2,881,559 2,884,555 Capacity"

Total Remainder Requiring Landfill (without 773,782 846,795 882,141 910,417 936,337 962,258 988,177 1,014,098 1,037,662 1,063,582 1,087,145 Allocations)

Total ‘Suitable Inert Recycling Sites’ capacity 0 0 0 0 0 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 Total Remainder Requiring Landfill (with Allocations) 773,782 846,795 882,141 910,417 936,337 242,258 268,177 294,098 317,662 343,582 367,145

PLAN PERIOD CONTINUED 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total Projected Arisings 3,728,982 3,755,542 3,779,445 3,806,005 3,832,565 3,859,124 3,885,684 3,914,900 3,914,900

Recycling 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 Treatment and exempt sites 420,629 423,625 426,322 429,318 432,314 435,310 438,306 441,601 441,601 TOTAL RECYCLED/TREATED 2,620,629 2,623,625 2,626,322 2,629,318 2,632,314 2,635,310 2,638,306 2,641,601 2,641,601 TOTAL Recycled/Treated/Included in "One off 2,887,251 2,890,247 2,892,944 2,895,940 2,898,936 2,901,932 2,904,928 2,908,223 2,908,223 Capacity" Total over Annual Plan Period Average

Total Remainder Requiring Landfill (without 1,108,353 1,131,917 1,153,124 1,176,688 1,200,252 1,223,815 1,247,379 1,273,299 1,273,299 15,958,083 797,904 Allocations)

Total ‘Suitable Inert Recyling Sites’ capacity 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 720,000 Total Remainder Requiring Landfill (with Allocations) 388,353 411,917 433,124 456,688 480,252 503,815 527,379 553,299 553,299 10,490,520 524,526

Source: Essex County Council.