Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reference: Site: 14/00215/FUL Land At Thames Haven The Manorway Coryton Essex
Ward: Proposal: Corringham And Erection of an Energy Recovery Centre [comprising an Fobbing Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) 8-12 MWe pyrolysis plant and an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) 2-3 MWe facility with an integrated education centre] together with access improvements, landscaping and associated works
Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received CPPL-02/00-01 Site Location Plan 28.02.14 CPPL-02/00-02 Site Location Plan with Aerial Photograph 28.02.14 CPPL-02/05-01 Site Sections 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-01 Proposed Site Layout 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-02 Proposed Floor Plan Level 00 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-03 Proposed Floor Plan Level 01 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-04 Proposed Floor Plan Roof Level 28.02.14 CPPL-02/10-05 Proposed Floor Plan (Levels 00 & 01) Office, 28.02.14 Education & Reception Areas CPPL-02/20-01 Proposed Sections 28.02.14 CPPL-02/20-02 Proposed Sections 2 (Extended) Sheet 1 of 3 28.02.14 CPPL-02/30-01 Proposed Elevations 1 28.02.14 CPPL-02/30-02 Proposed Elevations 2 AD Tanks 28.02.14
The application is also accompanied by:
Community Involvement Report Environment Statement – Main Text Environment Statement – Technical Appendices Environment Statement – Non-Technical Summary Environment Statement - Addendum Transport Assessment Transport Assessment – Addendum Sequential Test: Evidence Base Energy Statement Sustainability Statement BREEAM Pre-Assessment Planning Statement Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Design and Access Statement
Applicant: Validated: Clean Power Properties Ltd. & Network Rail 5 March 2014 Infrastructure Ltd. Date of expiry: 31 March 2015 Recommendation: APPROVAL – subject to conditions
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
1.1 In summary, the application proposes the construction and operation of a facility to process non-hazardous household and commercial waste in order generate renewable energy (electricity) using the technologies of Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD). The main elements of the proposals are described in the table below:
Site Area 2.3 hectares Floorspace 5,710 sq.m. Employment Approximately 34 full time employees Vehicle Trips 128 HGV trips (64 lorries) daily 22 car trips (11 cars) daily Based on a worst case scenario assuming all movements by road Inputs approx. 128,000 tonnes per annum of municipal solid and commercial & industrial waste approx. 67,000 tonnes per annum of biodegradable organic wastes
TOTAL 195,000 tonnes per annum Outputs 10-15 MWe electrical power approx. 38,500 tonnes per annum of recyclable material
1.2 Inputs:
The proposed facility would process up to 195,000 tonnes of waste per annum, comprising up to 128,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste (C&I) and up to 67,000 tpa of biodegradable organic wastes. The facility will not accept hazardous waste and if such waste is encountered during processing it would be separated for transfer to an appropriate treatment or disposal facility.
1.3 Processes:
Wastes would be delivered to a sealed reception area located at the northern-end of the treatment building. The application assumes a ‘worst case’ scenario whereby Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
all wastes are brought to the site by road, although the submitted layout plan refers to a future rail interface area to allow for the future transfer of material by rail. The waste reception area is operated under negative pressure, for the purposes of odour control. A dedicated Anaerobic Digestion (AD) bay would receive pure biomass matter with solid biodegradable waste to be macerated, blended and pumped directly to digestion tanks. A slurry tank would receive liquid wastes for AD.
1.4 All other wastes would then pass through an autoclaving process where pressure and heat would be applied to sterilise and break down non-recyclable organic material into a homogenous fibre. The material would then pass through a process of mechanical separation to remove any recyclable elements such as plastics, metal and glass for off-site recycling. The applicant suggests that up to 30% of the ACT material would be recovered for recycling. Some rejected material would be removed manually at this stage and would be expected to include stones, textiles and large wood fragments. After separation, the remaining non-recyclable mixed waste would be passed through a process of pyrolysis. The pyrolysis process (defined as the thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen) causes a chemical transformation which releases synthesis gas and produces a charcoal solid. The gas produced would be processed before being combined with the bio-methane produced from the AD process. The charcoal solid would be used in a burner system to produce the heat required for the pyrolysis process. Residual ash from pyrolysis would be reused as a secondary aggregate off-site at a rate of approximately 3,840tpa. Waste heat from the pyrolysers would be used to produce steam for the autoclaves, heating for the AD tanks and provide heating and hot water for the building. The applicant estimates approximately 3,900tpa of waste would be removed off-site for disposal. The proposed system would allow for excess heat to be exported to local heat distribution networks should they be available. A heat loop is proposed at the edge of the site to which potential users could connect.
1.5 The second waste technology proposed is Anaerobic Digestion. AD is the digestion of feedstock to release heat and methane and produce a solid digestate which is typically used as an agricultural fertiliser. The proposed AD facility would be capable of recovering up to 67,000tpa of biomass (primarily biodegradable food waste but also potentially including some green waste and liquid wastes). Approximately 90 percent of material fed through the AD process would remain after processing. The applicant proposes that approximately half of the digestate would be fed through the autoclave process while the other half would be exported off site as an agricultural fertiliser. When combined with the gas produced through pyrolysis the site would be able to drive three gas engines to generate approximately 10-15MWe for the National Grid network.
1.6 Outputs: In addition to recyclable material (mentioned above) which will be separated and recovered for off-site recycling, the pyrolysis process would produce vitrified ash Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
(melted charcoal ash). This material is described as non-hazardous and inert and will be re-used off-site as an aggregate. Approximately 90% of the material used in the AD plant will remain after processing. Some 50% of this material would be exported off-site for use as a fertilising agent and the remaining 50% fed into the autoclave process.
1.7 Proposed Buildings & Structures: The proposals involve the construction of a single process buildings and a number of ancillary structures on the site. The main operational building would be located at the south-western corner of the site, within a roughly ‘L’ shaped structure with a length of 110m and a maximum width of 60m. This building would have the appearance of a warehouse with a gross floorspace of some 5,700 sq.m. and a height of 9m. This structure would house the waste reception area (Zone 1), the waste processing and treatment area (Zone 2), the pyrolysis area (Zone 3) and finally the power generation area (Zone 4). The main building would also house offices and an education centre accommodated over two floors.
1.8 Four AD process tanks would be located on the western part of the site. These structures would have a diameter of either 24m or 28m with a height of 7m. A number of ancillary structures would be located close to the southern boundary of the site comprising a site reception office, wheel wash facility, district heating connection, electrical substation, weighbridge, gas holder tank and 3 no. emission flue / gas flare stacks to a height of 25m.
1.9 Access: Vehicular access to the site would be taken from an existing road within the former Petroplus refinery site to the south, which in turn connects to the roundabout junction at the eastern-end of The Manorway. A parking area for 16no. vehicles is proposed, including charging points for electric vehicles. Cycle parking facilities are also proposed.
1.10 Employment: The applicant suggests that up to 34 full time jobs would be created, including employees involved in delivering waste to the site. This total also includes staff employed in the processing operations (which will take place on a 24 hour basis, 7 days a week) and administrative staff employed during normal office hours on weekdays.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 The application site comprises an irregularly-shaped parcel of land comprising rail sidings and open land at the eastern end of the Thames Haven branch railway line and railway sidings. The former Petroplus refinery site (now known as the Thames Enterprise Park) is generally located to the north and east of the site, with the London Gateway site to the east. The application site, and the adjoining land to the north-west containing the majority of the rail sidings were formerly operated by D B Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Schenker, a company providing railway logistics services. The sidings and adjoining land are currently vacant but were most recently used on a low key basis for the repair and maintenance of railway wagons.
3.2 The site of the railway sidings comprises flat and open land which is punctuated by a number of lighting columns. Vegetation has colonised both the margins of the site and land between the railway tracks. The only built structures currently on the application site are a small number of demountable buildings and containers adjacent to the south-western boundary of the site. Vehicular access into the site is via a gated entrance on the south-eastern frontage. This access in turn connects to the existing internal network of roads within the former Petroplus and former Shell Haven refinery sites. The tidal defences of the River Thames are located some 35m to the south-east of the site
3.3 As part of the construction of the London Gateway port, the former import jetties along the river frontage of the site were decommissioned and removed. A replacement fuel importation jetty to the east of the new port frontage is located a short distance to the south and south-east of the application site. To the south- west of the site is an area of open land, which is within the boundary of the London Gateway Port. Land to the north of the railway sidings comprises largely open land with elements of plant, access road and open storage located within the former Petroplus refinery site.
3.4 The application site is within the high risk flood area (Flood Zone 3). Historically the branch railway terminating at Thames haven was developed in the mid-19th century. Cattle pens and a railway pier were developed on and adjacent to the site by the late 19th century. Further rail sidings were added to the site during the early and mid-20th century.
3.5 The site lies within the ‘Inner Zone’ drawn around the Shell UK storage depot hazardous installation. The site also lies within the ‘Inner’ and ‘Middle Zones’ drawn around the Vopak hazardous installation (former Petroplus Refinery). Finally, the site lies within the ‘Safeguarding Distances’ as shown on the London Gateway Port Explosives Safeguarding Plan.
3.6 The Thames Estuary & Marshes Ramsar site and Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Mucking Flats & Marshes SSSI are located upstream from the site and the Holehaven Creek SSSI is located a short distance downstream from the site. The Thames Estuary & Marshes Ramsar site and SPA is located opposite the site on the Kent side of the River Thames.
3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
3.1 The planning history for the site is set out in the table below:
Reference Proposal Decision Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
57/00321/FUL Construction of pipetrack Approved 09/00210/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness: Use of Refused land for concrete batching plant 09/00340/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness: Use of Refused land for concrete batching plant 09/50097/TTGFUL Erection of concrete batching plant Approved together with parking, storage staff operations and welfare cabin and use of existing accesses.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 PUBLICITY:
The application has been publicised by the display of site notices, a newspaper advertisement and consultation with relevant consultees. No neighbour letters have been received.
4.2 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. Full text versions are available on the Council’s website: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/00215/FUL
4.3 ANGLIAN WATER:
No comments – no assets are affected.
4.4 BRITISH PIPELINE AGENCY:
No comments – the site is located outside of the zone of interest.
4.5 BUGLIFE:
An invertebrate survey should be undertaken before any development is permitted. The proposed mitigation plan appears to be well thought out, however further survey work should inform mitigation and management (N.B. the ES Addendum submitted in November 2014 includes further ecological assessments, including an invertebrate survey).
4.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
No objection subject to a planning condition addressing the issues of sustainable drainage and flood resilience. Advice is provided referring to land contamination and proximity to tidal defences.
4.7 ESSEX & SUFFOLK WATER: Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
No objection, subject to a condition that any new connection is made to the company’s water supply network (N.B. such a condition would not pass the relevant tests for planning conditions and cannot therefore be applied).
4.8 ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ARCHAEOLOGY):
No objection, subject to a condition to require archaeological investigation of the site.
4.9 HSE:
Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.
4.10 HM EXPLOSIVE INSPECTORATE:
The construction of the proposed Energy Recovery Centre within the safeguarding distance of the London Gateway Port explosives licence will not be a problem, provided that the Centre can be evacuated when explosives loading / unloading operations are carried out at the port and the quantities are such as to require evacuation in order to maintain compliance with the Port’s licence. If the port operator can be assured that the presence of the Centre will not adversely affect the quantities of explosives they wish to handle, then there is no reason why the development should not go ahead.
4.11 HIGHWAYS AGENCY:
No objection.
4.12 LONDON GATEWAY:
No concerns or comments, following receipt of the Environment Statement Addendum.
4.13 NATURAL ENGLAND:
Internationally and nationally designated sites – the site is located close to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site and the South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI. The authority should have regard to any potential impacts the project may have on the European site interest, with reference to the Habitats Regulations.
Habitats Regulations Assessment – on the assumption that the authority intend to adopt the applicant’s ES as the Habitats Regulation Assessment, there are no objections, subject to mitigation through planning condition(s). Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Consideration of impacts – subject to condition(s) securing mitigation, there are no objections based on the impacts of noise, air quality and surface water.
Invertebrates – strongly recommend that Buglife (the invertebrate conservation charity) are consulted regarding surveys and mitigation (this has been done)
Protected species – the authority should refer to published standing advice.
Other advice – the authority should consider the potential impact on local habitats and species. Proposed biodiversity enhancements are supported.
4.14 NETWORK RAIL:
Fully supports this application
4.15 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
Air quality – no implications, negligible impact from the development.
Odour – the ES predicts that odour impacts on sensitive receptors will be negligible. The site will require an Environment Agency permit but an odour management condition is also recommended.
Contaminated Land – intrusive site investigation should be undertaken.
Operational noise – details of noise output and mitigation should be required by planning condition.
Construction – and Construction Environment Management Plan should be secured by condition.
4.16 EMERGENCY PLANNING:
No objection, subject to a planning condition requiring a flood warning and evacuation plan.
4.17 FLOOD RISK MANAGER:
No objection, subject to a condition requiring details of a surface water drainage scheme.
4.18 HIGHWAYS:
No objection subject to conditions. The traffic generation from the proposed development is not of a significant level compared with existing and predicted flows. Mitigation measures should be secured by planning condition. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
4.19 LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY ADVISOR:
The ES and ES Addendum provides a fair assessment of the value of the site for species. Further details of mitigation measures, especially for invertebrates, are required through planning condition. Conditions are also required to address site clearance and the provision of green roofs.
4.20 TRAVEL PLAN CO-ORDINATOR:
No objections, subject to minor revisions to the submitted travel plan.
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework
The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.
1. Building a strong, competitive economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
5.2 National Waste Policy: The following documents are relevant to this case:
National Planning Policy for Waste (2014) Waste Management Plan for England (2013) Energy from waste – a guide to the debate (2014).
5.2 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub- topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:
• Air quality • Climate change • Design • Determining a planning application • Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood Risk and Coastal Change • Land affected by contamination • Light pollution • Natural Environment • Noise • Planning obligations • Renewable and low carbon energy • Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking • Use of Planning Conditions • Waste
5.3 Local Planning Policy
Thurrock Local Development Framework (2011)
The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011. The Adopted Interim Proposals Map shows the site designated as employment land within an oil refinery. The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:
SPATIAL POLICIES - CSSP2: Sustainable Employment Growth - OSDP1: Promotion of Sustainable Growth and Regeneration in Thurrock1
THEMATIC POLICIES - CSTP6: Strategic Employment Provision - CSTP15: Transport in Greater Thurrock - CSTP17: Strategic Freight Movement and Access to Ports - CSTP18: Green Infrastructure - CSTP19: Biodiversity - CSTP22: Thurrock Design - CSTP23: Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness2 - CSTP25: Addressing Climate Change2 Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
- CSTP26: Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation2 - CSTP27: Management and Reduction of Flood Risk2 - CSTP28: River Thames2 - CSTP29: Waste Strategy - CSTP30: Regional Waste Apportionment
POLICIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT - PMD1: Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity2 - PMD2: Design and Layout2 - PMD7: Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development2 - PMD8: Parking Standards3 - PMD9: Road Network Hierarchy - PMD10: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans2 - PMD11: Freight Movement - PMD12: Sustainable Buildings2 - PMD13: Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation - PMD15: Flood Risk Assessment2 - PMD16: Developer Contributions2
[Footnote: 1New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2 Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3 Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy].
5.4 Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy (2014)
This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The Review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination in August 2013. An Examination in Public took place in April 2014. The Inspector concluded that the amendments were sound subject to recommended changes. Thurrock Council adopted the Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focussed Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework on 28 January 2015.
5.5 Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD
The Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. The application site is located within a Key Urban Regeneration Area (London Gateway) on land generally identified as “oil refinery: oil and chemical storage”. Site Allocation Policy SAP5 (Land for Industrial and Commercial Development) allocates the site as land for primary employment at Coryton oil refinery (E2v) and as a Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
reasonable alternative site option for primary employment land (E2RAi). Site Allocation Policy SAP7 (Oil Refineries and Oil Storage) allocates the site as within the Coryton Oil Refinery (O4). The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination where their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation for the Borough.
5.6 Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock
The above report was considered at the February 2014 meeting of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up- to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. It is anticipated that a new Local Plan for Thurrock could be adopted by early 2018.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Procedure:
The proposal is considered to be an EIA Development, therefore the application has been accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA considers the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and operation and includes measures to either prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The findings of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application. The ES has been supplemented by an ES Addendum. The ES is also accompanied by technical appendices. The contents of the EA comprise;
1. Introduction; 2. The Site and Surroundings; 3. Environmental Statement Methodology; 4. Alternatives and Design Evolution; 5. The Proposed Development; 6. Development Programme, Demolition and Construction; 7. Transport and Access; 8. Air Quality and Odour; 9. Ecology and Nature Conservation; 10. Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk; 11. Soils, Geology and Contamination; 12. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; and Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
13. Conclusions.
6.2 The Council has a statutory duty to consider environmental matters and an EIA is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development are fully understood and fully taken into account before development proceeds. EIA is, therefore, an integral component of the planning process for significant developments. EIA leads to improved decision making by providing the development management process with better information. EIA not only helps to determine whether development should be permitted but also facilitates the drafting of planning conditions and legal agreements in order to control development, avoid or mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects. Therefore, it is vital that the environmental issues raised by the application are assessed in a robust and transparent manner.
6.3 In order to fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations it is necessary to ensure (a) that the Council has taken into account the environmental information submitted, and (b) that any planning permission granted is consistent with the development which has been assessed. To achieve this second objective the Council has the ability to impose conditions and secure mitigation measures by Section 106 obligations.
6.4 The issues to be considered in this case are:
the principle of the proposal and compliance with relevant planning policies; transport and highways issues; impact on air quality and odour; impact on ecological interests; flood risk; ground conditions; archaeology; and health and safety issues.
6.5 PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT & COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
Policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 of the Core Strategy (2011) set out the Council’s thematic policies addressing waste strategy and regional waste apportionment.
6.6 Is there a need for the proposed facility?
CSTP29 (Waste Strategy) states that, inter-alia, provision will only be made for total waste management capacity equivalent to the requirements for Thurrock, including imports, as set out in the Core Strategy. In order to meet this provision, the Council will identify 1 or 2 strategic sites for the co-location of a range of waste Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
management activities within the broad locations of Tilbury – Purfleet and the London Gateway area as identified on the key diagram. Policy CSTP30 (Regional Waste Apportionment) states that Thurrock will make a defined provision for waste imports from London across the plan period (1.885 million tonnes 2009/10 – 2021). In addition, provision for new non-landfill waste facilities will only be made for waste not included within this apportionment where a facility has a clear benefit to the region, such as the provision of specialist processing or treatment which would not be viable without a wider catchment and which would enable recovery of more locally generated wastes and contribute to meeting the capacity requirements set out in CSTP29.
6.7 The above Core Strategy waste policies were devised against the background of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East of England (East of England Plan) and policy WM3 of that Plan in particular. The supporting text to policy CSTP30 recognises that the RSS policy did not totally discourage the provision of non- landfill waste management facilities for waste originating outside of the region. But CSTP30 does repeat RSS policy by stating that non-landfill facilities for such waste will only be allowed where the facility has a clear benefit to the region, such as the provision of specialist processing or treatment which would not be viable without a wider catchment area and which would enable recovery of more locally generated wastes and contribute to meeting the capacity requirements set out in CSTP29. Policy CSTP29 includes, at Table 12, a statement of the Borough’s required waste capacity to the end of the Plan period (2026) as follows:
Waste Management Method Additional Capacity Required (based on end of Plan period 2026) Recovery of MSW (municipal solid Between 75,000 tpa (based on targets waste) set out in the Municipal Waste Strategy) and 94,000 tpa by 2026 Commercial and industrial (C&I) waste Between 138,000 tpa and 190,000 tpa recycling and other recovery at 2026 Construction and demolition (C&D) 255,000 tpa (worst case scenario waste recycling assuming loss of temporary facilities). Non-hazardous landfill None Inert landfill None
6.8 CSTP29 makes reference to an extant s.36 (Electricity Act) consent and associated deemed planning consent for the construction and operation of a biomass and energy from waste power station at Tilbury Docks (Tilbury Green Power (TGP)). The policy anticipated that this facility would be operational in 2012 and that the facility could meet most of most of the total waste capacity for Thurrock. However, this consent is subject to a number of planning conditions which limit both the tonnage of waste inputs and the geographical sources of those inputs. Accordingly, the maximum input of MSW permitted for TGP is 40,000 tpa, representing only a part of the annual tonnage (75,000-94,000tpa) referred to in the table above. In Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
addition, a planning condition limits the total input of MSW, C&I waste and solid recovered fuel (either imported or produced on-site) to no more than 300,000tpa.
6.9 Furthermore, despite a technical commencement of development on the TGP site, the facility has not been constructed. It is also now the intention of TGP to development the consented facility in two separate phases, with the first phase comprising the biomass and waste wood fuelled generating station. Phase 2 comprising the MSW and C&I fuel inputs will follow at a later date, although no definite timeframe is yet known. Therefore, despite the consent for TGP, there is no operational capacity for management of MSW and C&I waste identified in the table above and in any case TGP does not accommodate all of the capacity required for MSW. The supporting text to CSTP29 states that “until the (TGP) scheme is implemented and until it is confirmed that it provides for Thurrock’s waste needs, a flexible and robust approach is required to plan for waste capacity to meet Thurrock’s need.”
6.10 Members will recall that the RSS was revoked by the Government in 2013. Therefore, the policies upon which Core Strategy policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 were based no longer exists. Members will also be aware that in February 2015 Council considered a report titled ‘Adoption of Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focused Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework’. This report listed a number of Core Strategy policies to which amendments could be taken forward to ensure consistency with the NPPF without the need to prepare additional evidence. Policies CSTP29 and 30 are not on this list and remain unchanged by the Focused Review, however these policies are not compliant with the NPPF which post-dated the adoption of the Core Strategy.
6.11 The most recent national policy for waste comprises ‘National Planning Policy for Waste’ (October 2014). This document reinforces the waste hierarchy, which sets out a preferred sequence of prevention – re-use – recycling – recovery – disposal. In identifying the need for waste management facilities, national policy states that local authorities should identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their area for the management of waste streams. More specifically, local authorities should identify tonnages and percentages of municipal, commercial and industrial waste requiring management over the plan period. In determining planning applications, local authorities (in addition to considering locational and environmental factors) should:
Only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan. In such cases, waste planning authorities should consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.12 Whilst the planning policy context for waste is complex, the following conclusions can be drawn:
the location of the proposed facility meets the broad locational criteria set out in CSTP29; the proposal in combination with the consented TGP facility has the potential to meet the Borough’s requirement for additional capacity to process MSW and C& I waste, as set out in CSTP29; as the consented TGP facility is not operational (and there is currently no known timeframe for delivery of the MSW and C&I element of the scheme), CSTP29 promotes a flexible and robust approach to plan for waste capacity to meet Thurrock’s need; Core Strategy policies CSTP29 and CSTP30 cannot be considered as up to date and in these circumstances more recent national guidance is more relevant;
6.13 Taking the above factors into account, it is considered that there is a need for the facility in order to meet the capacity requirements set out by Core Strategy policy.
6.14 Proximity Principle – the EU Waste Framework Directive (Article 16 – Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity) requires that:
waste planning authorities should ensure that, as far as is practicable, sufficient waste disposal facilities and facilities for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from households exist within their Local Plan area; and Waste planning authorities should ensure that waste disposal facilities and facilities for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from households are appropriately sited to ensure compliance with the proximity principle. This can include joint working with other planning authorities to develop an extensive network of sites to enable effective waste management.
6.15 In essence, the proximity principle seeks to ensure that waste is disposed of, or otherwise managed, as close as possible to the point at which it is generated. The deemed planning permission for the TGP facility, which was considered against the context of relevant RSS policies, includes ‘catchment’ conditions which seek to ensure that inputs are sourced from areas close to site. However, materials sourced from greater distances can be delivered by river. The matter of catchments for the proposed facility has been discussed with the applicant, as a number of the documents supporting the application refer to ‘local’ sourcing of waste inputs. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.16 The applicant confirms that the facility will be a merchant facility, i.e. it does not have committed waste contracts in place at present. Similar to TGP, the facility is designed to source waste wherever the opportunities present themselves, although it is in the interests of the applicant to treat waste as close to the source as possible in order to ensure the treatment operation is as economically efficient as possible. The applicant considers that it is not appropriate to seek to control the origins of the waste operations of merchant facilities. In reality, as waste is of a relatively low value, when taking transportation costs into account it results in waste travelling limited distances in any event. In this regard, the commercial market generates self-sufficiency. However, the applicant is prepared to accept a planning condition limiting imports of MSW and C&I waste to a radius of 50 miles from the site. A similar condition applies to the TGP site, although there are different catchments applying to biomass and waste wood imports.
6.17 It is of note that during consideration of the TGP proposals the applicant for those proposals made reference to waste management and energy policies as interpreted through decisions taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The applicant for TGP cited a decision to approve an application for S.36 consent and deemed planning permission for an energy from waste combined heat and power (CHP) station at Runcorn, Cheshire. In responding to concerns that the source of fuel had not been identified, the decision letter noted that:
“The Secretary of State considers that the sourcing of fuel for the generating station is a commercial matter for the Company.”
6.18 Similarly, an Inspector’s report considering a proposal for an energy from waste plant at Ince in Cheshire also examined the issue of fuel sources. In that case, the Inspector concluded that:
“The prospect of long distance movement of waste has been raised by many local objectors and by the Borough Councils but as a merchant facility responding to the market it is clear that it would not be appropriate to seek to control the origins of waste by condition or legal obligation … The level of investigation of this topic at the inquiry was not sufficiently thorough to enable me to reach a firm conclusion about the availability, or abundance, of C&I waste suitable and available as a source of refuse derived fuel for the proposed Ince incinerator. However, my view is that that is a question for the market place to determine and that the proponents of the scheme would only proceed with a £215 million investment after extremely careful examination of the project’s viability and availability of relatively local sources of refuse derived fuel will have a major impact on the scheme’s viability.”
6.19 These two decisions suggest that the sourcing of fuel and feedstocks for generating stations is a commercial decision for the operator and not a matter which should necessarily be controlled through planning conditions. However, in this case the Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
applicant has offered a condition in good faith and it is recommended that, if Members are minded to grant permission, the condition is utilised.
6.20 TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS ISSUES
A Transport Assessment (TA) forms an appendix to the ES and an additional technical note has been submitted as an addendum to the TA which responds to comments from the Highways Officer.
6.21 Baseline conditions – vehicular access to the site is proposed via a number of estate road links on the former Petroplus refinery site which link to the adopted highway at the far eastern end of The Manorway (A1014). The entrance to the site is approximately 1.5km from the public highway network. Footway and cycle links along the northern side of A1014 terminate at the roundabout junction close to the entrance of the former Petroplus refinery. The estate roads within the former refinery complex do not have associated footways / cycleways. The nearest bus service to the site is the no. 300 which links London Gateway to Stanford-le-Hope and operates 5-8 journeys per day from Mondays to Saturdays. The closest stop on this route is located at Gate 3 on the A1014, approximately 2.5km travelling distance from the site. The application is partly located on the site of the former Thames Haven rail sidings. These sidings form the eastern-end of the Thames Haven branch railway line. The line to the west of the site was upgraded to double track as part of the London Gateway redevelopment.
6.22 Vehicle Movements – the TA assumes a worst-case scenario whereby all transport movements to and from the site are made by road. An estimation of daily large goods vehicle trips is set out in the table below:
Vehicle Average Tonnes Average Trips per Payload per day vehicles day per day MATERIALS IN Bulk trailer 20t 348t 17 35 Commercial waste 8t 70t 9 17 Refuse vehicle 7t 70t 10 20 Skips 15t 209t 14 28 MATERIALS OUT Recyclates 15t 137t 9 18 Disposal 20t 14t 1 1 Vitrified slag 20t 14t 1 1 Liquid fertiliser 38m3 75t 2 4 Solid fertiliser 20t 32t 2 3 TOTAL 64 128
6.23 With reference to staff travel patterns, the TA estimates that car movements associated with the operation of the development would add a further 22 car trips Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
per day. In total, it is estimated that during operation the development would generate 150 vehicle movements per day. The TA / ES assesses the effect of this additional traffic on the highway network as ‘neutral’.
6.24 Rail – the site benefits from direct rail access and the submitted plans show a ‘future rail interface area’ so that both inputs to and outputs from the site could utilise rail links. However, the TA points out that the use of rail for this kind on freight is usually only viable for long-distance movements and the waste inputs into the facility “is intended to be sourced from the local area”. In these circumstances, “the likelihood is that the rail infrastructure would only be utilised for the transfer of recyclable waste off-site to specialised recycling facilities”.
6.25 Mitigation – the TA and its addendum has been considered by Highways who conclude that traffic generation from the proposed development is not of a level of significance when compared with the existing flow, and predicted growth in flows, on the road network adjoining the site. A number of mitigation measures (travel plan, delivery & servicing plan and investigation of the viability of railway use) can be secured through planning conditions.
6.26 As noted above, the site is physically remote from footway and cyclepath links and is also remote from public transport links. It would be desirable, in the interests of sustainability, if linkages to the site to were improved, however the proposals only involve relatively small numbers of staff on-site during either normal office hours or on the basis of a 3-shift pattern operating the facility. Staff movements during the operation of the facility are therefore low-key and it would be unreasonable to expect the development on its own to provide linkage to the public highway, especially as this would involve land beyond the applicant’s control. However, within the TA addendum, the applicant’s highway consultant suggests that a ‘Grampian’ condition could require the applicant to provide a study into the design and cost of the provision of pedestrian facilities within the area, and make a proportional contribution towards the provision of footways on the basis of the study results. Whilst this offer is welcomed, any planning condition to secure a study and contribution would need to comply with the relevant tests for planning conditions set out in the NPPF and PPG. In particular, the tests of necessity, relevance to the development and whether the condition is reasonable are pertinent.
6.27 With regard to necessity, the key question to be addressed is whether the condition is needed to make the development acceptable, i.e. is it appropriate to refuse permission without the requirements of the condition. As the Highways Officer concludes that traffic flows from the development are not significant, it is considered that the proposed condition does not pass this test. In assessing whether a condition is relevant to the development, the PPG poses the key question of whether the condition is justified by the impact of the development. Again, in light of the significance of impact, the proposed condition cannot be justified. Finally, with reference to whether the condition would be reasonable, PPG advises that Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
conditions should not place unjustifiable or unreasonable burdens on an applicant. It is considered that the condition does not pass this test.
6.28 Therefore, despite the applicant’s offer, it is considered that this condition cannot be applied and is unnecessary as mitigation for the impact on the highways network.
6.29 IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY & ODOUR
Both the proposed ACT and AD plant will require an Environmental Permit, as required by the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. This process is administered by the Environment Agency and assesses the potential impacts to air, water and land. The issue of an Environmental Permit is separate from the consideration of the planning merits of this application and conditions placed on any planning permission should not replicate specific controls which may form part of any Environmental Permit.
6.30 The ES accompanying the application includes a chapter assessing the impacts of both construction and operation of the development on air quality and odour. Emissions to air from the development would be via 2 x emission flue stacks (located to the south and east of the process building) and 1 x gas flare stack (located to the south of the process building). The ES considers the impacts of
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) which are produced from the combustion of syngas and the impacts of emissions from the pyrolysis process namely:
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); gaseous and vaporous organic substances; sulphur dioxide; hydrogen chloride; hydrogen fluoride; trace metals; and dioxins and furans.
Modelled ground-level concentrations of these pollutants are assessed against relevant air quality standards.
6.31 Baseline Conditions – the application site is located within an area dominated by active commercial / industrial uses and vacant industrial land. The closest residential receptors are located at Oozedam Farm (approximately 1.7km to the north), Great Garlands Farm / Rookery Hill / Wharf Road (approximately 3.2 – 3.8km to the north-west) and Haven Road, Canvey Island (approximately 3.1km to the east). Existing air quality in the locality is influenced by emissions from the gas- fired Coryton Power Station, located some 600m to the north of the site. Section 36 (Electricity Act) consent and deemed planning permission was granted in 2011 (and subsequently amended in 2014) for the construction and operation of a new gas- Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
fired power station on part of the London Gateway logistics park site. This development, known as Gateway Energy Centre is located approximately 1km to the north-west, although development has not commenced. The ES assesses the cumulative impacts of these developments.
6.32 Air quality data is available from monitoring stations in the Borough for
concentrations of NO2 and PM10. Data for the period 2008-12 shows that annual mean objective levels for NO2 are exceeded for two roadside locations at Tilbury and Purfleet, however levels at background sites in Thurrock, and at Canvey Island,
meet objective levels. For the same period (2008-12) concentrations of PM10 were within air quality objective levels at three monitoring locations in the Borough.
6.33 Construction Impacts - during construction of the facility, the ES assesses the potential for dust generation and impact on air quality from earthworks, construction activities and associated vehicular movement. The ES predicts that, subject to best practice mitigation measures, the residual impacts of construction activities on air quality would be negligible. The ES refers to an environment management plan to control impacts from construction activities and detailed comments received from the Environmental Health Officer suggest that the requirement to produce and implement such a plan should be subject to a planning condition.
6.34 Operational Impacts – the ES models predicted maximum and average pollutant concentrations based on meteorological data (which confirms the dominant south- westerly wind direction). The full range of potential emissions from the proposed
technologies (NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Benzene, Hydrogen Chloride, Hydrogen Flouride, trace metals, dioxins and furans) have been modelled. For all emissions the modelled concentrations of pollutants at sensitive residential receptors are within the relevant air quality standards. The significance of operation of the facility on air quality is considered by the ES to be ‘negligible’. The impacts of emissions on habitats are considered elsewhere in this report.
6.35 The ES addendum considers air quality implications for receptors at the adjacent London Gateway site, principally users of the Port staff welfare and office building which is located 200m to the north-west of the site. As above, predicted concentrations of the full range of potential pollutants are modelled as within objective levels for these receptors. The significance of the impact is therefore assessed as ‘negligible’.
6.36 Odour – the proposed facility will accept and process waste and biomass material and the ES therefore includes an assessment of the impacts of odour. Although there are no UK statutory standards for assessing the acceptability of predicted odour impacts, guidance has been produced by the EA and DEFRA. The DEFRA guidance refers to the factors of frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness and location in assessing the potential impact of odour. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.37 The applicant refers to number of design features and management procedures which, it is stated, will mitigate the impact of odour to that of negligible significance. In particular, the applicant refers to the following odour control measures:
Inventory control – received waste will be managed to prevent stockpiling; Sealed building – the waste reception and processing element of the building has been designed to be air-tight, will be operated under negative pressure and all door openings will be fast acting with air curtains; Odour abatement – internal extracted air will be treated and then used within the combustion systems; Standby odour abatement plant – if the odour abatement system (above) is not operational a two-phase scrubbing and filtration will be employed.
6.38 Nevertheless, despite these measures the ES recommends that an “Odour Management Plan and Standard Operating Procedures are developed for the Site prior to its operation. This will form part of an application to the Environment Agency (EA) for an Environmental Permit for the Site. These procedures should be strictly followed and reviewed on an annual basis”. The Environmental Health Officer suggests that an odour management plan be submitted for approval as an additional safeguard.
6.39 IMPACT ON ECOLOGICAL INTERESTS
As noted above, the site is located in close proximity to a number of habitats designated of national, European or international importance (SSSI / SPA / Ramsar). After the initial submission of the planning application in 2014, the Landscape and Heritage Advisor noted that the habitat present on the site could be classified as open mosaic and advised that further species surveys should be undertaken.
6.40 On-site habitats / species – the ES Addendum (submitted towards the end of 2014) details the results of on-site species surveys which are summarised below:
Botanical survey – three local BAP species were encountered (Common Cudweed, Annual Beard-Grass and Ploughman’s-Spikenard) with all other plants typically found on brownfield sites. In order to mitigate the minor adverse significance of impact on these species the ES proposes seed collection and re-creation of similar habitats on the ground and within green- roofs. Great Crested Newts – this species is unlikely to be present on the site and therefore impacts are unlikely. However, due to the historic presence of newts within 250m of the site, the ES recommends mitigation measures. Common Toad – this species is unlikely to be present on the site and therefore impacts are unlikely. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Birds – the site is assessed as of district value for breeding bird assemblages. The proposals would result in the loss of foraging and nesting habitat for birds, including some species of conservation concern. A ‘moderate’ significance of impact is predicted on breeding and foraging birds. To mitigate impact the ES recommends that ground clearance works are undertaken outside of the bird breeding season and areas of new planting and habitat retention / creation. Badgers / Bats – badgers are unlikely to be present on-site as the habitat is of little value to this species. However, scrub clearance should be supervised to verify whether a badger sett is present. The site is of negligible value to roosting bats but has some value for foraging. Any external lighting should be designed so as to minimise disturbance to bats. Invertebrates – surveys undertaken between May and September 2014 identified 6 Red Data Book species, 11 Nationally Notable (Nationally Scarce) species, 33 Local species and 7 BAP species. The significance of the loss of habitat for invertebrates is assessed ‘minor adverse’. In order to mitigate this impact the ES recommends the creation of similar habits comprising green roofs, wildflower areas and mounds to provide nesting sites. Reptiles – Slow Worm, Common Lizard and grass Snake are present on- site. Although only small numbers were encountered, due to the range of species the site qualifies as a ‘Key Reptile Site’. The significance of the loss of habitat for invertebrates is assessed ‘minor adverse’. In order to mitigate this impact the ES recommends a trapping / relocation exercise and the creation of new habitat.
6.41 The ES concludes that, subject to mitigation, there would be no significant residual impacts on habitats or species on-site. However, any planning approval would need to be subject a number of planning conditions to address precautionary methods of working, the creation and management of new habitats (including green roofs, wildflower grassland, reedbed and scrub planting) and reptile relocation.
6.42 Habitats Regulations – the consultation response from Natural England (summarised above) notes that the application site is located close to internationally and nationally designated sites (Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site / South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI). European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). In considering the European site interest, the local planning authority, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that the proposals may have. The Habitat Regulations (which are a UK transposition of EU Directives relating to the conservation of natural habitats, flora and fauna and specifically wild birds) apply to certain designated sites including Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites. Of particular relevance to this application, regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires, inter-alia, that: Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Before deciding to give any permission for a plan which: (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site
The competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.
6.43 Regulation 61 goes on to state that the person applying for permission must provide the necessary information to enable the competent authority to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required and that the competent authority must consult with the appropriate nature conservation body. In this case, Natural England has provided a detailed response on the proposals which confirms:
“The applicant’s assessment (Within the ES) concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of (Habitats Regulations) assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. This conclusion has been drawn having regard for the measures built into the proposal that seek to avoid all potential impacts. We have reviewed the information submitted with this planning application in particular the Environmental Report and subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the report being secured as planning conditions, Natural England concurs with this view.”
6.44 Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant’s assessment is adopted by the local planning authority in order for the Council to fulfil its duty under the Habitats Regulations. In adopting this assessment it is also recommended that the local planning authority formally determine that, on the basis of the information available, that the proposed development will not have a likely significant impact on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
6.45 Off-site impacts – the ES considers the impact of the construction and operational phases of development on both statutory and non-statutory ecological designations close to the site. The ES Addendum also considers impacts on areas of new habitat creation for protected species which were created close to the London Gateway site as mitigation for that development.
6.46 During construction the ES concludes that, subject to accordance with best working practices, impacts from dust and run-off during construction on off-site ecological interests would be insignificant. During the operation of the development, the main impact of the facility would be emissions to air and their impact on nearby habitats by reason of increased nutrient deposition (eutrophication) and acidification. Data from the air quality chapter of the ES and ES Addendum considers the potential impact of eutrophication and acidification on the full array of statutory designated and non-statutory habitats and the London Gateway habitat areas and concludes that impact would be of negligible significance. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.47 Under this heading it is concluded that, subject to suitable planning conditions to deliver mitigation, the impact of the proposals on ecological interests are acceptable.
6.48 FLOOD RISK
The application site comprises generally level, low lying land between 2-3m AOD which is within the high risk flood zone (Zone 3a), albeit benefitting from flood defences adjacent to the River Thames. The consultation response received from the Environment Agency (summarised above) considers the proposals to comprise a ‘less vulnerable’ land use and, with reference to the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification within PPG, the development can be considered appropriate in terms of its vulnerability to flood risk. Nevertheless, the proposals are still subject to the requirements of passing the Sequential Test and that the flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime.
6.49 Sequential Test – the general aim of the sequential approach to the location of development is to ensure that areas of low flood risk are developed in preference to areas of higher risk. Advice within PPG states that it is the responsibility of the local planning authority to consider whether the Sequential Test has been satisfied and that the developer should justify what area of search has been used in making the planning application.
6.50 The application is accompanied by a ‘Sequential Test: Evidence Base’ document. Based on the wording of adopted Core Strategy policy CSTP29, this document narrows the area of search for sequentially preferable sites to the broad locations of Purfleet-Tilbury and London Gateway. The applicant’s document then considers potential suitable sites on the basis of:
previously developed land; transport infrastructure; surrounding land uses; environmental constraints; and adequate size.
6.51 Based upon the list of sites emerging in the Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD, the above filters have been applied to discount sites on the basis of insufficient size to accommodate the development, greenfield status, sensitivity of surrounding land uses and neighbours and lack of potential for rail and river transport links. After applying the above filters there is only one site (Arisdale Avenue, South Ockendon) within the search area which is at a lower risk of flooding. However, the Arisdale site is close to residential receptors, would require considerable investment to create a rail siding and is not available for development. The applicant’s assessment therefore concludes that there are no alternative Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
available sites at a lower risk of flooding which could accommodate the development. It is considered that the submitted Evidence Base is robust in its methodology and analysis. Consequently, the Sequential Test is passed.
6.52 Although the Environment Agency do not object to the proposals (subject condition), they note that the local planning authority should be satisfied that the development will be safe for its operational lifetime (estimated to be 25 years). The consultation response received from Emergency Planning also recommends that a flood warning and evacuation plan should be maintained during the operation of the development. A site-specific FRA accompanies the application which predicts that, in the event of a breach of tidal defences, the depth of flood water on the site would be between 0.5m - 2m for both the 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1,000 year breach event. The time period from a breach of defences until inundation of the site is also expected to be short (close to 1 hour). Although the likelihood of a breach of tidal defences is very small, the consequences of such a breach are defined as posing a ‘significant / extreme hazard’. However, when considering flood risk implications it should be remembered that the intended operational life of the proposed facility is 25 years and the modelling referred to above refers to the extreme 1 in 200 or 1 in 1,000 year events.
6.53 The proposals include the provision of offices at mezzanine floor level above the modelled flood level. In the case of an emergency, this area could be used as a safe refuse. In addition, the main process building will be constructed to resist the force of up to 2m of water against it. The FRA includes a draft flood response plan and a final operation plan can be a requirement of a planning condition. The EA and the Flood Risk Manager both suggest that the matter of surface water drainage is also subject to planning condition.
6.54 In light of the above, and subject to a suitably worded planning condition, there are no reasons on the grounds of flood risk to object to the proposals.
6.55 GROUND CONDITIONS
As noted above, historically the site has been used as railway sidings and contained a number of buildings associated with that use, including a train / goods station and cattle pens. Given the historic use of the site the ES uses a desktop assessment to consider ground conditions and concludes that there is potential for widespread ground contamination associated with the presence of ash ballast and spillages / leaks of fuels, oils and chemicals. The ES considers that any contamination could be within perched groundwater on the site and that this groundwater is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the River Thames. The ES recommends that an intrusive investigation is undertaken prior to any construction, with a strategy to deal with contamination and / or ground gas.
6.56 The Environmental Health Officer has considered the content of the ES and agrees that intrusive investigation should be undertaken to characterise the site and inform Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
any remediation and mitigation measures. The Environment Agency also note the potential for ground contamination, although the Agency consider that the water environment at the site is of low environmental sensitivity and detailed site-specific comments with regards to land contamination issues are not provided.
6.57 Nevertheless it is considered that planning conditions could be used to satisfactorily address the issue of ground contamination.
6.58 ARCHAEOLOGY
The ES considers archaeology and cultural heritage. Former railway buildings on the site, comprising the railway station, goods station, cattle pens and a small terrace of possibly residential properties were all removed demolished during the second half of the 20th Century. The remaining buildings and structures on-site are of no cultural or historic interest.
6.59 However, the ES considers that the site has the potential to contain underlying sediments which may be of archaeological interest. Essex County Council (Archaeology) also notes that there is the potential for multi-period archaeological deposits across the site and that deep early prehistoric deposits are likely to be surviving beneath the alluvial deposits, whilst late Iron Age and Roman saltern sites (salt making sites) have been found in similar locations around the coast. In these circumstances, a planning condition requiring a programme of archaeological investigation is necessary.
6.60 HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES
The site lies within the ‘Inner Zone’ drawn around the Shell UK storage depot hazardous installation site and also lies within the ‘Inner’ and ‘Middle Zones’ drawn around the Vopak hazardous installation site (former Petroplus Refinery). Based upon the sensitivity of the proposed land use and the number of potential employees on the site, the HSE do not advise against the grant of planning permission based on the proximity of the site to the above hazardous installations.
6.61 The application site also lies within the envelope of safeguarding distances drawn around London Gateway Port, which was granted a licence to handle explosives in 2014. An updated consultation reply from the Explosives Inspectorate of the HSE (received January 2015) states that:
“the construction of the (energy recovery) centre within the safeguarding distance will not be a problem, provided the centre can be evacuated when explosives loading/unloading operations are carried out at the berth, and the quantities are such as to require evacuation in order to maintain compliance with the port's licence” Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
6.62 The applicant has confirmed that since submission of the application last year discussion on this matter have taken place with both the HSE and London Gateway Port. This has led to the drafting of a written procedure for the operational shutdown of the energy recovery centre in the event that the Port handles explosives. The applicant is agreeable to this matter being dealt with through a planning condition.
6.63 OTHER ISSUES:
Core Strategy policy CSTP17 (Strategic Freight Movement and Access to Ports) states that the Council will, inter-alia, protect inter-modal rail and water-borne freight facilities from other development where a demand exists or is expected to exist and promote the use of rail freight facilities. The site comprises rail sidings at the far eastern-end of the Thames Haven branch line, formerly used as part of the Shell Haven refinery. The proposals would involve the loss of the easternmost section (approximately 200m) of the majority of sidings. However, existing sidings to the west of the site would be unaffected by the proposals. Furthermore, the proposed site layout indicates the potential reinstatement of sidings to the north- east of the site.
6.64 Recently completed works to the branch line within the London Gateway site have provided a number of new rail sidings immediately north of the port. Therefore, the current proposals would have no detrimental impact on the operation of rail freight at London Gateway. The proposals would also have no impact on rail access to the existing lines which access the Calor Gas site and the northern part of the former Petroplus site.
6.65 Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policy CSTP17.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Subject to the use of appropriate planning conditions to secure mitigation, it is considered that the impacts of the proposal of the environment (ecology, air quality, ground conditions and archaeology) are acceptable. Similarly, subject to the use of planning conditions, there are no reasons to object to the proposals on the grounds of flood risk or impact on the surrounding highways network.
7.1 Planning policies for waste are applicable to the proposals and it is considered that there is currently a need for the facility in order to manage waste arisings in Thurrock, as identified by Core Strategy policy.
7.2 Environmental Statement – in coming its view on the proposed development the Council has taken into account the content of the ES and ES Addendum submitted with the application as well as representations that have been submitted by third parties. The ES considers the potential impacts of the proposal on a range of receptors and sets out mitigation measures. Subject to appropriate mitigation Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
which can be secured through planning conditions, the ES and ES Addendum concludes that any impact arising from the construction and operation of the development would be within acceptable limits. Having taken into account representations received, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, subject to compliance with a number of planning conditions that are imposed upon the permission. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the recommendation set out below.
7.3 As the site is located close to habitats of importance for nature conservation, the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) apply. Therefore, it is necessary for the Committee to consider and agree recommendation A below before considering recommendation B.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation A -
That the local planning authority formally determine pursuant to regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and on the basis of the information available, that the development proposed will not have a likely significant effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
Recommendation B -
Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the local planning authority within seven days of such commencement.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
CPPL-02/00-01 - Site Location Plan CPPL-02/00-02 - Site Location Plan with Aerial Photograph CPPL-02/05-01 - Site Sections CPPL-02/10-01 - Proposed Site Layout CPPL-02/10-02 - Proposed Floor Plan Level 00 CPPL-02/10-03 - Proposed Floor Plan Level 01 CPPL-02/10-04 - Proposed Floor Plan Roof Level CPPL-02/10-05 - Proposed Floor Plan (Levels 00 & 01) Office, Education & Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reception Areas CPPL-02/20-01 - Proposed Sections CPPL-02/20-02 - Proposed Sections 2 (Extended) Sheet 1 of 3 CPPL-02/30-01 - Proposed Elevations 1 CPPL-02/30-02 - Proposed Elevations 2 AD Tanks
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and a programme of maintenance. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following commencement of the development (or such other period as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority) and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings and provides for landscaping as required by policies CSTP18 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
4. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of the locations, heights, designs, materials and types of all boundary treatments to be erected on site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the first operational use of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, privacy and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings as required by policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority there shall be no external storage of materials, goods, machinery, plant or other materials on the site, other than those items of plant and machinery shown on the approved drawings.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
development is integrated within its surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
6. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of any external lighting, including details of the spread and intensity of light together with the size, scale and design of any light fittings and supports, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter external lighting shall only be provided and operated in accordance with the agreed details or in accordance with any variation agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is integrated within its surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall be built to the ‘Excellent’ standard under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). Prior to first operational use of the development a copy of the Post Construction Completion Certificate for the building verifying that the ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating has been achieved shall be submitted to the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the interests of sustainable development, as required by policy PMD12 of the Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
8. Prior to the first operational use of the development the car parking spaces shown on the approved plans [ref. CPPL-02/10-01 - Proposed Site Layout] shall be provided and delineated on-site in accordance with the approved plans. Notwithstanding the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development shall be carried out on the site so as to preclude the use of those car parking spaces. The car parking spaces shall be available in their entirety during the operation of the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and amenity and to ensure that adequate car parking provision is available in accordance with policy PMD8 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
9. The measures and procedures for monitoring and review set out within the submitted Staff Travel Plan [Appendix TN2-E of the Technical Note 2 Transport Assessment Addendum dated November 2014] shall be implemented during Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
the construction and operational phases of the development and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To reduce reliance on private cars in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
10. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, no development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its surroundings in accordance with Policy PMD2 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
11. Prior to the construction above ground level of any of the buildings, details of measures to demonstrate that the development will achieve the generation of at least 15% of its own energy needs through the use of decentralised, renewable or low carbon technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and operational upon the first use of the buildings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained in the agreed form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that development takes place in an environmentally sensitive way in accordance with Policy PMD13 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
12. Demolition and clearance of vegetation or other potential bird nesting sites shall not be undertaken within the breeding season of birds (i.e. within 1st March to the 31st July) except where a suitably qualified ecological consultant has confirmed in writing that such clearance works would not affect any nesting birds. In the event that an active bird nest is discovered outside of this period and once works have commenced, then a suitable standoff period and associated exclusion zone shall be implemented until the young have fledged the nest.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
DPD (2011).
13. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum submitted with the planning application, unless otherwise provided for in any of the conditions or subject to any alternative mitigation measures as may be approved in writing with the local planning authority, provided that such measures do not lead to there being any significant environmental effects other that those assessed in the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the principles of mitigation set out in the Environmental Statement Environmental Statement Addendum and in order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and ensure compliance with a range of development plan policies set out within the planning committee report.
14. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a scheme to address surface water drainage / SuDS and Flood Resilience measures has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Finished floor levels must be confirmed to ensure that safe refuge is provided above the 1 in 1000 year plus climate change event level plus a 300mm freeboard. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 years critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The submitted scheme shall also include finished levels of roadways, clear details of the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all drainage elements for the lifetime of the development (If appropriate, details of adoption of any drainage elements of the drainage system should be included) and details of all surface water drainage infrastructure for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s s21 Asset Register. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before the first operational use of the development. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with paragraph 103 of National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with CSTP27 Management and Reduction of Flood Risk.
15. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of operating procedures and management measures to control the potential for fugitive odour from the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include arrangements for annual review of the procedures and measures. The development shall be operated in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
16. Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation of the potential opportunities for the utilisation of rail transport for the transportation of material inputs and / or outputs associated with the operation of the development shall be undertaken and submitted to the local planning authority. The investigation shall include a scheme for the monitoring and reporting of potential opportunities for the use of rail transport. The investigation shall also make provision for taking advantage of such opportunities as it identifies as viable.
Reason: In order to ensure the most sustainable mode of transport for the movement of materials associated with the operation of the development is used.
17. In the event that the results of the investigation approved pursuant to condition 16 concludes that it is viable and economic, then the material identified shall not be transported to the site via public roads, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to ensure the most sustainable mode of transport for the movement of materials associated with the operation of the development is used.
18. The commissioning of the development shall not take place until sufficient plant and pipework has been installed to facilitate the future supply of heat to the boundary of the site under condition (19) at a later date if opportunities to do so are identified pursuant to condition (19).
Reason: To ensure that waste heat is available for use to the benefit of the local commercial and industrial users when the demand arises.
19. Prior to the commissioning of the development, a CHP Feasibility Review assessing potential opportunities for the use of waste heat from the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Review shall provide for the ongoing monitoring and exploration of potential opportunities to use heat from the development as part of a CHP scheme and for the provision of subsequent reviews of such opportunities as necessary. Where viable opportunities for the use of heat in such a scheme are identified, a scheme for the provision of the necessary plant and pipework to the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
local planning authority. Any plant and pipework installed to the boundary of the site to enable the use of heat shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure that waste heat is available for use to the benefit of the local commercial and industrial users when the demand arises.
20. No groundworks of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological monitoring in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that investigation and recording of any remains takes place prior to commencement of development in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
21. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: To protect the water environment in accordance with policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
22. Prior to the commencement of development details of the predicted noise output from the plant and machinery on-site, together with any appropriate noise mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any agreed noise mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the first operation of the development and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is integrated within its immediate surroundings as required by policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
23. No demolition or construction works shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP should contain or address the following matters:
(a) hours, duration and method of any piling operations; (b) wheel washing and sheeting of vehicles transporting loose aggregates or similar materials on or off site; (c) location and size of on-site compounds (including the design layout of any proposed temporary artificial lighting systems); (d) details of any temporary hardstandings; (e) method for the control of noise, dust and vibration, together with a monitoring regime; (f) water management including waste water and surface water discharge; (g) method statement for the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater and air pollution, including the storage of fuel and chemicals; (h) a Site Waste Management Plan; (i) details of security lighting layout and design; (j) a procedure to deal with any unforeseen contamination, should it be encountered during development;
Construction works on site shall only take place in accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: In order to minimise any adverse impacts arising from the construction of the development in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011). Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
24. No demolition or construction works in connection with the development shall take place on the site at any time on any Sunday or Bank / Public Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times:
Monday to Friday 0700 – 1900 hours Saturdays 0700 – 1600 hours. Unless in association with an emergency or the prior written approval of the local planning authority has been obtained.
Reason: In the interest of protecting surrounding residential amenity and in accordance with Policy PMD1 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
25. Prior to the commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecology Mitigation & Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall be based upon the enhancement and mitigation details proposed within both the Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum accompanying the planning application and specifically shall include details of the provision and management of green / brown roof habitat and other areas of habitat creation within the site together with a timescale for implementation. The Plan shall be implemented as agreed in accordance with the approved plan and timescale.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
26. Prior to any site clearance works details of the methods by which those works will be undertaken, including details of precautionary methods of working for species, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Site clearance works shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed measures, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
27. Prior to any site clearance works details of the method for the trapping and re- location of on-site reptiles, including details of the receptor site(s), shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: To ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated in accordance with Policy PMD7 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
28. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Logistics Plan detailing measures control and minimise congestion on the surrounding highway network during construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed measures within the Plan shall be implemented during the construction of the development.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
29. Prior to the first operational use of the development, a Delivery & Servicing Plan detailing measures to manage reduce and manage the number of vehicle trips associated with the operation of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The measures within the agreed Plan shall be implemented and maintained during the operation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policy PMD10 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).
30. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of an operational shut-down procedure for the development, in the event that the adjoining London Gateway Port handles explosives, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The procedure shall be implemented during those occasions when the Port handles explosives, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the safe and efficient operation of the development.
31. The amount of waste imported to the development shall not exceed 195,000 tonnes per annum.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
32. The wastes imported to the development shall comprise only municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and biodegradable organic waste. The total combination of waste types imported to the development shall not exceed the annual tonnage set out by condition no. 31. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
33. No Municipal Solid Waste or Commercial & Industrial Waste other than that derived from within a 50 mile radius shall enter the site by road.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of highways safety and amenity.
34. Prior to the first operational use of the development the site operator shall implement procedures to ensure that the site accepts and processes only waste of a non-hazardous nature and that a system is in place to deal with any other waste delivered to the site.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of amenity.
35. The first commercial importation of waste shall not take place until the anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis plants have been constructed.
Reason: In order to comply with the terms of the planning application and in the interests of amenity.
36. The applicant or operator shall submit an annual report in writing to the local planning authority within one month of the first anniversary of operations commencing and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter. The report shall include detailed information on the types, quantities and sources of all waste and other materials brought onto the site and taken off the site, including records to demonstrate compliance with the limit on imported waste (condition 31) and the catchment areas (condition 33). The information required by this condition shall also be supplied at any other time on written request by the local planning authority.
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to effectively monitor the operation of the development and to ensure compliance with the terms of the planning application.
37. Prior to the first operational use of the development details of the operational arrangements for the proposed visitor / education centre shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed details shall be implemented upon first operational use of the development.
Reason: In order to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the use of the proposed visitor / education facilities. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL
Documents: All background documents including application forms, drawings and other supporting documentation relating to this application can be viewed online: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/00215/FUL
Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. Planning Committee 5 March 2015 Application Reference: 14/00215/FUL